INDONESIA CASES AT WTO

Date Parties Claim Award Link

7 Dec Complainant: Indonesias local content Determine that the reasonable
1998 European requirements linked to period of time for Indonesia to
Communities certain sales tax benefits implement the
United States and customs duty recommendations and rulings of
Japan benefits violate the the DSB in this case is twelve
v. provisions of Article 2 of months from the date of
Respondent: the Agreement on adoption of the Panel Report by
Indonesia Trade-Related the DSB, that is, twelve months
Investment Measures from 23 July 1998.
(the "TRIMs
Agreement") and that
the sales tax
discrimination aspects
violate Article III:2 of
the GATT 1994.1

the European
Communities had
demonstrated that
Indonesia had caused
serious prejudice to the
interests of the
European Communities
within the meaning of
Article 5(c) of the
Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing
Measures

1
Panel Report, para. 15.1(a) and (b).
7 Dec Complainant: Indonesias local content Determine that the reasonable
1998 European requirements linked to period of time for Indonesia to
Communities certain sales tax benefits implement the
United States and customs duty recommendations and rulings of
Japan benefits violate the the DSB in this case is twelve
v. provisions of Article 2 of months from the date of
Respondent: the Agreement on adoption of the Panel Report by
Indonesia Trade-Related the DSB, that is, twelve months
Investment Measures from 23 July 1998.
(the "TRIMs
Agreement") and that
the sales tax
discrimination aspects
violate Article III:2 of
the GATT 1994.2

the European
Communities had
demonstrated that
Indonesia had caused
serious prejudice to the
interests of the
European Communities
within the meaning of
Article 5(c) of the
Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing
Measures
7 Dec Complainant: Indonesias local content Determine that the reasonable
1998 European requirements linked to period of time for Indonesia to
Communities certain sales tax benefits implement the

2
Panel Report, para. 15.1(a) and (b).
 United States and customs duty recommendations and rulings of
Japan benefits violate the the DSB in this case is twelve
v. provisions of Article 2 of months from the date of
Respondent: the Agreement on adoption of the Panel Report by
Indonesia Trade-Related the DSB, that is, twelve months
Investment Measures from 23 July 1998.
(the "TRIMs
Agreement") and that
the sales tax
discrimination aspects
violate Article III:2 of
the GATT 1994.3

the European
Communities had
demonstrated that
Indonesia had caused
serious prejudice to the
interests of the
European Communities
within the meaning of
Article 5(c) of the
Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing
Measures

3
Panel Report, para. 15.1(a) and (b).
 INDONESIA CASES AT ICSID

Date Parties Claim Award Link

Dec Claimant: As of 1996 through to 2001, PT - Claimants claim dismissed. https://www.italaw.com/do
2009 Government KPC was to sell its shares in - The Tribunal comes to the cuments/ProvinceOfEastKali
of the East order to comply with Article 26 conclusion that the requirements mantanvPTKaltimPrimaCoal
Kalimantan of the KPC Contract. The for jurisdiction set by Article 25 of .pdf
Province divestment process under Article the ICSID Convention are not met
v. 26 is at the core of the dispute. and that it lacks jurisdiction over
Responden the present dispute
t:
PT Kaltim
Prima Coal
et. Al.
7 Dec Claimant: In 1968, Amco, an American In accordance with Article 42(1) of the https://www.biicl.org/files/
1998 AMCO Corporation, and PT Wisma, an ICSID Convention, the Tribunal applied 3936_1990_amco_v_indon
Indonesian company operating Indonesian law and applicable rules of esia.pdf
v. under the guidance of the international law. The Tribunal found that
Indonesian government, entered Indonesia had failed to protect PT Amco
Responden into a Lease and Management against the takeover of the Hotel on 1
t: Agreement whereby Amco was April 1980. This constituted a breach of
Republic of to invest in, and manage a international law obligation to protect
Indonesia hotel/office complex for the aliens against unlawful acts of its
duration of 30 years, until 1999. citizens.
In April 1980, after growing
differences between the parties,
PT Wisma forcibly took over
management of the hotel. In
July 1980, the Indonesian
government revoked Amcos
license to engage in business
ventures in Indonesia.
Amco initiated ICSID arbitration,
 claiming compensation for
damages incurred due to the
unlawful taking of the hotel and
the termination of the license. In
the First Arbitral Award of 1984,
the Tribunal held that
Indonesias actions were in
breach of international law and
awarded damages of US$
3,200,000

INDONESIA CASES AT ARBITRATION UNDER UNCITRAL LAW

Date Parties Claim Award Link

1999- Claimant: - Himpuna and Patuha won - Second tribunal found Indonesian http://www.bakermckenzie.
2000 Patuha an arbitration against PT government liable to pay awards co.jp/e/material/dl/seminar
Power Ltd PLN. - Recourse to political risk insurance /emi/20060308_1-7.pdf
- On the contracts, Republic policy.
Himpuna of the Indonesia is a
California guarantor.
Energy Ltd - Second arbitration in The
Hague against Indonesian
v. government to enforce
Respondent guarantees made in
: contracts and side letters
Indonesia
 INDONESIA CASES AT ARBITRATION UNDER OIC AGREEMENT BASED ON UNCITRAL

Date Parties Claim Award Link

15 Dec Claimant: - The Claimant is an investor - All claims and counterclaims are https://www.italaw.com/sit
2011 Hesham at Bank Century; dismissed es/default/files/case-
Talaat M. Al- - Claimant argues that, documents/italaw4164.pdf
Warraq pursuant to Article 12 of the
OIC Agreement, he entitled
v. for damages because
Respondent Respondent has violate
: through laws in force in
Indonesia Indonesia
-

*****