legal perpsective on the trade facilitation … · abstract: the application of trade facilitation...
TRANSCRIPT
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
1
LEGAL PERPSECTIVE ON THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT (TFA): INDONESIA CASE STUDIES
Ozy Diva Ersya
Ph.D Student in International Law University of Nottingham, United Kingdom
Email: [email protected]
Abstrak: Penerapan regulasi tentang fasilitasi perdagangan internasional (TFA) dalam sistem hukum Indonesia memerlukan kajian lebih lanjut dan komprehensif. Selama ini indonesia belum meratifikasi persetujuan tentang TFA. Disatu sisi secara hukum internasional TFA harus diterapkan oleh suatu negara, akan tetapi masih banyak negara yang belum menerapkan TFA sebagai instrumen hukum di negaranya. Akibat dari kekosongan hukum tentang TFA banyak negara yang enggan menanamkan investasinya di Indonesia. Padahal TFA telah sejalan dengan program-program negara ASEAN. Karena pada intinya program TFA mempunyai tujuan sama yaitu mempercepat pertumbuhan ekonomi melalui percepatan pergerakan barang dan jasa dengan memperkuat pondasi hukum TFA. Sejauh ini WTO TFA dapat dipergunakan sebagai dasar hukum tak mengikat dalam sistem hukum Indonesia. Karena walau bagaimanapun pada suatu waktu WTO TFA bisa dijadikan kepastian hukum di tingkat internasional.
LEGAL PERPSECTIVE ON THE TRADE FACILITATION AGREEMENT (TFA): INDONESIA CASE STUDIES
Abstract: The application of trade facilitation needs further analyses in the context of Indonesian’s law. So far Indonesia does not yet ratify the trade facilitation agreement. In one hand the trade facilitation is a compulsory requirement that must be fulfilled by a state, in other hands the state does not provide a legal instrument. The consequence is legal uncertainty to those parties who want to invest their money in Indonesia. The trade facilitation will also in line with ASEAN programs. Those programs have same purposes to fasten the movement of goods and services by providing legal certainty on trade facilitation foundations. The WTO TFA can be used as ‘soft-law’ for Indonesian legal framework to apply trade facilitation enhancement, although it is not yet ratified by Indonesia. The WTO TFA will easily appropriate and have legal force if the implementation of the WTO TFA into Indonesian national legal structure is also noticeable.
Keyword: trade facilitation, legal perspective, ASEAN programs
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
2
Introduction
The activities of trade facilitation agenda in global trade has been proposed
greatly at the international level, such as at the WTO, the WCO, OECD, UNCTAD,
UN/CEFACT, UN/ECE, the World Bank, ITC, UNCITRAL, IMO, and ICAO, etc.; at regional
level, such as NAFTA, APEC, European Union, and other FTAs; and at Non-
Governmental Organisations (NGOs) level, such as IATA, ICS, IRU and the ICC (Staples,
1998; Grainger, 2011, 2012, 2014; Mustra, 2011).1 At international level, the WTO is
the only multilateral trade organisation, with 164 members and autonomous customs
agencies, which deals with global rules of trade. Generally known, developing
countries and LDCs represent two-thirds of the WTO members.
Awareness of how to reduce unnecessary trade costs at the border and
introduce certain elements of trade facilitation, by concluding such a multilateral
agreement on trade facilitation, in order to tackle the costs, has become a significant
part of prolonged discussion within the WTO Doha Round Negotiations (Duval, 2007;
Scott and Wilkinson, 2011; Ismail, 2008; Wilkinson, 2006, 2009)2, particularly the
implementation-related issues and concerns (Finger and Wilson, 2007)3 and a
discussion of needs, priorities, and costs associated for making provision of technical
assistance and capacity building of a developed countries and donors for developing
countries in the implementation (Finger, 2008; McLinden, 2006).4 A number of
1Brian Rankin Staples, ‘Trade Facilitation’ (October 19, 1998. Draft), Andrew Grainger, ‘Trade
Facilitation: A Conceptual Review’ (2011) Journal of World Trade 39-62, Andrew Grainger, ‘Trade Facilitation’ in Kenneth Heydon and Stephen Woolcock (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Trade Policy (Ashgate Publishing 2012), Andrew Grainger, ‘The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: Consulting the Private Sector’ (2014) 48(6) Journal of World Trade 1167-1188, Monica Alina Mustra, ‘Chapter 3: Border Management Modernization and the Trade Supply Chain’ in Gerard Mclinden, Enrique Fanta, David Widdowson, and Tom Doyle (eds), Border Management Modernization (The World Bank 2011).
