Journal of State Public Policy (JSPP)
Journal of State Public Policy (JSPP), published triannually (April, August, and December) by Cerdas Pedia, is a peer-reviewed, open-access academic journal dedicated to the rigorous analysis of public policy formulation, state administration, and legal regulatory frameworks. Serving as a critical intellectual platform, the journal features interdisciplinary research that employs empirical, normative-legal, and comparative methods to advance the understanding of institutional design, constitutionalism, and administrative reform. By addressing the "Grand Challenges" of modern governance ranging from state capacity and digital disruption to decentralization and environmental sustainability JSPP actively bridges local empirical realities, particularly within the Indonesian context, with broader global theoretical discourse. Emphasizing both scholarly excellence and practical relevance, the journal welcomes contributions from political scientists, public administrators, legal scholars, and policymakers to foster a dynamic dialogue on policy innovation, regulatory impact, governance ethics, and evidence-based decision-making in the 21st century.
Articles
23 Documents
<![CDATA[Legal Protection: Political Risk Insurance in Foreign Direct Investment Amid Geopolitical Uncertainty ]]>
<![CDATA[Alia Imron]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.361
<![CDATA[Geopolitical instability elevates investment risks, shifting reliance toward Political Risk Insurance and away from standard Bilateral Investment Treaties. Applying doctrinal legal research with conceptual, statutory, and case approaches, this study investigates the normative conflict between private insurance contracts and public international law. Results demonstrate that hidden subrogation practices during dispute settlements generate severe double recovery problems. Tribunals repeatedly fail to deduct prior insurance payouts from fair market value arbitral awards, ultimately facilitating unjust enrichment alongside coercive diplomacy against developing host nations. To establish equitable international burden distribution, this article proposes incorporating a Mandatory Subrogation Deduction Clause within future treaties and arbitration rules. This pivotal legal reform formally obligates arbitrators to strictly subtract earlier compensation amounts from final financial verdicts. Consequently, this intervention effectively safeguards state sovereignty, neutralizes systemic exploitation, and guarantees structural fairness across transnational dispute resolution architectures amid ongoing macroeconomic fragmentation and pervasive global geopolitical market volatility challenges today.]]>
<![CDATA[Foreign Investment in Digital Infrastructure: State Control, Risk Mitigation, and Data Sovereignty ]]>
<![CDATA[Cut Tiara Sekar Maharani]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.362
<![CDATA[The exponential shift of global foreign direct investment toward digital infrastructure prompts host states to enforce stringent screening mechanisms and data localization policies to safeguard critical national security interests. However, these sovereign assertions inevitably clash with international investment law. Using a comprehensive doctrinal legal method through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study examines the tension between digital sovereignty and investment protections. The results indicate that mandatory data localization and post-establishment cybersecurity interventions significantly breach Fair and Equitable Treatment standards and constitute indirect expropriation, exposing host states to massive international investor-state dispute settlement claims. Consequently, this research concludes that developing jurisdictions, particularly Indonesia, must urgently reconstruct their bilateral investment treaties. By systematically integrating specific digital security exceptions, strictly redefining intangible digital assets, implementing proportional risk-based screening, and guaranteeing independent administrative due process, host states can effectively mitigate arbitration risks while securely facilitating global digital economic market integration and data sovereignty.]]>
<![CDATA[Green FDI Decline, Domestic Investor Shift, and Indonesia's Energy Transition Legal Study ]]>
<![CDATA[William Sepvano The]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.363
<![CDATA[This article investigates the structural anomaly in Indonesia's energy transition when green Foreign Direct Investment sharply declines while domestic investment surges very massively. Utilizing doctrinal legal research through regulatory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study examines the related investment landscape. Findings prove that the investment contraction stems from expensive transaction costs due to environmental permitting rigidity, exploitative monopoly procurement contracts, and restrictive local component requirements. Conversely, domestic capital dominates through relational flexibility within captive electricity utility downstreaming. The recent component relaxation policies actually introduce secondary legal uncertainties and discriminatory practices against domestic banking syndications. To resolve this normative clash, this research recommends reconstructing the legal architecture by implementing permitting acceleration, establishing an independent electricity procurement agency to ensure risk allocation equilibrium, harmonizing inclusive policies, and leveraging the sovereign wealth fund institution within blended finance schemes to secure commercial bankability, absolute legal certainty, and comprehensive spatial ecological justice for all global actors.]]>
