INVESTMENT COURT SYSTEM: IS IT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24843/KS.2025.v13.i12.p04

Keywords:

Investment Court System, European Union, Indonesia, New York Convention, Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Abstract

Penyelesaian Sengketa Investor-Negara (ISDS) telah menghadapi krisis legitimasi yang berkepanjangan, dikritik karena ketidakkonsistenan, kurangnya transparansi, dan persepsi bias. Sebagai respons, Investment Court System (ICS) telah muncul sebagai model yang lebih disukai oleh Uni Eropa (UE) dalam perjanjian-perjanjian terbaru. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis apakah ICS dapat menjadi alternatif yang lebih sah dan berkelanjutan dibandingkan dengan ISDS tradisional. Dengan menggunakan metode doktrinal dan komparatif, artikel ini menganalisis teks perjanjian, praktik penegakan hukum, dan kebijakan investasi. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa ICS bersifat konstruktif dan dapat direplikasi, terutama bagi negara-negara non-UE yang berusaha menyeimbangkan perlindungan investor dengan otonomi regulasi. ICS sering dianggap sebagai perbaikan yang signifikan. Kesimpulannya, kelangsungan jangka panjangnya bergantung pada penyelesaian ketidakpastian penegakan hukum melalui mekanisme multilateral. Mengambil pelajaran dari Pasal 54 Konvensi ICSID, pengadilan nasional harus memperlakukan putusan ICS sebagai setara dengan putusan domestik yang final.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has faced a prolonged legitimacy crisis, criticised for inconsistency, lack of transparency, and perceived bias. In response, the Investment Court System (ICS) has emerged as the preferred model by the European Union (EU) in the recent agreements. This research aims to examine whether the ICS can serve as a more legitimate and sustainable alternative to traditional ISDS. Using a doctrinal and comparative method, this article analyses treaty texts, enforcement practice, and investment policy. The findings reveal that the ICS is constructive and replicable, particularly for non-EU states that seek to strike a balance between investor protection and regulatory autonomy. The ICS is often viewed as a significant improvement. It concludes that its long-term viability depends on resolving enforcement uncertainties through a multilateral mechanism. Learning from Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, national courts must treat ICS awards as equivalent to final domestic judgments.

Downloads

Published

2025-12-30

How to Cite

Raymond Yehezkiel, and Gatot P. Soemartono. 2025. “INVESTMENT COURT SYSTEM: IS IT A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT?”. Kertha Semaya: Journal Ilmu Hukum 13 (12):2756-78. https://doi.org/10.24843/KS.2025.v13.i12.p04.

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)