We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 August 2020
The dispute settlement mechanism [DSM] under preferential trade agreements [PTAs] is crucial to ensure adequate implementation and enforcement of commitments among contracting parties. The DSM has evolved from political/diplomatic styles with a low level of legalism to judicial styles with a high level of legalism. Indonesia has also experienced this evolution process in its PTAs. This paper aims to show the evolution of the DSM in Indonesian PTAs, analyzing several related factors behind this trend. The paper argues that the evolution of the DSM from the GATT to WTO, Indonesia's participation in regional trade agreement, that is, ASEAN, the influence of trade partners, the existence of domestic factors, and the ongoing WTO dispute encourage the evolution of the DSM in Indonesian PTAs from political styles to more judicial styles with a high level of legalism.
Lecturer of Faculty of Law Udayana University, Indonesia; PhD Candidate Melbourne Law School, Australia. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers of the Journal.
1. North American Free Trade Agreement, 17 December 1992, 1994 C.T.S. 2 (entered into force 1 January 1994), preamble [NAFTA].
2. Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China, 17 June 2015, 2015 A.T.S. 15 (entered into force 20 December 2015), preamble [Australia-China FTA]. See also the preamble of Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership Between the Republic of Indonesia and Australia, signed 4 March 2019 (not yet in force) [IA-CEPA], which states: “Resolving to create clear and mutually advantageous rules governing their trade and investment to promote a predictable, transparent and consistent commercial framework for business operations, minimise barriers, enhance economic efficiency and create a larger market with more opportunities for business.”
3. EVANS, David, “Bilateral and Plurilateral PTAs” in LESTER, Simon, MERCURIO, Bryan, and BARTELS, Lorand, eds., Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Commentary and Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar, at 53.
4. The total number of the existing PTAs is available online at <http://rtais.wto.org/UI/publicsummarytable.aspx>.
5. Evans, supra note 3 at 56.
6. DÜR, Andreas and ELSIG, Manfred, eds., Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 2.
7. World Trade Organization, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and Preferential Trade Agreements: From Co-existence to Coherence (Geneva: WTO, 2011) at 57 [WTO 1].
8. The Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement Between Malaysia and India, 18 February 2011 (entered into force 1 July 2011) [Malaysia-India CECA].
9. WTO 1, supra note 7 at 56.
10. Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership, Brunei Darussalam-Chile-New Zealand-Singapore, 18 July 2005 (Brunei Darussalam, signed 2 August 2005) (entered into force 28 May 2006) (New Zealand and Singapore), 12 July 2006 (Brunei Darussalam), 8 November 2006 (Chile) [TPP].
11. WTO 1, supra note 7 at 62.
12. Ibid., at 63.
13. Molly LESHER and Sébastien MIROUDOT, “Analysis of the Economic Impact of Investment Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements”, OECD Trade Policy Working Paper No. 36, 11 July 2006.
14. See e.g. IA-CEPA, supra note 2, and TPP, supra note 10.
15. World Trade Organization, “Indonesia and the WTO”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/indonesia_e.htm>.
16. The Cairns Group, “Background on the Cairns Group and the WTO Doha Round”, online: The Cairns Group <http://cairnsgroup.org/pages/wto_negotiations.aspx>.
17. World Trade Organization, “Groups in the Negotiations”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/negotiating_groups_e.htm#grp025>.
18. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Globalization and Emerging Economies: Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa” (Paris: OECD, 2008) at 151.
19. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, 29 January 2004 (entered into force 3 April 2006).
20. IA-CEPA, supra note 2.
21. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 13 May 2008 (entered into force 30 September 2009).
22. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Co-operation Between the Association of South East Asian Nations and the People's Republic of China, 4 November 2002 (entered into force 1 July 2003) [ASEAN-China FTA].
23. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Between the Republic of India and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 8 October 2003 (entered into force 1 July 2004) [ASEAN-India FTA].
24. Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Among the Governments of the Member Countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Republic of Korea, 13 December 2005 (entered into force 1 July 2006) [ASEAN-Korea FTA].
25. Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Partnership among Member States of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations and Japan, 31 March 2008 [ASEAN-Japan FTA].
26. Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, 27 February 2009 (entered into force 1 July 2009) [ASEAN-ANZ FTA].
27. Luo, YAN, “Dispute Settlement in the Proposed East Asia Free Trade Agreement: Lessons Learned from the ASEAN, the NAFTA, and the EU” in BARTELS, Lorand and ORTINO, Federico, eds., Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, at 420.
