scholarly journals The ‘disguised’ foreign investor: Brands, trademarks and the British expatriate entrepreneur in Brazil

2021 ◽  
pp. 69-93
Author(s):  
Teresa da Silva Lopes ◽  
Carlos Gabriel Guimarães ◽  
Alexandre Saes ◽  
Fernando Luiz Saraiva
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Investor

Eksistensi Penanaman Investasi Asing di Indonesia dan Hak Menguasai Negara Berdasarkan Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun 1945

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1833
Author(s):  
Rihantoro Bayu Aji
Keyword(s):  
Water Resource ◽  
Public Service ◽  
Foreign Investment ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Oil And Gas ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Foreign Companies ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

 AbstractActually the existence of foreign investment in Indonesia is not new phenomenon, due to foreign investment exist since colonialism era.The existence of foreign investment is still continuing to Soeharto era until reformation era. Spirit of foreign investment in colonialism era, Soharto era, and reformation era are different. Foreign investment in colonialsm era just explore of nation asset and ignore of nation welfare, and this matter is different from the character of foreign investment in Soeharto era also reformation era. Eventhough the involvement of foreign investor have any benefits to the host country, but on the other hand foreign investment have business oriented only whether the investment is secure and may result of profit. Refer to The Law Number 25 Year of 2007 Concerning Investment (hereinafter called UUPM) can not be separated from various interest that become of politic background of the law, even the law tend to liberalism of investment. Liberalism in the investment sector particularly of foreign investment basically exist far from issuing of UUPM, and the spirit of liberalism also stipulate in several rules among others The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity.   Many rules as mentioned above has liberalism character and also indicator opposite wit the right to manage of the state to nation asset that relate to public interest as stipulated in the Indonesia Constitution. Actually the issuing of UUPM in case of implementation of article 33 Indonesia Constitution (UUD NRI 1945). Due to opportunity by Government to foreign investment as stipulate by article 12 UUPM and also the existence of many rules as well as The Law Number 5 Year of 1999 Concerning Prohibitation of Anti Trust and Unfair Competition, The Law Number 22 Year of 2001 Concerning Oil and Gas, The Law Number 7 Year of 2004 Concerning Water Resource, and also The Law Number 30 Year of 2009 Concerning Electricity, so the foreign investment that relate to public service is more exist in Indonesia. The existence is reflected many foreign companies. Free of foreign investment relate to public service is opposite with spirit of article 33 Indonesia Constitution. Keywords: Foreign Investment, Right of  State, Article 33 Indonesia Consitution AbstrakEksistensi penanaman modal asing (investasi asing) di Indonesia sebenarnya bukan merupakan fenomena baru di Indonesia, mengingat modal asing telah hadir di Indonesia sejak zaman kolonial dahulu.   Eksistensi penanaman modal asing terus berlanjut pada era orde baru sampai dengan era reformasi. Tentunya semangat penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial, era orde baru, dan era reformasi adalah berbeda. Penanaman modal asing pada saat era kolonial memiliki karakter eksploitatif atas aset bangsa dan mengabaikan kesejahteraan rakyat, hal ini tentunya berbeda dengan karakter penanaman modal asing pada era orde baru, dan era reformasi. Sekalipun kehadiran investor membawa manfaat bagi negara penerima modal, di sisi lain investor yang hendak menanamkan modalnya juga tidak lepas dari orientasi bisnis (oriented business), apakah modal yang diinvestasikan aman dan bisa menghasilkan keuntungan. Melihat eksistensi Undang–Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal (UUPM) tidak dapat dilepaskan dari beragam kepentingan yang mendasari untuk diterbitkannya undang–undang tersebut, bahkan terdapat kecenderungan semangat dari UUPM lebih cenderung kepada liberalisasi investasi. Liberalisasi pada sektor investasi khususnya investasi asing pada dasarnya eksis jauh sebelum lahirnya UUPM ternyata juga tampak secara tersirat dalam beberapa peraturan perundang–undangan di Indonesia. Perundang–undangan tersebut antara lain Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan.Banyaknya peraturan perundang–undangan yang berkarakter liberal sebagaimana diuraikan di atas mengindikasikan bahwa hak menguasai negara atas aset bangsa yang berkaitan dengan hajat hidup orang banyak sebagaimana diamahkan oleh Undang–Undang Dasar 1945 (Konstitusi) mulai “dikebiri” dengan adanya undang–undang yang tidak selaras semangatnya. Padahal, UUPM diterbitkan dalam kerangka mengimplementasikan amanat Pasal 33 Undang–Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 (UUD NRI 1945). Dengan adanya peluang yang diberikan oleh pemerintah kepada investor asing sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Pasal 12 UUPM ditambah lagi dengan adanya Undang–Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat, Undang–Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak Dan Gas Bumi, Undang–Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 tentang Sumber Daya Air, dan Undang–Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistrikan, maka investasi asing yang berhubungan dengan cabang– cabang yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak semakin eksis di Indonesia. Terbukanya investasi asing atas cabang–cabang produksi yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak tentunya hal ini bertentangan dengan konsep hak menguasai negara sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 33 UUD NRI 1945. Kata Kunci: Investasi Asing, Hak Menguasai Negara, Pasal 33 UUD NRI Tahun          1945

