Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kedudukan Kontrak Karya pasca disahkannya UU Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara, dimana dengan berlakunya UU Minerba tersebut, sistem Kontrak Karya sudah tidak diberlakukan lagi karena sistem perizinan yang diberlakukan untuk berinvestasi pada bidang pertambangan di Indonesia. Dalam UU tersebut terdapat ketentuan bahwa Kontrak karya yang telah disetujui akan tetap berlaku, tetapi perlu penyesuaian. Ketentuan tersebut dinilai kontradiktif oleh beberapa kalangan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa sebaiknya dibuat peraturan pelaksana agar ketentuan yang menimbulkan pertanyaan dapat dijawab

---

This thesis discusses the position of the Contract of Work after the enactment of Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Minerals and Coal, where with the enactment of the Minerba Law, the Contract of Work system is no longer enforced due to the licensing system applied to invest in the mining sector in Indonesia. In the law there is a stipulation that the approved Contract of Work will remain valid, but needs to be adjusted. These provisions are considered contradictory by some groups. The results of the study suggest that implementing regulations should be made so that the provisions that raise questions can be answered."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kedudukan Kontrak Karya pasca disahkannya UU Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara, dimana dengan berlakunya UU Minerba tersebut, sistem Kontrak Karya sudah tidak diberlakukan lagi karena sistem perizinan yang diberlakukan untuk berinvestasi pada bidang pertambangan di Indonesia. Dalam UU tersebut terdapat ketentuan bahwa Kontrak karya yang telah disetujui akan tetap berlaku, tetapi perlu penyesuaian. Ketentuan tersebut dinilai kontradiktif oleh beberapa kalangan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa sebaiknya dibuat peraturan pelaksana agar ketentuan yang menimbulkan pertanyaan dapat dijawab.

---

This thesis discusses about legal standing of Work of Contract after Law Number 4 Year 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining is being authorized, where Work of Contract is no longer applicable for mining investment in Indonesia according to the new regulation which applies license system. It is mentioned later in the regulation that the Work of Contract that have been approved will remain valid, but with necessary adjustment. Thus, the provision is considered contradictory. This research suggests that it is better to make implementation regulation so that provisions which may raise questions can be answered."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral menurut UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 dan peraturan pelaksananya serta sinkronisasinya dengan hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia. Setelah melewati proses renegosiasi, pada akhirnya tercapai kesepakatan antara Pemerintah Republik Indonesia dan PT. Freeport Indonesia yang menentukan bahwa kewajiban divestasi saham PT. Freeport Indonesia adalah sebesar 30%. Dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif, hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport tidak sinkron dengan peraturan yang berlaku pada saat itu yaitu PP No. 24 Tahun 2012, yang mengatur perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral untuk mendivestasikan sahamnya paling sedikit sebesar 51%. Setelah PP No. 24 Tahun 2012 diubah dengan PP No. 77 Tahun 2014, maka ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia dengan peraturan perundang-undangan telah sinkron.

---

This thesis examines the provisions regarding share divestment obligation for foreign mineral mining company according to Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations, and the synchronisation with the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia. After going through the process of renegotiation, the Government of Republic of Indonesia and PT. Freeport Indonesia eventually reached an understanding that PT. Freeport Indonesia is obliged to divest 30% of its share.

By using normative juridical research, this study shows that the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia is not in sync with the applicabe regulation i.e. Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 which requires foreign mineral mining company to divest at least 51% of its share. After Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 is amended by Governement Regulation No. 77 of 2014, the provisions regarding share divestment obligation between the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia and Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations has synchronised."

"[Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 merupakan undang-undang yang dapat dikatakan cukup kontroversial bagi pertambangan mineral logam, karena merubah alur industri pertambangan logam tanah air menjadi tidak hanya mencakup kegiatan pertambangan semata, akan tetapi juga diwajibkan untuk perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan melakukan kegiatan pengolahan dan pemurnian di dalam negeri dalam kurun waktu hanya 5 (lima) tahun saja. Keterbatasan infrastruktur di daerah-daerah, ketidaktersediaan listrik, serta kompleksnya birokrasi yang melingkupi perluasan bidang usaha lintas sektor antara pertambangan (hulu) dengan pemurnian (hilir) membuat hal tersebut menjadi terlalu sulit diwujudkan, ditambah lagi dengan inkonsistensi Pemerintah yang menetapkan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi Perusahaan Pertambangan Penanaman Modal Asing, dari 20% (dua puluh persen) di tahun 2010, menjadi 51% (lima puluh satu persen) di tahun 2012. Selain kedua hal tersebut, pada tahun ketiga sejak Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 diberlakukan, Pemerintah telah melarang kegiatan ekspor mineral mentah, akan tetapi mencabutnya kembali dan menetapkan ketentuan ekspor dengan tambahan birokrasi yang semakin panjang, sehingga menyebabkan investor pertambangan penanaman modal asing kehilangan waktu dan sulit dalam merealisasikan amanah Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tersebut. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk menampilkan fakta kesulitan-kesulitan yang dialami oleh PT. X selaku perusahaan penanaman modal asing dalam bidang pertambangan mineral nikel oleh karena kebijakan pertambangan yang tidak cukup berimbang.

