LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES IN INDONESIA’S POSITION IN INVESTMENT DISPUTES IN ARBITRATION FORUM ICSID

Abstract

This Research aims to: (i) explain the termination of BITs unilaterally by Indonesia which has implications for Indonesia's position in investment disputes (ISDS) at the ICSID arbitration forum; (ii) Explaining the aspiration of ISDS review in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has implications for Indonesia's position in investment disputes (ISDS) at the ICSID arbitration forum. And (iii) Explaining the counter-claim discourse in the BIT and/or ISDS has implications for Indonesia's position in investment disputes at the ICSID arbitration forum. Methodologically, this type of research is normative legal research or doctrinal legal research, and the nature of this research is descriptive-analytic research. Data collection techniques through in-depth interviews and library research. The results show that the termination of BITs unilaterally by Indonesia is not legally a violation of investment law, and has no implications for Indonesia's position in investment disputes (ISDS) at the ICSID arbitration forum. The ISDS review in the regional comprehensive economic partnership (RCEP) does not directly implicate Indonesia's position in the investment dispute (ISDS) at the ICSID arbitration forum, because the change to the ISDS mechanism is only in the form of a proposal or input to the RCEP forum. Meanwhile, the discourse on the counteclaim in the BIT and/or ISDS can have positive implications for Indonesia's position in investment disputes at the ICSID arbitration forum. Because if a counterclaim is possible in the BIT until it is followed by the mechanism in the ISDS and international arbitration forums (ICSID, UNCITRAL, and others), then it is beneficial for Indonesia as the host country.