2Yan Duval, ‘Trade Facilitation Beyond the Doha Round of Negotiations’ (2007) Asia Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade, Working Research Series no. 50, James Scott and Rorden Wilkinson, ‘The Poverty of the Doha Round and Least Developed Countries (2011) 32(4) Third World Quarterly 611-627, Faizel Ismail, ‘An Assessment of the WTO Doha Round July-December 2008 Collapse’ (2009) 8(4) World Trade Review 579-605, Rorden Wilkinson, ‘The WTO in Hongkong: What it really means for the Doha Development Agenda’ (2006) 11(2) New Political Economy 291-304, Rorden Wilkinson, ‘Language, Power and Multilateral Trade Negotiations’ (2009) 16(4) Review of International Political Economy 597-619.
3Joseph Michael Finger and John S. Wilson, ‘Implementing Trade Facilitation Agreement in the WTO: What Makes Sense?’ (2007) 12(3) Pacific Economic Review 335-355
4Joseph Michael Finger, ‘Trade Facilitation: The Role of a WTO Agreement’ (2008) ECIPE Working Research No. 1, Gerard McLinden, ‘Needs, Priorities and Costs Associated with Technical Assistance and Capacity Building for Implementation of a WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: A Comparative Study Based on Six Developing Countries’ (2006) World Bank Working Research, November, 1-5, 9-35 in Jean-Christophe Maur and John S. Wilson (eds), Trade Costs and Facilitation: Open Trade and Economic Development, Vol II (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2011).
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
3
proposals from some of the WTO Members for improved performance have been
tabled and predicted an outlook on the future of the negotiations (Shin, 2001; Finger,
2008; Bolhofer, 2007).5
Trade facilitation agenda in the WTO has been raised as a negotiated discussion
in a multilateral working group, as one of the four, so called “Singapore issues”, the
other three working groups were trade and investment, competition policy, and
transparency in government procurement, at the first WTO Singapore Ministerial
Conference in December 1996. After several years of exploratory work, the WTO
members formally agreed to launch negotiations on trade facilitation on 1 August
2004, on the basis of modalities in Annex D of the work programme of Doha
Development Agenda (DDA) 2001, the so-called “July Package” (Neufeld, 2014).6
However, the understanding of trade facilitation has changed from its initial
description at 1996 Singapore Ministerial as “the simplification of trade procedures”
to a more narrow definition of DDA 2001, which described as “the movement, release
and clearance of goods” (Woo, 2003).7
In the WTO negotiations, the discussion of trade facilitation covers therefore
customs matters with a view to simplifying, modernising, and harmonising the
customs administrations among the WTO Members in order to give benefits for
trading activities. Nevertheless, earlier, the scope of trade facilitation in the
negotiations was being related to other WTO provisions and agreements. Those are:
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, Import Licensing Procedures, Rules of Origin,
Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (Customs Valuation), Pre-shipment
Inspection, GATS, Article V (Freedom of Transit), Article VIII (Fees and Formalities
connected with imports and exports), Article IX (Marks of Origin) and Article X
5Yukyun “Harry” Shin, ‘New Round and Trade Facilitation: Proposing a Tentative Draft
Agreement on Trade Facilitation Measures’ (2001) 35(2) Journal of World Trade 229-252, Carolin Eve Bolhofer, ‘Trade Facilitation-WTO Law and its Revision to Facilitate Global Trade in Goods’ (2007) 2(11/12) Global Trade and Customs Journal 385-391.