28. DAVEY, William J., “Dispute Settlement in the WTO and RTAs: A Comment” in BARTELS, Lorand and ORTINO, Federico, eds., Regional Trade Agreements and the WTO Legal System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, at 349.
29. MUNIN, Nellie, “The Evolution of Dispute Settlement Provisions in Israel's PTAs: Is There a Global Lesson?” (2010) 44 Journal of World Trade 385Google Scholar at 393.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Claude CHASE, Alan YANOVICH, Jo-Ann CRAWFORD, and Pamela UGAZ, “Mapping of Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Regional Trade Agreements—Innovative or Variations on a Theme”, World Trade Organization: Economic Research and Statistics Division, Staff Working Paper, 10 June 2013.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. SMITH, James M., “The Politics of Dispute Settlement Design: Explaining Legalism in Regional Trade Pacts” (2000) 54 International Organization 137CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 155–9.
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. ALLEE, Todd and ELSIG, Manfred, “Dispute Settlement Provisions in PTAs: New Data and New Concepts” in DÜR, Andreas and ELSIG, Manfred, eds., Trade Cooperation: The Purpose, Design and Effects of Preferential Trade Agreements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)Google Scholar, at 320.
50. JO, Hyeran and NAMGUNG, Hyun, “Dispute Settlement Mechanisms in Preferential Trade Agreements: Democracy, Boilerplates, and the Multilateral Trade Regime” (2012) 56 Journal of Conflict Resolution 1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1041.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., at 1044.
54. Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, 1867 U.N.T.S. 154, 33 I.L.M. 1144 (1994), preamble [WTO Agreement].
55. MITCHELL, Andrew D. and LOCKHART, Nicolas J.S., “Legal requirements for PTAs under the WTO” in LESTER, Simon and MERCURIO, Bryan, Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements Commentary and Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar, at 81.
56. Ibid.
57. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 1867 U.N.T.S. 187, 33 I.L.M. 1153 (1994), art. XXIV:5 [GATT 1994].
58. Munin, supra note 29 at 389.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid., art. XXII.
62. Ibid., art. XXIII.
63. JOHNS, Leslie, Strengthening International Courts: The Hidden Costs of Legalization (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 135.
64. The World Trade Organization, “Historic Development of the WTO Dispute Settlement System”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c2s1p1_e.htm> [WTO 2].
65. PORGES, Amelia and JACKSON, John H., “The WTO and the New Dispute Settlement” (1994) 88 American Society of International Law Proceedings 131Google Scholar at 131–9.
66. Munin, supra note 29 at 388.
67. BUSCH, Marc L., “Democracy, Consultation, and the Paneling of Disputes under GATT” (2000) 44 Journal of Conflict Resolution 425CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 428.
68. WTO 2, supra note 64.
69. HOEKMAN, Bernard and KOSTECKI, Michel, The Political Economy of the World Trading System: WTO and Beyond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 75.
70. Johns, supra note 63 at 137.
71. HUDEC, Robert E., The GATT Legal System and World Trade Diplomacy (New York: Praeger, 1975)Google Scholar at 219.
72. BOSSCHE, Peter Van den, The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar at 169.
73. Dispute Settlement Rules: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, annex 2, 1869 U.N.T.S. 401, 33 I.L.M. 1226 (1994), art. 3.3 [DSU].
74. Son, NGUYEN Tan, “Towards a Compatible Interaction Between Dispute Settlement Under the WTO and Regional Trade Agreements” (2008) 5 Macquarie Journal of Business Law 113Google Scholar
75. DSU, supra note 73, art. 4.3.
76. Ibid., arts. 4.7, 4.8.
77. Ibid., arts. 8.4, 8.5.
78. ZANGL, Bernhard, “Judicialization Matters! A Comparison of Dispute Settlement Under GATT and the WTO” (2008) 52 International Studies Quarterly 825CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
79. DSU, supra note 73, art. 16.4.
80. Ibid.
81. Ibid., art. 17.1.
82. JOHANNESSON, Louise and MAVROIDIS, Petros C., “The WTO Dispute Settlement System 1995–2016: A Data Set and Its Descriptive Statistics” (2017) 51 Journal of World Trade 357Google Scholar.
