KONSEP DENIAL OF JUSTICE DALAM INVESTASI INTERNASIONAL BERDASARKAN PRAKTIK ARBITRASE INTERNASIONAL
Zefanya Brian Partogi Samosir 110110070320
Konsep denial of justice dalam investasi internasional telah menjadi bahan perdebatan sejak lama. Perdebatan ini terjadi antara Negara-negara penerima modal (yang merasa bahwa Negara-negara pengekspor modal telah membuat-buat alasan untuk memperluas lingkup denial of justice untuk menambah alasan penarikan tanggung jawab Negara), dan Negara-negara pengekspor modal (yang merasa bahwa Negara penerima modal mencoba menghindari kewajiban internasional mereka dengan menyempitkan lingkup denial of justice). Peran dewan arbitrase internasional sebagai pihak yang mempraktekkan dan melakukan konkretisasi konsep hukum internasional publik (termasuk denial of justice) juga tidak luput dari kritik, utamanya karena dianggap tidak mempunyai kemampuan untuk melakukan hal tersebut.
Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dan spesifikasi penelitian deskriptif analitik. Penulis menggunakan data sekunder yaitu sumber hukum ekonomi internasional seperti ILC Articles on State responsibility, bahan-bahan Kepustakaan, putusan arbitrase dan lembaga Pengadilan, dan media internet yang berhubungan dengan lingkup konsep denial of justice serta praktik arbitrase internasional dari konsep tersebut. Data tersebut kemudian digunakan untuk menggambarkan suatu objek permasalahan yang berupa sinkronisasi fakta yang terjadi dengan pengaturan dan teori yang berlaku.
THE CONCEPT OF DENIAL OF JUSTICE IN INTERNATIONAL
INVESTMENT BASED ON THE PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
Zefanya Brian Partogi Samosir 110110070320
The concept of denial of justice in international investment has been the subject of much debates for a long time. The controversy arises between the generally less developed capital-importing States, which accuse the capital-exporting States of artificially expanding the scope of denial of justice to justify previously non-existing State responsibilities, and the generally more developed capital-exporting States which accuse the capital-importing States of trying to evade international obligations by excessively narrowing the scope of denial of justice. The newfound role of international arbitration as the main source of practice (and therefore, interpreter) of such public international law concepts as denial of justice, has also been met with skepticism, mainly about its lack of authority to interpret public international law. Thus, problems arise relating to these topics.
This research was conducted with a normative judicial approach. The Author uses sources of international law, such as the ILC Articles on State responsibility, various scholarly works, arbitral and court decisions, and data from the internet as secondary data to analyze scope of the concept of denial of justice in international investment and the practice of international arbitration. The data is then used to describe the object, in an attempt to test the facts against existing regulation and theories.