6Nora Neufeld, ‘The Long and Winding Road: How WTO Members Finally Reached A Trade Facilitation Agreement’ (2014) The WTO Staff Working Research ERSD-2014-06
7Yuen Pau Woo, Trade Facilitation in the World Trade Organisation: Singapore to Doha and Beyond’ 270-279 in Will Martin and Mari Pangestu (eds), Options for Global Trade Reform: A View from the Asia-Pacific (Cambridge University Press 2003)
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
4
(Publications and Administration of trade regulations) of the GATT 1994 (Shin, 1999;
Duval, 2007).8
Until finally, the negotiation was concluded into the WTO Trade Facilitation
Agreement (TFA) at the ninth WTO Ministerial Conference Meeting in December 2013
in Bali, Indonesia. This conference concentrated on three issues: trade facilitation,
Least Developing Countries (LDCs) and agriculture. The WTO TFA became the first
substantial output of the WTO round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTN) and
proof as the survival of the WTO Multilateral Trading System (MTS). The WTO TFA
changes the WTO legal system once it was inserted into Annex 1A and enforceable to
be implemented.9 The WTO members adopted a Protocol of Amendment to insert the
WTO TFA into Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement on 27 November 2014. This is in line
with paragraph 1 of Article X:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organisation (date 15 April 1994 and enter into force 1 January 1994). The
WTO TFA will enter into force once two-thirds of the WTO members have agreed to
ratify the agreement into their domestic laws.
The WTO TFA has three sections: Section I contains provisions for expediting
the movement, release and clearance of goods, including goods in transit, clarifies and
improves the relevant articles V, VIII and X of GATT 1994, and also sets outs
provisions for customs cooperation. Section II contains Special and Differential
Treatment (SDT) provisions that allow developing countries and LDCs to determine
when they will implement individual provisions of the Agreement and to identify
provisions that they will only be able to implement upon the receipt of technical
assistance and support for capacity building. Lastly, section III contains provisions that
establish a permanent committee on trade facilitation at the WTO, require members to
have a national committee to facilitate domestic coordination and implementation of
the provisions of the Agreement.10
However, while waiting to come enter into force or if the WTO TFA fails to
enter into force, it could still form the basis for a primary soft law agreement, even
acting as a precursor to a legally binding treaty instrument for all of the Members
8Yukyun “Harry” Shin, ‘Trade Facilitation and WTO Rules: For a Better Harmonised Customs
System’ (1999) 33(4) Journal of World Trade 131-142 9As per 29 July 2016, Afghanistan has become the 90th WTO member to ratify the WTO TFA.
Available online at <http://www.tfafacility.org/ratifications> accessed 4 August 2016 10Available online at <https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm> accessed
4 August 2016
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
5
(Footer, 2010).11 On the other hand, some scholar argued that the WTO TFA is another
example of form without substance because of its failure to bring reciprocity to bear
on the acceptance of discipline over trade controls and failure to give operational
content within the GATT/WTO legal system to provision of assistance to developing
countries (Finger, 2014).12 Nevertheless, once the WTO TFA enters into force and
developing countries put a lot of resources in the implementation, the WTO TFA has
the potential to reduce total global trade costs by a significant amount and
streamlining the flow of trade across borders and promote economic development and
raise the standards of living in these countries (Hamanaka, 2014; Elms, 2014;
Khanderia-Yadav, 2015).13
The WTO TFA provides flexibility for developing members by allowing them to
accept only the legal obligations they attach as “schedules”. Therefore, the
implementation of trade facilitation through the WTO TFA may vary among one
developing country and LDCs to other developing countries and LDCs. The WTO TFA
takes Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) provisions in order to make the
implementation practicable by introducing a category system that allows each
developing countries and LDCs to check their readiness on each provisions of the WTO
TFA when it comes to the implementation and, if not ready, they may decide what it
needs in terms of related assistance and capacity building support. Therefore, the
obligations in the WTO TFA fall into three categories: Category A, obligations that are
fully mandatory upon entry into force of the agreement, Category B, obligations that
will become mandatory when or if a further condition or commitment occurs, and
11Mary E Footer, 'The (Re)turn to Soft Law in Reconciling the Antinomies of WTO Law’, (2010)
11(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law, 241-276. She argues that the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation could be the primary soft law instrument the same as the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), which was formed pursuant to a Ministerial Declaration and adopted at the first WTO Ministerial Conference in 1996. Under the ITA, the WTO members agreed on the basis of a so-called ‘Modalities and Product Coverage’ approach, to eliminate all duties on listed IT products as between themselves. The Draft Consolidated Negotiating Text on trade facilitation was adopted by General Council back in 2004 and subsequently endorsed in Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 2005.