<![CDATA[Mitigating Indirect Expropriation in FDI: The Legal Efficacy of Home State Measures ]]>
<![CDATA[Adin Pramudito Nugroho]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.365
<![CDATA[The normative conflict between indirect expropriation claims and sovereign regulatory rights creates a systemic regulatory chill within contemporary international investment law. Traditional host state defenses, including explicit treaty carve-outs, remain epistemologically inadequate against expansive arbitral interpretations. Applying a doctrinal legal methodology, this study systematically analyzes new-generation investment treaties, arbitral jurisprudence, and institutional frameworks to evaluate the legal efficacy of Home State Measures (HSM) as a preventive mitigation mechanism. The research clearly demonstrates that operationalizing HSM through conditional political risk insurance and extraterritorial sustainability reporting mandates effectively nullifies static investor expectations. Furthermore, integrating pre-litigation dispute prevention mechanisms, specifically utilizing the Ombudsman model and Cooperation and Facilitation Investment Agreements, successfully transforms reactive commercial arbitration into proactive diplomatic mediation. This paradigmatic institutional shift significantly prevents frivolous litigation, strictly corrects fundamental structural asymmetries inherent in capital exportation, and conclusively safeguards the host state's ecological and essential public policy space from predatory foreign corporate claims.]]>
<![CDATA[Mitigating Regulatory Chill: Proportionality and Joint Interpretative Declarations in Energy Transition Arbitrations ]]>
<![CDATA[Walyuddin Walyuddin]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.394
<![CDATA[The contemporary international investment law regime faces a structural clash with global climate imperatives, generating a severe regulatory chill that paralyzes host states from executing green energy transitions. This article examines the doctrinal failure of environmental exceptions in recent arbitral jurisprudence, particularly concerning the fair and equitable treatment standard. By analyzing key awards, the study demonstrates how tribunals manipulate textual loopholes to prioritize fossil fuel assets over ecological survival. To dismantle this systemic imbalance, this research proposes a critical legal reconstruction by integrating the proportionality test into the police powers doctrine to rationally evaluate indirect expropriation claims. Furthermore, to prevent tribunal overreach, sovereign states must operationalize this framework through joint interpretative declarations under the Vienna convention on the law of treaties. This institutional mechanism provides a binding limitation on arbitral discretion, ensuring that foreign investment protection remains strictly subordinated to existential global climate mitigation mandates within developing jurisdictions like Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[Reconstructing Domestic Arbitration Frameworks to Mitigate Litigation Finance Risks in Investment Disputes ]]>
<![CDATA[Ariq Ardiawan Alano]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.397
<![CDATA[The proliferation of Third-Party Funding (TPF) within Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has transformed international arbitration into a speculative asset class, jeopardizing host states' fiscal sovereignty. This article examines the structural vulnerabilities arising from the regulatory vacuum in domestic arbitration frameworks, specifically within the Indonesian legal system. While existing scholarship predominantly focuses on multilateral reforms, this study argues that the absence of domestic lex arbitri oversight facilitates predatory litigation and engenders "regulatory chill." Employing normative legal research with a comparative analysis of Singapore, Hong Kong, and the IA-CEPA standards, the research demonstrates that domestic legislative intervention is a prerequisite for sovereign resilience. The study proposes a comprehensive reconstruction of the National Arbitration Law through three pivotal pillars: precise statutory definitions, mandatory disclosure of funding identities, and the empowerment of tribunals to impose security for costs. These reforms are essential to rebalance investment protection with the preservation of host states' public space.]]>
<![CDATA[The Dynamics of Azerbaijan–Saudi Arabia Bilateral: Hajj Pilgrimage and Umrah to Boost Economic Diplomacy ]]>
<![CDATA[H.E. Berlian Helmy]]>;
<![CDATA[Nadila Putri Shenindita]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.398