---

Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies., Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.]"

"Pelaksanaan kewajiban divestasi saham sebesar 51% bagi pemegang izin usaha di bidang pertambangan mineral dan Batubara yang sahamnya dimiliki asing kepada Peserta Indonesia yakni Pemerintah Pusat, Pemerintah Daerah, BUMN, BUMD serta Badan Usaha swata secara berjenjang  merupakan suatu kewajiban yang harus dilaksanakan sesuai dengan Pasal 112 Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 2020 tentang perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba) beserta peraturan pelaksanaannya.  Tulisan ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Pelaksanaan Divestasi saham juga diwajibkan bagi pemegang kontrak karya atau perjanjian karya pengusahaan pertambangan Batubara yang berlaku sebelum rezim izin berlaku sesuai dengan UU Minerba. Sebagai salah satu contoh yaitu pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia yang merupakan pemegang Kontrak Karya Tahun 1968 dan terakhir diamandemen pada Tahun 2014, yang menyebutkan bahwa Divestasi Saham PT Vale Indonesia kepada peserta Indonesia hanya sebesar 40%. Perbedaan antara keberlakuan pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia dalam kontrak karya dengan UU Minerba tentu harus dipertimbangkan beberapa asas yakni asas kebebasan berkontrak dalam kontrak karya yang telah ada sebelum UU Minerba berlaku sesuai Pasal 1338 KUH Perdata, serta asas hak menguasai negara atas sumber daya alam yang terkandung di Indonesia dikuasai oleh negara dan dimanfaatkan untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sesuai Pasal 33 ayat (3) UUD NRI 1945. Adapun ketentuan pelaksanaan divestasi saham PT Vale Indonesia dalam kontrak karya merupakan salah satu pertimbangan bagi Pemerintah untuk dapat memberikan perpanjangan Kontrak Karya menjadi IUPK Sebagai Kelanjutan Operasi Kontrak/Perjanjian, namun demikian dalam UU Minerba maupun peraturan pelaksanaannya pelaksanaan divestasi bukanlah persyaratan untuk dapat diberikannya perpanjangan kontrak menjadi IUPK Sebagai Kelanjutan Operasi Kontrak/Perjanjian.

---

Implementation of the obligation to share divestment of 51% for business license holders in the mineral and coal mining sector whose shares are owned by foreigners to Indonesian Participants namely the Central Government, Regional Government, BUMN, BUMD and private business entities in stages is an obligation that must be implemented in accordance with Article 112 Law Number 3 of 2020 concerning amendments to Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal mining (UU Minerba) and its implementing regulations. This article was prepared using doctrinal research methods. Implementation of share divestment is also mandatory for holders of work contracts or coal mining business work agreements that were in effect before the permit regime came into effect in accordance with the Minerba Law. As one example, namely the implementation of the divestment of shares in PT Vale Indonesia, which is the holder of the 1968 Contract of Work and was last amended in 2014, which stated that the divestment of PT Vale Indonesia shares to Indonesian participants was only 40%. The difference between the implementation of PT Vale Indonesia's share divestment in a work contract and the Minerba Law must of course take into account several principles, namely the principle of freedom of contract in the work contract which existed before the Minerba Law came into force in accordance with Article 1338 of the Civil Code, as well as the principle of the state's right to control over natural resources. contained in Indonesia are controlled by the state and utilized for the greatest prosperity of the people in accordance with Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The provisions for implementing the divestment of PT Vale Indonesia shares in the work contract are one of the considerations for the Government to be able to grant an extension of the Work Contract to become an IUPK As a Continuation of Contract/Agreement Operations, however, in the Minerba Law and its implementing regulations, the implementation of divestment is not a requirement for a contract extension to become an IUPK as a Continuation of Contract/Agreement Operations."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai perubahan pengaturan mengenai sistem pertambangan yang kemudian menimbulkan berbagai kerancuan penafsiran. Pengusahaan Pertambangan khususnya dalam bidang pertambangan batubara di Indonesia dilakukan oleh kontraktor swasta dan Pemerintah Indonesia dengan sistem konsesi berdasarkan suatu Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B). Untuk menjalankan amanat pasal 33 Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 badan legislatif mengundangkan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Dalam undang-undang tersebut diperkenalkan sistem pengusahaan pertambangan batubara dengan menggunakan Izin Usaha Pertambangan sebagai instrumennya. Fokus permasalahan dalam skripsi ini ialah kedudukan dari Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara yang wajib untuk disesuaikan dengan sistem pertambangan sebagaimana diatur dalam UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif, menggunakan alat pengumpulan data studi dokumen. Dalam pengolahan data digunakan metode kualitatif yang menghasilkan penelitian yang bersifat deskriptif analitis. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa berdasarkan syarat sah suatu perjanjian pasal 1320 KUHPerdata dan asas-asas umum perjanjian, PKP2B merupakan suatu perjanjian yang dapat dinyatakan batal demi hukum, karena telah melanggar ketentuan pasal peraturan peralihan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009.