12Joseph Michael Finger, ‘The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: Form without Substance Again?’ (2014) 48(6) Journal of World Trade 1279–1287.
13Shintaro Hamanaka, ‘World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Facilitation: Assessing the Level of Ambition and Likely Impacts’ (2014) 9 Global Trade and Customs Journal, Kluwer Law International, 341-351, Deborah Elms, ‘After Bali: What Happens Next with Asian Trade Facilitation’ (2014) 9 Asian Journal WTO and International Health Law Policy 429-444, Saloni Khanderia-Yadav, ‘Implications of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade Facilitation for Emerging Economies’ (2015) 12(1) Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 33-58.
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
6
Category C, obligations that are inherently aspirational, or of a soft-law character
(Elliason, 2015).14
Implementing the WTO TFA is another big issue that will hamper every WTO
Members in the future. The devil is in detail. In the WTO TFA, the devil is the
implementation. The cost of implementing trade facilitation through the WTO TFA is
difficult to quantify for two reasons; first, trade facilitation reforms are rarely carried
out independently of other broader policy objectives, such as customs modernization
and secondly, costs may vary considerably depending on the type of trade facilitation
measures considered, such as diagnostic, regulatory, institutional, training, equipment
and infrastructure, awareness-raising, political will and operational details (The WTO,
2015).15 Implementation issues also bring implications, such as legislative,
administrative, and procedural implications (legal framework implications), potential
infrastructure implications, financial and other resource implications, as well as
technical assistance and capacity building requirements (Widdowson, 2005;
Hamanaka, 2014).16
Apart from the WTO TFA, there is actually international treaty which was
intended as a blueprint for modern and efficient Customs procedures in the 21st
century and is assumed to offer projection of trade facilitation agenda and it lies in the
World Customs Organisation (the WCO). It is the International Convention on the
Simplification and Harmonization of Customs procedures (Kyoto Convention),
originally established in 1973 and entered into force in 1974. The Kyoto Convention
contains general provisions and special annexes dealing with customs procedures and
ensures that it can meet the current demands of governments and international trade
needs. The WCO Council adopted the revised Kyoto Convention (RKC) in June 1999
and entered into force on 3 February 2006. The revised Kyoto Convention promotes
trade facilitation and effective customs control through its legal provisions and simply
efficient customs procedures (Staples, 1998; Masserlin and Zarrouk, 2000;
14Antonia Elliason, ‘The Trade Facilitation Agreement-Episode IV: A new Hope for the WTO’
(2015) 14 World Trade Review 661 15 The World Trade Organisation, ’Speeding up Trade: Benefits and Challenges of Implementing
the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement’ (2015) World Trade Report. Available online at <https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report15_e.pdf> accessed 7 August 2016
16David Widdowson, ‘International Trade Facilitation: The Customs Imperative’ (2005) Research presented at the APEC Workshop on the WTO Trade Facilitation Negotiations, Kuala Lumpur
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
7
Widdowson, 2005; Grainger, 2011; Wolffgang and Kafeero, 2014; Khanderia-Yadav,
2015).17
In the WTO negotiations on trade facilitation, there was argument that the WTO
should “give focus to the simplification of trade procedures by concentrating on
customs modernisation” and strengthen the WCO RKC to be more binding, as it is the
single most comprehensive prospect for true international trade facilitation. In this
regard, the WTO should have incorporated the WCO RKC into its structure (Staples,
1998; Masserlin and Zarrouk, 2000). However, the WTO is the only organisation
providing a credible framework for binding commitments in its law through its
Dispute Settlement Mechanism, rather than other international or regional
organisations, particularly the WCO (Masserlin and Zarrouk, 2000; Duval, 2007;
Wolffgang and Kafeero, 2014). Even the WCO RKC tends to be merely as ‘soft-law’,
which are in the forms of recommended practices, and therefore not easy to
implement, these characteristic, diversity and greater flexibility, is very important in
the context of international trade facilitation which involves a number of stakeholders
including states, the private sector, NGOs, international organisations and many others
(Wolffgang and Kafeero, 2014). In relation to the WTO TFA and the WCO RKC, a
comparative study of the two ‘laws’ reveals that the WTO TFA is mainly a reflection of
the WCO RKC provisions, even the very few aspects of the WTO TFA which are not
regulated by the WCO RKC are, in fact, catered by other instruments and
recommendations of the WCO, such as SAFE Framework, and some other WCO Tools
(Wolffgang and Kafeero, 2014).