83. DSU, supra note 73, art. 17.4.
84. Ibid., art. 21.3.
85. Ibid., art. 22.
86. Ibid., art. 22.7.
87. ZIMMERMANN, Thomas A., “WTO Dispute Settlement at Ten: Evolution, Experiences & Evaluation” (2005) 60 Swiss Review of International Economic Relations 27Google Scholar at 53.
88. LOCKHART, John and VOON, Tania, “Review of the Appellate Review in the WTO Dispute Settlement System” (2005) 6 Melbourne Journal of International Law 474Google Scholar at 476.
89. GUZMAN, Andrew T. and PAUWELYN, Joost H.B., International Trade Law, 2nd ed. (South Holland: Wolters Kluwer, 2012)Google Scholar at 127. See also BUTLER, Nicolette, “In Search of a Model for the Reform of International Investment Dispute Resolution: An Analysis of Existing International and Regional Dispute Settlement Mechanisms” in KALICKI, Jean E. and JOUBIN-BRET, Anna, eds., Reshaping the Investor-State Dispute Settlement System: Journeys for the 21st Century (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2015)Google Scholar, at 355.
90. Chad P. BOWN, “Participation in WTO Dispute Settlement: Complainants, Interested Parties and Free Riders” (2005) 19 World Bank Economic Review 287 at 293.
91. World Trade Organization, “Map of Disputes Between WTO Members”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_maps_e.htm>.
92. HORLICK, Gary N. and FENNELL, Katherine, “WTO Dispute Settlement from the Perspective of Developing Countries” in LEE, Yong-Shik, HORLICK, Gary N., CHOI, Won-Mog, and BROUDE, Tomer, eds., Law and Development Perspective on International Trade Law: The Law and Development Institute (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011)Google Scholar, at 164.
93. ISLAM, Rafiqul M., International Trade Law of the WTO (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar at 428.
94. Zangl, supra note 78 at 825–54.
95. See, for example, BOWN, Chad P., “On the Economic Success of GATT/WTO Dispute Settlement” (2004) 86 Review of Economics and Statistics 811CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 811.
96. Davey, supra note 28 at 355.
97. Smith, supra note 42.
98. Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area Between the Government of Israel and the Government of the United States of America, 22 April 1985 (entered into force 19 August 1985), art. 19.
99. Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas Establishing the Caribbean Community Including the Caricom Single Market and Economy, 5 July 2001 (entered into force 4 February 2002), art. 188-224 [CARICOM].
100. Martina METZGER, “Regional Cooperation and Integration in Sub-Saharan African”, UNCTAD, Discussion Papers No. 189, September 2008, at 26.
101. Yan, supra note 27 at 431.
102. Nguyen, supra note 74.
103. Davey, supra note 28 at 349.
104. David MORGAN, “Dispute Settlement under PTAs: Political or Legal?”, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 341, Melbourne Law School, 2007, at 252.
105. Ibid.
106. Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement Between the European Community and its Member States, of the one Part, and the United Mexican States, of the other Part, 27 February 2001(entered into force 1 March 2001), art. 50.
107. Agreement Establishing an Association Between the European Community and the Republic of Chile, 18 November 2002 (entered into force 1 February 2003), art. 184.
108. Morgan, supra note 104 at 259.
109. Davey, supra note 28 at 354.
110. Ibid., at 355.
111. Morgan, supra note 104 at 13.
112. Ibid., at 15.
113. Davey, supra note 28 at 355.
114. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and Japan, 7 August 1952 (entered into force 7 August 1952) [Indonesia-Japan PTA 1].
115. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of India, 30 January 1953 (entered into force 30 January 1953) [Indonesia-India PTA 1].
116. Indonesia-Japan PTA 1, supra note 114, art. I.
117. Indonesia-India PTA 1, supra note 115, art. III.
118. Indonesia-Japan PTA 1, supra note 114, art. II.
119. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of China, 30 November 1953.
120. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 7 February 1953 (entered into force 1 January 1953).
121. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Iraq, 4 April 1960 (entered into force 14 December 1961).
122. Long-term Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the People's Republic of Bulgaria, 5 May 1961.
123. Long Term Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Rumanian People's Republic for the period 1963–1965, 11 October 1962 (entered into force 1 January 1963).
124. The Long Term Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and Hungarian People's Republic, 15 April 1965 (entered into force 15 April 1965).
125. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, 14 November 1972 (entered into force 14 November 1972), art. 2.
126. Ibid.
127. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Malaysia, 16 October 1973 (entered into force 16 October 1973).
128. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, 8 August 1974 (entered into force 8 August 1974).
129. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 8 March 1975 (entered into force 8 March 1975).
130. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Czech Republic, 23 May 1994 (entered into force 14 June 2000).
131. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, 15 September 2000.
132. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Slovak Republic, 19 June 2002.
133. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, 29 January 2004 (entered into force 3 April 2006).
134. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, 16 November 2011 (entered into force 3 August 2012).
135. IA-CEPA, supra note 2.
136. Indonesia-Bulgaria PTA, supra note 133, art. 2.
137. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 13 May 2008 (entered into force 30 September 2009).
138. Ibid., art. 2.
139. Agreement on ASEAN Preferential Trading Arrangements, 24 February 1977 (entered into force 25 August 1977).
140. Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), 28 January 1992 (entered into force 28 January 1992).
141. Ibid., art. 1.
142. Ibid., art. 2.
143. Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015, 13 January 2007 (entered into force 13 January 2007).
144. ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, 26 February 2009 (entered into force 30 April 2010).
145. Ibid.
146. ASEAN-China FTA, supra note 22.
147. ASEAN-India FTA, supra note 23.
148. ASEAN-Korea FTA, supra note 24.
149. ASEAN-Japan FTA, supra note 25.
150. ASEAN-ANZ FTA, supra note 26.
151. Ibid., art. 1.
152. ASEAN-Japan FTA, supra note 25, art. 3.
153. Long Term Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the United Arab Republic, 30 September 1965, art. 13.
154. Ibid.
155. Indonesia-Japan PTA, supra note 114, art. 6.
156. Indonesia-Romania PTA, supra note 129, art. 5.
157. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Commonwealth of Australia, 17 December 1959 (entered into force 1 July 1959), art. 7.
158. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Republic of Turkey, 14 September 1959 (entered into force 14 September 1959), art. 5.
159. Indonesia-Bulgaria PTA, supra note 133, art. 9.
160. Agricultural Commodities Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the United States of America, 26 October 1961 (entered into force 26 October 1961), art. 5.
161. Trade Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 15 November 1963, art. 12.
162. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, 14 November 1972 (entered into force 14 November 1972), art. 10.
163. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, 8 August 1974 (entered into force 8 August 1974), art. 9.
164. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, 8 March 1975 (entered into force 8 March 1975), art. 10.
165. Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 3 April 1986, art. 8.
166. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Czech Republic, 23 May 1994, art. 11.
167. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Chile, 2 September 1992, art. 9.
168. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Suriname, 13 May 1994, art. 9.
169. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 23 March 1995, art. 7.
170. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Ukraine, 11 April 1996, art. 9.
171. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia, 18 February 1997 (entered into force 18 February 1997), art. 9.
172. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen, 20 February 1998, art. 12.
173. Agreement on the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) Scheme for the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), 28 January 1992 (entered into force 28 January 1992), art. 8.
174. Ibid.
175. Jo and Namgung, supra note 50 at 1046.
176. Ibid., at 1047.
177. World Trade Organization, “Republic of Indonesia Permanent Mission to GATT, ‘Statement of Offers as a Contribution to the Objective of the Trade Negotiation by the Government of Indonesia: Additional Paragraph’” (21 December 1965), online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/gattbilaterals_e/Kennedy_1964_1967/500147-0006/500147-0006.pdf>.
178. Ibid.
179. Ibid.
180. Ibid.
181. John H JACKSON, World Trade and The Law of GATT (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1969) at 89.
182. Ibid., at 98.
183. Ibid.
184. World Trade Organization, “Indonesia and the WTO”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/indonesia_e.htm>.
185. Jo and Namgung, supra note 50 at 1051.
186. Ibid., at 1053.
187. Agreement on Economic Cooperation Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, 7 July 1968, art. 22.
188. Ibid.
189. Ibid.
190. Ibid.
191. Ibid.
192. Ibid.
193. Ibid.
194. Jo and Namgung, supra note 50 at 1049.
195. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Investment Policy Reviews Indonesia 2010 (Paris: OECD, 2010)Google Scholar at 40–1.
196. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the State of Kuwait, 30 May 2007, art. 9.
197. Ibid.
198. Agreement on Economic Cooperation Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Slovak Republic, 2 May 2006, art. 6.
199. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Czech Republic on Economic Cooperation, 12 November 2007, art. 8.
200. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 13 May 2008 (entered into force 30 September 2009), art. 13.
201. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the People's Republic of China on Expanding and Deepening Bilateral Economic and Trade Cooperation, 29 April 2011 (entered into force 29 April 2011), art. 10.
202. Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, 16 November 2011 (entered into force 3 August 2012), art. 13.
203. Preferential Trade Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 3 February 2012, art. VI.
204. CHO, Sungjoon and KURTZ, Jürgen, “Legalizing the ASEAN Way: Adapting and Reimagining the ASEAN Investment Regime” (2018) 66 American Journal of Comparative Law 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 252. See also BAGULAYA, Jose Duke, “ASEAN as Wayang Kulit: A Critique of the Constitutional, Extra-constitutional, and Practical Fetters of ASEAN” (2019) 9 Asian Journal of International Law 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 297.
205. MERRILLS, John, “The Means of Dispute Settlement” in EVANS, Malcolm, ed., International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)Google Scholar, at 547–8.
206. TAN, Lay Hong, “Will ASEAN Economic Integration Progress Beyond a Free Trade Area?” (2004) 53 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 935CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 949.
207. Indonesia-Thailand FTA, supra note 202, art. 13.
208. ASEAN Protocol on Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism, 29 November 2004 (entered into force 29 November 2004), online: ASEAN <http://asean.org/?static_post=asean-protocol-on-enhanced-dispute-settlement-mechanism>.
209. Yan, supra note 27 at 431.
210. ASEAN DSM, supra note 208, art. 3.
211. Ibid., art. 5.
212. Ibid.
213. Ibid., art. 8.
214. Yan, supra note 27.
215. ASEAN DSM, supra note 208, art. 9.
216. Ibid., art. 12(1).
217. Ibid., art. 12(12).
218. Ibid., art. 12(2).
219. Ibid., art. 12(3).
220. Ibid., art. 12(13).
221. Yan, supra note 27.
222. ASEAN DSM, supra note 208, art. 14.
223. Ibid., art. 15(1).
224. Ibid., art. 15(4).
225. Ibid., art. 15(6).
226. Ibid.
227. Ibid., art. 12(3).
228. Ibid., art. 17.
229. Yan, supra note 27.
230. Walter WOON, “Dispute Settlement in ASEAN” Centre for International Law (17 October 2011), online: NUS <https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/DISPUTE-SETTLEMENT-IN-ASEAN-KSIL-ProfWalterWoon.pdf>.
231. ASEAN-China FTA, supra note 22.
232. ASEAN-India FTA, supra note 23.
233. ASEAN-Korea FTA, supra note 24.
234. ASEAN-Japan FTA, supra note 25.
235. ASEAN-ANZ FTA, supra note 26.
236. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 4; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 4; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 3; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 62; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 6.
237. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 5; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 5; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 4; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 63; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 7.
238. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 6; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 6; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 5; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 64; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 8.
239. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 8; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 8; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 7; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 66; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 10.
240. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 7; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 7; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 6; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 65; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 11
241. ASEAN-China FTA, art. 7; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 6(3); ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 65(3); ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 11(7).
242. ASEAN-China FTA, supra note 22, art. 7(3)
243. ASEAN-India FTA, supra note 23, art. 7(3).
244. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 11; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 9; ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 10; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 68; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 13.
245. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 12; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 9(7); ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 11(2); ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 69; ASEAN-ANZ FTA, ch. 17, art. 13(13).
246. ASEAN-India FTA, art. 13; ASEAN-China FTA, art. 9(8); ASEAN-Korea FTA, art. 12; ASEAN-Japan FTA, art. 69(6).
247. ASEAN-ANZ FTA, supra note 26, ch. 17, art. 13(3).
248. Ibid., ch. 17, art. 5.
249. Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and Japan for an Economic Partnership Agreement, 20 August 2007 (entered into force 1 July 2008), art. 142(6) [Indonesia-Japan EPA].
250. “New Indonesian-Japanese deal to be signed in late 2019” The Jakarta Post (3 July 2019), online: The Jakarta Post <https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/07/03/new-indonesian-japanese-deal-to-be-signed-in-late-2019.html>.
251. Ibid.
252. “Amendment of General Review of IJEPA Targeted Completion in 2019 End” Antaranews (2 July 2019), online: Antaranews <https://en.antaranews.com/news/128199/amendment-of-general-review-of-ijepa-targeted-completion-in-2019-end>.
