EFEKTIVITAS ARBITRASE INTERNASIONAL DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA INVESTASI PASCA-ICSID: ANALISIS PERBANDINGAN ANTARA PENDEKATAN UNCITRAL DAN ICSID DALAM PERLINDUNGAN INVESTOR ASING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20591905Keywords:
international arbitration, ICSID, UNCITRAL, investment disputes, protection of foreign investors, enforcement of awards, ISDS reformAbstract
This study aims to analyse the effectiveness of international arbitration in post-ICSID investment dispute resolution, focusing on a comparison between the UNCITRAL and ICSID approaches to the protection of foreign investors. The research method employed is a literature review (library research) using a normative-legal approach and comparative methods to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each arbitration mechanism. The results of the study indicate that ICSID offers greater certainty of enforcement through the self-contained enforcement mechanism under Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, which binds 160 contracting states to enforce awards without the intervention of national courts, whilst also providing a standardised institutional structure and the rarity of forum neutrality. However, ICSID faces serious criticism regarding high costs, lengthy durations, inconsistencies in awards, and potential interference with the host state’s regulatory space. Conversely, UNCITRAL offers greater procedural flexibility, lower costs, and higher transparency through the 2013 UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency; however, its main weakness lies in an enforcement mechanism reliant on the 1958 New York Convention, which requires the intervention of national courts and carries the risk of refusal of enforcement. From the perspective of foreign investors prioritising enforcement certainty, ICSID is superior, whilst from the perspective of transparency and cost efficiency, UNCITRAL is more competitive. Both mechanisms continue to adapt through the reforms of UNCITRAL Working Group III and the revision of the ICSID Rules 2022 to enhance effectiveness in the protection of foreign investors.
References
Alvarez, J. E. (2021). ISDS Reform: The Long View. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 36(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siab036
Amor, B. S., & Katthain, P. P. (2024). Chapter 24 Evolution and Improvement of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: The UNCITRAL and ICSID Contribution. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004694910_025
Bernardini, P. (2017). Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: The Need to Balance Both Parties’ Interests. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 32(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw035
Blythe, S. E. (2013). The Advantages of Investor-State Arbitration as a Dispute Resolution Mechanism in Bilateral Investment Treaties. The International Lawyer, 47(2), 273–290.
Choi, W.-M. (2007). The Present and Future of The Investor-State Dispute Settlement Paradigm. Journal of International Economic Law, 10(3), 725–747. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgm024
Eliyah, E., & Aslan, A. (2025). STAKE’S EVALUATION MODEL: METODE PENELITIAN. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Indonesia, 3(2), Article 2.
Euler, D., Gehring, M., Scherer, M., Wong, M., & Hadgett, R. (2015). Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: A Guide to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration. Cambridge University Press.
Fauzi, A. F. (2023). PERAN WORD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) DALAM PERLINDUNGAN LINGKUNGAN DI ERA LIBERALISASI PERDAGANGAN. CREPIDO, 5(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.5.1.93-103
Khaldun, R. I. (2024). Analisis Perdagangan Internasional Indonesia pada Kebijakan ACFTA dan AKFTA. Jurnal Simki Economic, 7(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.29407/jse.v7i1.242
Li, S., & Shen, W. (2024). Legitimacy Crisis and the ISDS Reform in a Political Economy Context. In S. Wei (Ed.), International Investment Law at the Juncture: An Asian Perspective (pp. 111–133). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-2183-2_5
Loken, K. (2013). Uncitral Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration. International Legal Materials, 52(6), 1300–1308. https://doi.org/10.5305/intelegamate.52.6.1300
Marcoux, J.-M., Bjorklund, A. K., Whitsitt, E. A., & Vanhonnaeker, L. (2024). Discourses of ISDS reform: A comparison of UNCITRAL Working Group III and ICSID processes. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(2), 314–335.
Michalopoulos, S., & Hicks, E. (2019). Dual nationality revisited: A modern approach to dual nationals in non-ICSID arbitrations. Arbitration International, 35(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1093/arbint/aiz012
Pratama, A. A. A., Widiyanti, I. D., & Andhini, P. P. (2025). PERAN ARBITRASE INTERNASIONAL DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA INVESTASI: IMPLIKASI BAGI INDONESIA. UIR Law Review, 9(2), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.25299/uirlrev.2025.vol9(2).24959
Purba, E. P. (2022). PERLINDUNGAN INVESTOR ASING DARI RISIKO SENGKETA MELALUI ARBITRASE SEBAGAI FORUM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA INVESTASI. Justitia et Pax, 38(2), 467–516. https://doi.org/10.24002/jep.v38i2.6599
Shirlow, E. (2016). Dawn of a new era? The UNCITRAL Rules and UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration. ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal, 31(3), 622–654. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siw022
Wilkie, D. (2013). UNCITRAL Unveils New Transparency Rules–Blazing a Trail Towards Transparency in Investor-State Arbitration.
Yanthi, T., & Valerie, O. (2025). Penyelesaian Sengketa Investasi Internasional: Analisis Peran ICSID dalam Menjamin Perlindungan Investor Asing. Jurnal Sosial Dan Sains, 5(2), 204–219. https://doi.org/10.59188/jurnalsosains.v5i2.32031
Zed, M. (2008). Metode Penelitian Kepustakaan. Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