Discussion
On 31 July 2014, Indonesia had notified the Preparatory Committee the
following provisions of the WTO TFA under Category A, which will be implemented
upon entry into force: Article. 6.3 (Penalty Disciplines), Article.7.1 (Pre-Arrival
Processing), and Article.10.6 (Use of Customs Brokers). However, up to date now,
17Patrick A. Masserlin and Jamel Zarrouk, ‘Trade Facilitation: Technical Regulations and
Customs Procedures’ (2000) Blackwell Publishers, Hans-Michael Wolffgang and Edward Kafeero, ‘Old Wine in New Skins: Analysis of the Trade Facilitation Agreement vis-à-vis the Revised Kyoto Convention’ (2014) 8(2) World Customs Journal 27-38, available at <http://www.worldcustomsjournal.org/media/wcj/-2014/2/WCJ_V8N2_Wolffgang_Kafeero.pdf> accessed 6 August 2016
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
8
Indonesia hasn’t yet ratified the WTO TFA into their domestic laws. Additionally, scope
of WTO TFA is very narrow, as it only covers about expediting the movement, release
and clearance of goods which aims to clarify and improve relevant aspects on Article V
(Freedom of Transit), Article VIII (Fees and Formalities Connected with Importation
and Exportation) and Article X (Publication and Administration of Trade Regulations).
Those aspects are mostly dealing with Customs works in practice. Moreover,
implementing the WTO TFA in developing countries, particularly Category B and C,
will remain tremendously uncertain since both donor’s and developing countries’
commitment will be tested, and also depend on both a transition period and a
sufficient provision of capacity building and assistance (Elms, 2014). Developing
countries might be reluctant to change their national laws and customs rules and
procedures, not because the changes are unimportant but they might want to
minimise a detrimental impact on business practices and overhaul of their legal
system (Hamanaka, 2014).
In the case of Indonesian legal framework, Indonesia has recently ratified the
WCO RKC into domestic law through Presidential Regulation Number 69 on 7 July
2014. Moreover, Indonesia has also engaged with other countries in ASEAN and APEC
region and concluded some of regional trade agreements (RTAs), for example ASEAN
Customs Agreement, ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement, ASEAN Economic Community
(AEC) and APEC Trade Facilitation Action Plan. Indonesia had ratified Charter of
ASEAN into domestic law through Law number 38/2008, ASEAN Trade in Goods
Agreement into domestic law through Presidential Regulation Number 2 on 5 January
2010, and ASEAN Agreement on Customs through Presidential Regulation Number
137 on 17 October 2014. Those agreements were basically reached in order to hasten
the movement of goods, services and labours in the region and lied some provisions on
trade facilitation issue. For example, Article 45 (1) of ASEAN Trade in Goods
Agreement gives provisions that ‘Members states shall develop and implement a
comprehensive ASEAN Trade Facilitation Work Programme’. It seems that in some of
RTAs, trade facilitation issue has been included as one of important factor in trade
policy. Additionally, there is an increasing close relationship between the WTO TFA,
international convention, such as the WCO RKC, RTAs and domestic law in terms of
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
9
trade facilitation agenda, but caution is needed in addressing the potential tension
among them (Wang, 2014).18
As mentioned above, up to now, Indonesia has not yet ratified the WTO TFA
into their domestic law. However, as one of the WTO Members, Indonesia had ratified
the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO through Law Number 7/1994
concerning Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
In April 2016, it was informed that Indonesia will soon ratify the WTO TFA as it is still
in the process of ratification. It is hoped that it can be immediately included in the
Indonesian National Legislation Programme (Prolegnas).19 This needs a political
commitment between government and People’s Representative in order to ratify the
Agreement.