<![CDATA[This article examines the strategic institutionalization of transnational religious mobility as a vital catalyst for bilateral economic diplomacy between rentier states, specifically focusing on Azerbaijan and Saudi Arabia. Facing severe structural vulnerabilities stemming from historical hydrocarbon dependency, both sovereign nations urgently mandate comprehensive macroeconomic diversification. Utilizing Matland’s Ambiguity-Conflict framework, this qualitative study rigorously analyzes how Azerbaijan strategically mitigated the unilateral policy disruption caused by Saudi Arabia’s centralized digital portal, Nusuk. By systematically integrating domestic administrative platforms with Saudi infrastructure and simultaneously instituting reciprocal visa relaxations, Azerbaijan successfully transitioned towards seamless administrative implementation. This distinct bureaucratic agility effectively triggered a robust "Transnational Multiplier Effect," directly leveraging highly inelastic religious tourism flows to secure valuable foreign direct investment for domestic green infrastructure. Ultimately, the research demonstrates that orchestrating multi-layered diplomacy fundamentally transforms routine logistical crowd management into an outward-looking statecraft instrument, providing a highly resilient policy framework for modern post-oil transitional economies.]]>
<![CDATA[Recalibrating Sovereign Immunity: Functional Commerciality and the Execution of Investment Arbitration Awards ]]>
<![CDATA[Thimotius Melkysedekh Yuliawan]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.401
<![CDATA[The contemporary architecture of international investment law confronts an efficacy crisis during the execution phase of arbitral awards due to sovereign immunity abuses by host states. Adjudicative triumphs frequently become pyrrhic victories given the monumental barriers to attaching sovereign assets in foreign jurisdictions. This study critically analyzes the interpretative asymmetry between the ICSID Convention and the New York Convention regimes, which severely complicates the economic recovery of investors. Employing a normative juridical methodology with a comparative jurisprudence approach, this article dissects recent judicial decisions across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Findings indicate that debtor nations aggressively weaponize separate entity limitations and public policy defenses as asset shielding instruments. This paper proposes a recalibration of restrictive immunity through the functional commerciality test. Systemic resolution demands preventive mechanisms standardizing explicit immunity waivers, alongside subsequent mechanisms harmonizing commercial property definitions to balance sovereign rights against transnational legal compliance imperatives comprehensively.]]>
<![CDATA[Balancing Stabilization Clauses and Technology Transfer in Smart City Joint Venture Contracts ]]>
<![CDATA[Marentino Narade]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.402
<![CDATA[The massive development of smart city infrastructure strategically drives developing nations to utilize foreign direct investment flows through joint venture contracts. However, the implementation of absolute stabilization clauses systematically freezes the domestic regulatory space. This study specifically aims to analyze the clash of norms between stabilization clauses and the host state's right to regulate mandatory technology transfer. The research employs a normative legal methodology using statutory and conceptual approaches rooted in the Facilitation 2.0 doctrine. The results prove that comprehensive deregulation of technology transfer instruments to increase foreign investment volume inadvertently creates long-term technological dependency for developing nations. Joint venture contracts lacking coercive regulatory protections surrender technology transfer completely to a highly asymmetric freedom of contract regime. Therefore, this research proposes a comprehensive contractual reconstruction model by inserting explicit public policy carve-outs. This legal reengineering is essential to balance commercial certainty with national digital sovereignty for sustainable smart urban governance.]]>
<![CDATA[Redefining Investment Contracts: Multinational Joint Ventures, Arbitration Risks, and Global Geopolitical Fragmentation ]]>
<![CDATA[Regina Naya Cahyani]]>
<![CDATA[ Journal of State Public Policy Vol. 1 No. 3 (2026): Journal of State Public Policy ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Yayasan Cerdas Pedia Indonesia ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65101/jspp.v1i3.403
<![CDATA[Global geopolitical fragmentation has fundamentally disrupted international investment law. Consequently, multinational enterprises increasingly utilize joint ventures as jurisdictional firewalls to mitigate stringent host state regulations. This article examines the mutation of joint ventures into defensive legal fictions designed to shield corporate liability while exploiting arbitration protections. Through doctrinal analysis of contemporary jurisprudence, particularly the Urbaser decision, this study demonstrates how host state counterclaims pierce the corporate veil, enforcing human rights accountability. Furthermore, this research critically evaluates the boundaries delineating legitimate nationality planning from prohibited abuse of process, highlighting systemic anomalies surrounding shareholder reflective loss claims. These findings reveal an urgent necessity for structural procedural reforms. Ultimately, this paper proposes the mandatory consolidation of entity liability as an absolute jurisdictional prerequisite within international tribunals. This proposed framework effectively establishes a just equilibrium between safeguarding foreign capital investments and preserving the sovereign regulatory space of developing host nations across the entire globe.]]>
