The Dekolonisasi Subyek Hukum dalam Hukum Perdata Internasional: Kritik terhadap Universalisme Kontrak dalam Era Global South

(Decolonization of the Subject of Law in Private International Law: A Critique towards the Universality of Contract in the Global South Era)

Abstract

Intisari

Konsep subjek hukum dalam Hukum Perdata Internasional sering diasumsikan universal dan netral, padahal penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa konfigurasi tersebut dibentuk oleh kolonialitas hukum Barat yang menghasilkan ketimpangan antara negara, investor, dan komunitas lokal di Global South. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan dekolonial melalui TWAIL dan Epistemologies of the South, serta analisis hermeneutik terhadap BIT, standar FET, dan putusan ICSID, penelitian ini membedah cara dominasi epistemik bekerja dalam konstruksi subjek hukum. Studi kasus Bear Creek v. Peru memperlihatkan bahwa mekanisme ISDS tidak hanya mengukuhkan asimetri kekuasaan investor–negara, tetapi juga meniadakan posisi hukum masyarakat adat. Artikel ini berargumen bahwa reformulasi subjek hukum diperlukan melalui tiga langkah: (1) pengakuan komunitas lokal sebagai subjek hukum kolektif, (2) integrasi norma lokal dan hukum adat dalam klausula kontrak serta mekanisme arbitrase, dan (3) pembaruan ISDS melalui ruang partisipasi dan mekanisme klaim balik negara. Kontribusi utama penelitian ini terletak pada perumusan model subjek hukum dekolonial yang lebih inklusif dan sesuai dengan kebutuhan Global South.

Abstract

The concept of legal subjecthood in Private International Law is often presumed to be universal and neutral. This study,however, demonstrates,, that such a configuration is shaped by the colonial foundations of Western legal thought, producing structural asymmetries among states, foreign investors, and local communities in the Global South. Employing a decolonial framework grounded in TWAIL and the Epistemologies of the South, and applying hermeneutic reading to BITs, FET standards, and ICSID awards, this research uncovers the epistemic dominance embedded in the construction of legal subjects. The case of Bear Creek v. Peru illustrates how the ISDS mechanism not only entrenches investor–state power imbalances but also erases the legal standing of Indigenous communities. This article argues for a reformulation of legal subjecthood through: (1) recognition of local communities as collective legal subjects; (2) integration of local norms and customary law into contractual and arbitral structures; and (3) recalibration of ISDS to include participatory mechanisms and meaningful avenues for state counterclaims. The article contributes to a decolonial model of legal subjecthood that is more inclusive, contextually grounded, and aligned with the normative needs of the Global South.