---

ABSTRACT

This thesis discusses the changes in regulation of the mining system which then give rise to biased interpretations. Mining exploitation, especially in the field of coal mining in Indonesia is done by a private contractor and the Government of Indonesia with the concession system based on an Coal Mining agreement (PKP2B). To carry out the mandate of Article 33 of the Constitution of 1945 the legislature enacted the Law Number 4 of 2009 regarding Mineral and Coal Mining. In the legislation introduced coal mining system by using the Mining Permit as an instrument. The problem of this thesis is the position of Coal Mining Agreement which is obligated to conform with the mining system as stipulated in Law Number 4 of 2009. This research is normative, use the data collection tool document study. In the data processing used qualitative methods which produce descriptive analytical study. The research results indicate that based on the terms of a valid treaty article 1320 of the Civil Code and the general principles of the agreement, PKP2B as an agreement can be declared null and void, because it has violated the provisions of transition on the Law Number 4 of 2009."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai permasalahan yang terdapat pada rumusan Pasal 93 Undang-Undang No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara yang mengatur mengenai pengalihan Izin Usaha Pertambangan. Terdapat kontradiksi antara ayat (1) dan ayat (2) pasal tersebut. Pasal 93 ayat (1) menyatakan bahwa pengalihan Izin Usaha Pertambangan tidak diperbolehkan akan tetapi pada ayat (2) dinyatakan bahwa pengalihan kepemilikan dan/atau saham di bursa saham hanya dapat dilakukan setelah melakukan kegiatan eksplorasi tahapan tertentu. Selain itu dalam Pasal 93 ayat (3) disebutkan bahwa pengalihan kepemilikan dan/atau saham di bursa saham harus memberitahu pemberi izin. Konteks memberitahu dianggap bertentangan dengan prinsip administrasi negara. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif dengan desain deskriptif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa rumusan pasal ini perlu diperjelas melalui peraturan pelaksananya.

---

This thesis discusses about the issue on the Article 93 Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal that is regulated about transfer of Mining Business Permit. There are a contradiction between paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) on this article. Article 93 paragraph (1) explain that transfer of mining business permit are not allowed but on paragraph (2) stated that transfer of ownership and/or shares on the stock exchange can be made only after perform a certain stage exploration activities. Furthermore, Article 93 paragraph (3) mentioned that the transfer of ownership and shares on the stock exchange should notify the issuer of Mining Business Permit. The context of ?notify‟ is contravene with the state administration principle. This research is qualitative with description design. This research result suggested that this article needs to be clarified through the implementing regulation."

"Tesis ini membahas penyelesaian sengketa pemutusan Kontrak Karya (KK) dan Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B) yang tidak menyesuaikan dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Terbitnya UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 ini menghapuskan sistem KK dan PKP2B serta menggantinya dengan sistem Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). Berdasarkan Pasal 169 huruf b UU No. 4 Tahun 2009, para pemegang KK dan PKP2B diwajibkan untuk menyesuaikan seluruh pasal-pasal yang tercantum dalam KK dan PKP2B tersebut dengan ketentuan baru yang ada pada UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. KK dan PKP2B adalah suatu bentuk perjanjian antara Pemerintah dengan investor / kontraktor, berbeda dengan IUP yang merupakan bentuk perizinan yang diterbitkan pemerintah bagi investor yang hendak mengusahakan penambangan mineral dan batubara. Kewajiban penyesuaian KK dan PKP2B, serta perbedaan mendasar antara KK / PKP2B dengan IUP memberikan dampak yang signifikan terhadap mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa jika terjadi pemutusan KK dan PKP2B tersebut. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif yang menitikberatkan pada studi dokumen kepustakaan yang juga didukung dengan pendekatan kasus.