The implementation of the WTO TFA would also correlate to the acceptance as
well as the good faith implementation of the WTO TFA into the national laws of its
members. Preamble of the VCLT, paragraph 4 stipulated that “Nothing that the
principles of free consent and of a good faith and the pacta servanda rule are universally
recognised”. In addition, Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement stipulated that “Each
Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative
procedures with its obligations as provided in the Annexed Agreements”. Moreover,
when the WTO TFA comes into force, Article 24.2 of the WTO TFA rules that all
provisions of this [WTO TFA] Agreement are binding on all Members, and Article 24.3
rules that Members shall implement this [WTO TFA] Agreement from the date of its
entry into force. Developing country Members and least-developed country Members
that choose to use the provisions of Section II shall implement this Agreement in
accordance with Section II.
Traditionally, Indonesia adopts civil law system in its legal framework and also
covers to, such as, procedures law, contract law, religion law and customary law. The
1945 Constitution of Indonesia, as amended fourth times in 1999, 2000, 2001 and
2001, does not indicate the status of international agreements in domestic law. The
only provision that states ‘International Agreements’ is only stipulated in Article 11
paragraph 1, 2 and 3 which states that ‘(1) President, with the approval of the People’s
18Heng Wang, ‘The Agreement on Trade Facilitation and its Implications: An Interpretative
Persepective’ (2014) 9 Asian Journal WTO and International Health Law Policy 445-476 19Available at<http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/04/13/indonesia-to-ratify-wto-
trade-facilitation-agreement.html> accessed 8 August 2016
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
10
Representatives, may declare war, make peace treaties and conclude international
agreements with other countries; (2) President in making other international
agreements that will produce an extensive and fundamental impact on the lives of the
people which is linked to the state financial burden, and/or that will requires an
amendment to or the enactment of a law, shall obtain the approval of the People’s
Representatives; (3) further provisions regarding international agreements shall be
regulated by law.”
Furthermore, International agreements has been enacted into domestic law
under the Indonesian Law Number 24 of 2000. However, the Law again does not
clearly indicate the status of international agreements in domestic law. Article 10 of
the Law Number 24 of 2000 only implies the type of legislation used for ratification of
international agreements and must be made by the Law, with the approval of People’s
Representatives, if it relates to the issues of, namely: (1) political matters, peace,
security and state security, (2) the changes of which affects the territorial sovereignty,
(3) the sovereignty rights of Indonesia, (4) the human rights and the protection of
environment, (4) the formation of the new law, and (5) the loan agreement and grant.
Other subject matters mentioned above are ratified by the Presidential Regulation,
which does not need approval of People’s Representatives.
Similarly, the Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the formation of making rules of the
Law does not, again, either mention or indicate the legal status or position of
international agreements within the Indonesian legal framework. It is essential to note
that Article 7, paragraph 1, of that Law structures the hierarchy of legal law in
Indonesia. It means that it will bring the status of enforceability and legal binding to all
subjects in Indonesia. Article 7, paragraph 1, stipules types and hierarchy of rules
consists of, namely: the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; People's
Consultative Council Decree; Law; Government Regulation Replacing the Law;
Government Regulation; Presidential Regulation; Province Regulation; and
Regency/Municipality Regulation. The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia
is the highest hierarchy of rules making in Indonesia. Therefore, there are two legal
obligations in ratifying international agreements into Indonesian national law:
ensuring its conformity with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
11
transforming it into national legal framework (Hikmahanto, 2016).20 These obligations
must be carefully performed in order that international agreements really ensure its
harmony with Indonesian constitution, give benefits to national state, and avoid
international hidden intervention towards national sovereignty through international
agreements (Hikmahanto Juwana, 2016).