The Trouble with Foreign Investor Protection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gus Van Harten
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Global Context ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Massive Growth ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
History Of ◽  
Legal Foundations

Governments are rightly discussing reform of investment treaties, and of the powerful system of ‘investor–state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) upon which they rest. It is therefore important to be clear about the crux of the problem. ISDS treaties are flawed fundamentally because they firmly institute wealth-based inequality under international law. That is, they use cross-border ownership of assets, mostly by multinationals and billionaires, as the gateway to extraordinary protections, while denying equivalent safeguards to those who lack the wealth required to qualify as foreign investors. The treaties thus have the main effect of safeguarding an awe-inspiring set of rights and privileges for the ultra-wealthy at the expense of countries and their populations. This book shows how ISDS came to explode in a global context of extreme concentration of wealth and of widespread poverty. The history of early ISDS treaties is highlighted to show their ties to decolonization and, sometimes, extreme violence and authoritarianism. Focusing on early ISDS lawsuits and rulings reveals how a small group of lawyers and arbitrators worked to create the legal foundations for massive growth of ISDS since 2000. ISDS-based protections are examined in detail to demonstrate how they give exceptional advantages to the wealthy. Examples are offered of how the protections have been used to reconfigure state decision making and shift sovereign minds in favour of foreign investors. Finally, the ongoing efforts of governments to reform ISDS are surveyed, with a call to go further or, even better, to withdraw from the treaties.

EKREM TATOGLUAND KEITH W. GLAISER, Dimensions of Western Foreign Direct Investment in Turkey (Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 2000). Pp. 226. $67.50 cloth.

2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 663-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asim Erdilek
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Foreign Direct Investment ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Multinational Corporation ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Managerial Control ◽  
The Past ◽  
The United Nations

The surge in foreign direct investment (FDI)—investment with managerial control by the foreign investor, usually a multinational corporation—has been the major driver of globalization in the past two decades and the accelerator of economic development in many developing countries. It has, however, bypassed Turkey. By all relevant relative measures found in the United Nations' annual World Investment Report, Turkey has failed to attract much FDI.

Abaclat and Others (Case Formerly Known as Giovanna a Beccara and Others) v. Argentine Republic

ICSID Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 364-423
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Host State ◽  
Sovereign Bonds ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Made In