---

This thesis discusses the dispute settlement on termination of Contract of Work (KK) and Work Agreement for Coal Mining Enterprises (PKP2B) which are not adjusted with the provisions of Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. The issuance of Law No. 4 of 2009 has abolished Contract of Work (KK) and Work Agreement for Coal Mining Enterprises (PKP2B), and replaced it with a system of Mining Permit (IUP). According to Article 169 letter b of Law No. 4 of 2009, the KK and PKP2B holders required to adjust the articles stated in the KK and PKP2B with existing new provisions to the Law No. 4 of 2009. KK and PKP2B is a form of agreement between the Government and the investor / contractor, in contrast to the IUP which is a form of government permits that is granted for investors to conduct mining business. Adjustment liability of KK and PKP2B, as well as the fundamental differences between KK / PKP2B with IUP giving a significant impact on the dispute resolution mechanism in the event of termination of the KK and PKP2B. This research uses a juridical normative approach that focuses on the study of literature, which is also supported by cases."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pajak yang dikenakan terhadap pelaku usaha pertambangan, khususnya perusahaan yang berasal dari penanaman modal asing setelah terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif, sedangkan metode analisis data yang digunakan adalah metode kualitatif.Skripsi ini membandingkan kewajiban pajak dalam usaha pertambangan bagi pemegang Kontrak Karya dan PKP2B dengan pemegang IUP dan IUPK setelah terbitnya Undang-Undang Minerba. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa kewajiban pajak pemegang Kontrak Karya bersifat lex specialis sehingga dapat mengabaikan ketentuan perpajakan yang berlaku umum apabila tidak ditentukan lain, sedangkan untuk pemegang IUP dan IUPK kewajiban perpajakannya mengikuti ketentuan perpajakan yang berlaku umum. Perbedaan kewajiban pajak keduanya mengakibatkan pemegang Kontrak Karya dan PKP2B mendapat kewajiban pajak yang pasti selama jangka waktu perjanjian berlaku, sementara pemegang IUP dan IUPK memiliki resiko perubahan peraturan perpajakan.Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa kewajiban pajak PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara juga seyogyanya tidak berubah karena terbitnya Undang-Undang Minerba karena kestabilan pajak PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara dijamin oleh Kontrak Karya. Sengketa pajak PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara dengan Pemerintah Daerah Nusa Tenggara Barat justru disebabkan karena ketidakjelasan pengaturan dalam ketentuan peralihan dalam Undang-Undang Minerba.

---

This paper discusses the tax imposed on the mining business, especially for companies whose capital are derived from foreign investment, after the issuance of Law Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. The research method used in this paper is a normative juridical approach, while data analysis method used is qualitative analysis method.This paper compares tax liabilities for Contract of Work (CoW) and Coal Contract of Work (CCoW) holders with IUP and IUPK holders after the issuance of Mining Law 2009. This paper shows that tax liabilities of CoW dan CcoW holders is lex specialis in nature, so the terms in their contracts can override the prevailing laws. In the other hand, tax liabilities for IUP and IUPK holders are to comply with prevailing tax laws. Such difference makes the holders of CoW and CCoW got a definite tax obligations, while IUP and IUPK holders are exposed by the risk of regulation change.This paper also shows that tax obligations of PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara should not change just because of Mining Law 2009 issuance because the tax stability of PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara is guaranted by the CoW. Tax dispute between PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara and Regional Goverment of West Nusa Tenggara is actually caused by unclear transitional provisions in Mining Law 2009."

"Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara ("UU Pertambangan 2009") membawa perubahan bagi kegiatan pertambangan Indonesia dimana sebelumnya pelaku usaha tambang menggunakan Kontrak Karya untuk melaksanakan usahanya, maka saat ini telah berubah menjadi konsepsi izin berupa Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). Dalam keberlakuannya, UU Pertambangan 2009 tetap memberikan penghormatan terhadap Kontrak Karya yang masih berlaku pada saat UU Pertambangan 2009 disahkan, walaupun penghormatan tersebut diiringi pula dengan adanya "paksaan" agar dilakukan penyesuaian ketentuan dalam Kontrak Karya dengan ketentuan dalam UU Pertambangan 2009. Skripsi ini dibuat dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif melalui studi dokumen serta tinjauan terhadap norma hukum tertulis yang mencakup penelitian mengenai apakah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya telah memberikan kepastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya ternyata membawa ketidakpastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang dikarenakan proses renegosiasi yang berlarut-larut serta adanya berbagai kepentingan di dalamnya.

---

Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining ("Mining Law 2009") made changes to the Indonesian mining activities where previously mining businessmen using Contract of Work ("CoW") for doing their business then it has now been turned into a permit concept in form of Mining Permit (IUP). In its enforcement, Mining Law 2009 still respects the enforceability of the CoW that is still effective upon the Mining Law 2009 was passed, despite of the fact that such respect is also accompanied by the "coercion" in order to adjust the provisions of Contract of Work in line with the provisions in Mining Law 2009.

This thesis is made by using the normative juridical method through study of documents and review of the written legal norms which included research on whether the renegotiation of CoW has provided legal certainty for mining businessmen. Result of this research is that the CoW renegotiation evidently brings legal uncertainty for mining businessmen due to protracted renegotiation process and there are various interests in it."