THE ANALYSIS OF TENDENCY ON CHOICE OF FORUM IN THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AMONG ASEAN COUNTRIES

A.A.A. Ngr Sri Rahayu Gorda, Kadek Januarsa Adi Sudharma, Pipin Carolina BR Barus
  Arena Hukum, Vol 13, No 1 (2020),  pp. 24-44  
Viewed : 118 times

Abstract


Abstrak

Praktek penyelesaian sengketa antara Indonesia dan Vietnam dalam sengketa of safeguard on iron or steel products secara tidak langsung terlaksana atas dasar keambiguan norma interpretasi ASEAN Charter 2008 yang menyebabkan pilihan choice of forum ASEAN sebagian besar tertuju kepada World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO DSU) tanpa melalui penyelesaian sengketa regional yang tersedia berdasar the ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (EDSM) terlebih dahulu. Teori yang digunakan untuk menjawab isu hukum tersebut ialah Teori Efektivitas Hukum oleh Berl Kutchinsky. Perbedaan pengaturan statuta antara EDSM dan WTO DSU menjadi indikator penting bagi negara anggota ASEAN untuk mempertimbangkan choice of forum. Walau prosedur yang dimiliki protokol EDSM sama seperti WTO DSU, negara anggota ASEAN berpatokan pada efektivitas prosedur dalam menyelesaikan sengketa. Efektivitas tersebut dilihat dari intensitas penggunaan mekanisme tersebut, pihak-pihak yang ikut serta sebagai panel, peranan DSB dan SEOM, maupun pengaturan pendukung seperti adanya perlakuan khusus yang disediakan WTO DSU bagi negara yang kurang berkembang

 

Abstract

The practice between Indonesia and Vietnam in disputes of safeguards on iron or steel products is indirectly implemented on the basis of ambiguity of the 2008 ASEAN Charter interpretation norms related to dispute resolution mechanisms led to the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding (WTO DSU) without going through regional dispute resolution available based on the ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (EDSM). The difference in statute arrangements between the dispute resolution mechanisms by EDSM and the WTO DSU are important indicators for ASEAN member countries to consider the choice of forum. Thus, even though the procedure by EDSM is the same as the procedure by the WTO DSU, ASEAN member countries rely on the effectiveness of the procedure. The effectiveness can be seen from the intensity of the use of the mechanism, the parties participating as a panel, the role of the DSB and SEOM, as well as the special treatment provided by the WTO DSU for less developed countries.


Keywords


ASEAN; Choice of Forum; Dispute Settlement Understanding

Full Text:

PDF

References


BOOKS

Diantha, I Made Pasek. Metodelogi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum. Jakarta: Prenamedia Group, 2017.

Fajar ND., Dr.Mukti. Dualisme Penelitian Hukum Normati dan Empiris. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2017.

Hartono, C.F.G Sunaryati. Penelitian Hukum di Indonesia Pada Akhir Abad Ke 20. Bandung: Alumni, 2006.

J.Dias, Clerence. Research on Legal Service and Poverty: its Relevance to the Design of Legal Service Program in Developing Countries, Washington: Washington U.L, 1975.

Koesnaidi, Joseph Wira. For a More Effective and Competitive ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism. ASEAN: Paper for WTI/SECO Project, 2014.

Kraichitti, Krit, Dispute Settlement Mechanisms for ASEAN Community: Experiences, Challenges and Way Forward. Manila: ASEAN Law Association, 2015.

Perdagangan RI, Kementerian. Mekanisme Penyelesaian Sengketa WTO dan Sengketa-Sengketa Dagang. Jakarta: Kementerian Perdagangan RI, 2017.

Salman, Otje. Beberapa Aspek Sosiologi Hukum. Bandung: Alumni, 2012.

Severino, Rodolfo C. South East Asia Background Series No.10:ASEAN. Singapore: ISEAS Publication, 2008.

Soekanto, Soerjono. Kesadaran Hukum dan Kepatuhan Hukum, Jakarta: CV Rajawali, 1982.

____________. Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers,2011.

JOURNAL

Bossche, Peter van den. “The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization”. Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 9, Issue. 1, (2005)

Brabandere, Eric De.

“International Dispute Settlement from Practice to Legal Discipline”. Leiden Journal of International Law Vol. 31, Issue. 3, (June 2018).

Hao, Di. “Compliance Problems Under WTO Disputes Settled By Mutually Agreed Solution”. Georgetown Journal of International Law

Jackson, John H. “Dispute Settlement and the WTO”. Journal of International Economic Law Vol. 1, Issue.3, (February 2008): 329-351.

Kristine, Desy. “ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism”. Jurnal Hukum Internasional Vol. 6, No 2, (Januari 2009): 266.

Termudomchai, Natthada. “ASEAN Dispute Settlement Mechanism: a Study of its Ineffectiveness in Resolving Economic Disputes”. Assumption University Law Journal Vol.7, No.2, (2016)

STATUTA

ASEAN Charter 2008

General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) 1994

ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism (EDSM)

WTO Panel Report No. WT/DS496/AB/R tentang Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products

World Trade Organization Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement Disputes (WTO SDU)

Internet

WTO, Indonesia. “Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products”. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds49e.htm. Acssed 15 January 2019


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Arena Hukum

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.