Conclusion
As mentioned above, in the context of Indonesian legal framework, the
implementation of trade facilitation agenda under international agreements through
the auspices of the WTO TFA must be further analysed in the context of Indonesian
domestic law. It is a question of legal status and enforceability of international
agreements in implementing trade facilitation agenda in Indonesia, with or without
ratification process. Furthermore, the implementation of the agenda might also be in
line with others agenda at the regional and national level, such as the WCO RKC and
ASEAN Trade Facilitation agenda. Those agenda were reached to the same purpose of
the WTO TFA: to speed up the movement of goods by regulating some provisions on
trade facilitation elements.
The WTO TFA might be as ‘soft-law’ within Indonesian legal framework in
implementing trade facilitation reform, with or without ratification instrument. The
WTO TFA will only be applicable and enforceable if the implementation of the WTO
TFA into Indonesian national legal system is also recognisable. In this respect, how the
implementation of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO (the WTO
Agreement), the WCO RKC and ASEAN-FTA into Indonesian legal framework or
domestic law should be looked at as a clue, as this is likely to give some clues as to how
implementation of the WTO TFA is likely to proceed in Indonesia.
20Hikmahanto Juwana, ‘Dua Kewajiban Dalam Proses Ratifikasi Perjanjian International:
Kewajiban Memastikan Keselarasan dengan Konstitusi dan Kewajiban Mentransformasikan ke dalam Hukum Nasional’ (2016) Research presented in Legal Workshop at Headquarter of Indonesian Customs in Jakarta
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
12
Bibliography
Andrew Grainger, ‘The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: Consulting the Private Sector’ (2014) 48(6) Journal of World Trade 1167-1188.
------------, ‘Trade Facilitation: A Conceptual Review’ (2011) Journal of World Trade 39-62.
------------, ‘Trade Facilitation’ in Kenneth Heydon and Stephen Woolcock (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Trade Policy (Ashgate Publishing 2012),
Antonia Elliason, ‘The Trade Facilitation Agreement-Episode IV: A new Hope for the WTO’ (2015) 14 World Trade Review 661
Blackwell Publishers, Hans-Michael Wolffgang and Edward Kafeero, ‘Old Wine in New Skins: Analysis of the Trade Facilitation Agreement vis-à-vis the Revised Kyoto Convention’ (2014) 8(2) World Customs Journal 27-38.
Brian Rankin Staples, ‘Trade Facilitation’ (October 19, 1998. Draft)
Carolin Eve Bolhofer, ‘Trade Facilitation-WTO Law and its Revision to Facilitate Global Trade in Goods’ (2007) 2(11/12) Global Trade and Customs Journal 385-391.
David Widdowson, ‘International Trade Facilitation: The Customs Imperative’ (2005) Research presented at the APEC Workshop on the WTO Trade Facilitation Negotiations, Kuala Lumpur
Deborah Elms, ‘After Bali: What Happens Next with Asian Trade Facilitation’ (2014) 9 Asian Journal WTO and International Health Law Policy 429-444.
Faizel Ismail, ‘An Assessment of the WTO Doha Round July-December 2008 Collapse’ (2009) 8(4) World Trade Review 579-605.
Heng Wang, ‘The Agreement on Trade Facilitation and its Implications: An Interpretative Persepective’ (2014) 9 Asian Journal WTO and International Health Law Policy 445-476
Hikmahanto Juwana, ‘Dua Kewajiban Dalam Proses Ratifikasi Perjanjian International: Kewajiban Memastikan Keselarasan dengan Konstitusi dan Kewajiban Mentransformasikan ke dalam Hukum Nasional’ (2016) Research presented in Legal Workshop at Headquarter of Indonesian Customs in Jakarta
James Scott and Rorden Wilkinson, ‘The Poverty of the Doha Round and Least Developed Countries (2011) 32(4) Third World Quarterly 611-627.