364Jurisdiction — Investment — Contract — Whether a dispute arising out of and in relation to sovereign bonds was an investment treaty dispute rather than a mere contractual dispute — Whether forum selection clauses influenced the place where the alleged investment was deemed to have been madeJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Contribution — Interpretation — Whether security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds constituted obligations or public securities within the definition of investment under the BIT — Whether the investors had made contributions leading to the creation of value that the contracting parties intended to protect under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Interpretation — Salini test — Contribution — Whether the Salini test was the right approach to determine whether an investment had been made — Whether protection of security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds was consistent with the spirit and aim of the ICSID Convention — Whether the ICSID Convention sets the outer limits of consent given under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Legality — Whether the investment was made in compliance with municipal lawJurisdiction — Investment — Sovereign bonds — Territory — Economic development — Whether the investment was made in the territory of the host State — Whether it was sufficient for the invested funds to have supported the host State’s economic development — Whether it was necessary for investments of a purely financial nature to be linked to a specific economic enterprise or operation taking place in the territory of the host StateJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Nationality — Timing — Whether the investors held the nationality of the home State — Whether natural and juridical persons met certain requirements prior to the registration of the request for arbitrationJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Mass claim — Burden of proof — Whether the investors bore the burden to prove each of them met the requirements of jurisdictionJurisdiction — Foreign investor — Sovereign bonds — ICSID Convention, Article 25 — Whether a party that has purchased security entitlements derived from sovereign bonds through layers of intermediaries may still be classified as the party having made an investmentJurisdiction — Consent — Fraud — Whether the State may invoke the investor’s allegedly fraudulent consent to challenge the validity of the agreement to arbitrate the dispute365Jurisdiction — Consent — Mass claim — Procedure — Whether specific consent was required in regard to the procedure for arbitration in the form of collective proceedings or collective mass claimsJurisdiction — Consent — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether prior consultation and domestic litigation requirements in the dispute resolution clause of a BIT were relevant to whether the host State consented to arbitrationAdmissibility — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — Denial of justice — Whether the mass aspect of a dispute was admissible under the current ICSID framework — Whether to deny the admissibility of mass claims would be a denial of justiceAdmissibility — Prior consultation — Domestic litigation requirement — Whether the failure to meet the requirements of prior consultation and domestic litigation rendered the claims inadmissible — Whether municipal courts would have resolved the dispute within 18 monthsProcedure — Mass claim — ICSID Convention — ICSID Arbitration Rules — Interpretation — Whether the silence of the ICSID framework in respect of collective proceedings was to be interpreted as a gap — Whether a tribunal may adapt the ICSID Arbitration Rules to enable the group examination of claims in accordance with the object and purpose of the ICSID Convention — Whether the claims of multiple claimants were identical or sufficiently homogeneous to allow for their group examination — Whether group examination would meet standards of due processProcedure — Withdrawal — Mass claim — ICSID Institution Rule 8 — Whether certain investors had withdrawn their consent prior to registration of the request for arbitrationProcedure — Discontinuance — Mass claim — ICSID Arbitration Rule 44 — Whether the request of certain investors for discontinuance should be granted — Whether discontinuance of some investors required the termination of the arbitrationAdmissibility — Abuse of rights — Agent — ICSID Arbitration Rule 18 — Whether the ulterior interests of a third party acting as agent in the arbitration constituted an abuse of rights by the investorsProcedure — Evidence — ICSID Arbitration Rule 25 — Request for arbitration — ICSID Convention, Article 36(2) — Whether updated annexes to the request for arbitration containing information related to each investor were admissible — Whether the introduction of evidence violated the requirements of the request for arbitration by unilaterally updating the identity of the parties366 Costs — Discontinuance — Whether investors who discontinued their participation in the proceeding should bear their own legal costs and a share of the arbitration costsInterpretation — ICSID Convention — Policy — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over claims arising from sovereign bonds — Whether policy considerations were relevant to determine whether mass claims were admissible

Pengawasan Hukum Terhadap Penyalahgunaan Izin Tinggal Terbatas Penanaman Modal Asing

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 774-795
Author(s):  
I Gusti Putu Anom Kresna Wardana ◽  
Tsaltsa Syah Putri ◽  
Tunggal Bayu Laksono
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Efficient Implementation ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Legal Supervision ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
The World

Every country in the world has sovereignty, especially over the security of its country, one of the things that can threaten the security of the country is the entry of foreigners whose activities are not according to the permits given to them, one of which is the misuse of residence permits by foreign investors in Indonesia. This study aims to explain in detail about the misuse of residence permits by a foreign investor in Indonesia and further discusses the legal supervision carried out by Immigration in dealing with irregularities committed by foreigners. This study uses a descriptive type with empirical normative research methods, where in finding data sourced from secondary data, namely through interviews, and secondary data obtained by conducting literature reviews such as laws and other regulations. At this writing it was found that the perpetrators took actions that were not in accordance with the purpose of giving a residence permit and did not carry out proper procedures to obtain a new Limited Stay Permit. From this research, it can be concluded that the supervision of foreigners must be tightened, one of which is the effective and efficient implementation of the Foreigner Supervision Team which is formed on the basis of synergy between related Ministries/Institutions in Indonesia.

RIGHT OF ACTION TO CHALLENGE TRANSACTIONS THAT RESULT IN FOREIGN INVESTORS GAINING CONTROL OVER BUSINESS ENTITIES OF STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 112-138
Author(s):  
D.A. FEDYAEV
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Foreign Investor ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
The Right

In the Russian Federation, as in a number of other economically developed countries, there are legal restrictions on the admission of foreign investors to participate in commercial corporate organizations of strategic importance for national defence and state security. Failure by foreign investors to comply with this mechanism leads to the nullity of transactions and, as a consequence, to legal disputes, the subject of which are mainly restitution claims. There have been numerous problems and academic debates in recent court practice regarding the reasons and the possibility of satisfying such claims. In particular, in view of the changed circumstances after the conclusion of the contested transaction, the real public interest is not always visible pursued by the claim for application of consequences of its invalidity. The author proposes that in the course of judicial proceedings in such cases, when the defendant raises the relevant reasoned objections, not only to state the fact of violation of the law by a foreign investor, but also to reveal the public interest defended by the foreign investor. The author proposes that, in such cases, the defendant’s arguments should not be limited to stating that the foreign investor has breached the law. If one is not established, a claim may be dismissed under certain conditions, taking into account established doctrinal approaches to the understanding of the right of action.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document