253. “Indonesia Postpones IJEPA’ Completion to the end of 2019” The Insider Stories (2 July 2019), online: The Insider Stories <https://theinsiderstories.com/indonesia-postpones-ijepa-completion-to-the-end-of-2019/>.
254. Jo and Namgung, supra note 50 at 1048.
255. “Indonesia-Australia Finally Sign Free Trade Agreement” The Australian (4 March 2019), online: The Australian <https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/indonesia-australia-finally-sign-freetrade-agreement/news-story/f93dcc1f01ceb196f99fae84a1e806be>.
256. Amy MAGUIRE and Shelby HOUGHTON, “The Bali Nine, Capital Punishment and Australia's Obligation to Seek Abolition” (2016) 28 Current Issues Criminal Justice 67 at 67.
257. The Australian, supra note 255.
258. Ibid.
259. ARNDT, H.W., “Trade Relations between Australia and Indonesia” (1968) 44 Economic Record 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 168.
260. HILL, Hal, “Australia and Indonesia: Challenges and Opportunities in a ‘Small’ Economic Relationship” (1990) 6 ASEAN Economic Bulletin 283CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 284.
261. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Australia, Why has the Australian Government Negotiated a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Indonesia?, online: DFAT <https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/iacepa/Pages/why-has-the-australian-government-negotiated-a-comprehensive-economic-partnership-agreement-with-indonesia.aspx>.
262. Ibid.
263. Ibid.
264. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia, “Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement, Outcome: Skills Development” (last updated 27 June 2019), online: DFAT <https://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/not-yet-in-force/iacepa/outcomes-documents/Pages/outcomes-skills-development.aspx>.
265. Ibid.
266. Ibid.
267. VANDENBOSCH, Amry and VANDENBOSCH, Mary Belle, Australia Faces Southeast Asia: The Emergence of a Foreign Policy (Kentucky, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1967)Google Scholar at 41.
268. CHAUVEL, Richard, “Australia's Strategic Environment: The Problem of Papua” (2004) 11 Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform at 40–1Google Scholar. See also UMETSU, Hiroyuki, “Australia's Response to the West New Guinea Dispute, 1952–53” (2004) 39 Journal of Pacific History at 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
269. Chauvel, ibid., at 48.
270. CHALK, Peter, “Australia and Indonesia: Rebuilding Relations After East Timor” (2001) 23 Contemporary Southeast Asia at 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
271. MCDOUGALL, Derek, “Intervening in the Neighbourhood: Comparing Australia's Role in East Timor and the Southwest Pacific” (2007) 62 International Journal at 868CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
272. HOOD, Alisa Newman, “Australia Adrift: The Timor Sea Oil & Gas Dispute” (2005) 12 Brown Journal of World Affairs 239Google Scholar at 243.
273. MCDOUGALL, Derek, “Australia and Asia-Pacific Security Regionalism: From Hawke and Keating to Howard” (2001) 23 Contemporary Southeast Asia 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 81.
274. PATUNRU, Arianto A., “Rising Economic Nationalism in Indonesia” (2018) 35 Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, Special Issue: The Indonesian Economy in Transition: Policy Challenges in the Jokowi Era and Beyond, 335Google Scholar at 345.
275. IA-CEPA, supra note 2, preamble.
276. Ibid., art. 20.4.
277. Ibid., art. 20.8.
278. Ibid., art. 20.9.
279. Ibid., art. 20.10.
280. Ibid., art. 20.15.
281. Ibid., art. 20.11.
282. Ibid., art. 20.13.
283. Ibid., art. 20.14.
284. Jo and Namgung, supra note 50 at 1048.
285. IA-CEPA, supra note 2, art. 20.3.
286. World Trade Organization, “Australia—Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging” (28 August 2018), online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/DS467_e.htm>.
287. Ibid.
288. World Trade Organization, “Australia—Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper”, online: WTO <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/DS529_e.htm>.
289. Ibid.
290. The reformation process reflects the transitional process of Indonesia's governmental systems from authoritarian rule to democracy by amending Indonesia's constitution. Some basic reforms are the restriction of presidential powers, the adoption of decentralization, people's sovereignty, direct presidential election, and legislative and judicial reform. See e.g. INDRAYANA, Denny, Indonesian Constitutional Reform 1999–2002: An Evaluation of Constitution-Making in Transition (Jakarta: Kompas, 2008)Google Scholar at 148–53.