Joseph Michael Finger and John S. Wilson, ‘Implementing Trade Facilitation Agreement in the WTO: What Makes Sense?’ (2007) 12(3) Pacific Economic Review 335-355
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
13
Joseph Michael Finger, ‘The WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: Form without Substance Again?’ (2014) 48(6) Journal of World Trade 1279–1287.
Joseph Michael Finger, ‘Trade Facilitation: The Role of a WTO Agreement’ (2008) ECIPE Working Research No. 1, Gerard McLinden, ‘Needs, Priorities and Costs Associated with Technical Assistance and Capacity Building for Implementation of a WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement: A Comparative Study Based on Six Developing Countries’ (2006) World Bank Working Research, November, 1-5, 9-35 in Jean-Christophe Maur and John S. Wilson (eds), Trade Costs and Facilitation: Open Trade and Economic Development, Vol II (Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2011).
Mary E Footer, 'The (Re)turn to Soft Law in Reconciling the Antinomies of WTO Law’, (2010) 11(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law, 241-276.
Monica Alina Mustra, ‘Chapter 3: Border Management Modernization and the Trade Supply Chain’ in Gerard Mclinden, Enrique Fanta, David Widdowson, and Tom Doyle (eds), Border Management Modernization (The World Bank 2011).
Nora Neufeld, ‘The Long and Winding Road: How WTO Members Finally Reached A Trade Facilitation Agreement’ (2014) The WTO Staff Working Research ERSD-2014-06
Patrick A. Masserlin and Jamel Zarrouk, ‘Trade Facilitation: Technical Regulations and Customs Procedures’ (2000)
Rorden Wilkinson, ‘Language, Power and Multilateral Trade Negotiations’ (2009) 16(4) Review of International Political Economy 597-619.
Rorden Wilkinson, ‘The WTO in Hongkong: What it really means for the Doha Development Agenda’ (2006) 11(2) New Political Economy 291-304.
Saloni Khanderia-Yadav, ‘Implications of the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade Facilitation for Emerging Economies’ (2015) 12(1) Manchester Journal of International Economic Law 33-58.
Shintaro Hamanaka, ‘World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade Facilitation: Assessing the Level of Ambition and Likely Impacts’ (2014) 9 Global Trade and Customs Journal, Kluwer Law International, 341-351
Yan Duval, ‘Trade Facilitation Beyond the Doha Round of Negotiations’ (2007) Asia Pacific Research and Training Network on Trade, Working Research Series no. 50.
Yuen Pau Woo, Trade Facilitation in the World Trade Organisation: Singapore to Doha and Beyond’ 270-279 in Will Martin and Mari Pangestu (eds), Options for Global Trade Reform: A View from the Asia-Pacific (Cambridge University Press 2003)
Petita, Volume 1 Nomor 1, April 2016 http://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/petita/index
14
Yukyun “Harry” Shin, ‘New Round and Trade Facilitation: Proposing a Tentative Draft Agreement on Trade Facilitation Measures’ (2001) 35(2) Journal of World Trade 229-252.
Yukyun “Harry” Shin, ‘Trade Facilitation and WTO Rules: For a Better Harmonised Customs System’ (1999) 33(4) Journal of World Trade 131-142
Website:
www.tfafacility.org/ratifications> accessed 4 August 2016
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/04/13/indonesia-to-ratify-wto-trade-facilitation-agreement.html> accessed 8 August 2016
www.worldcustomsjournal.org/media/wcj/-2014/2/WCJ_V8N2_Wolffgang_Kafeero.pdf> accessed 6 August 2016
www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report15_e.pdf> accessed 7 August 2016
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tradfa_e/tradfa_e.htm> accessed 4 August 2016