Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Penelitian yuridis normatif ini dengan menggunakan data utama UU No 25 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penanaman Modal berikut peraturan pelaksanaannya dan UU No 4 Tahun 2009 Tentang Pertambangan Mineral Dan Batubara berikut peraturan pelaksanaannya. Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian yang dilakukan yaitu mengenai kepastian hukum PMA bidang usaha pertambangan dan pemberian perijinan dalam rangka PMA bidang usaha pertambangan. Teori yang digunakan yaitu dari Lawrence M. Friedman yang berkaitan dengan substance, structure dan legal culture. Kepastian hukum atas regulasi berkaitan dengan penanaman modal asing bidang usaha pertambangan minerba yang ada dilihat dari aspek predictability, stability dan fairness. Bagaimana pula dengan kewenangan serta koordinasi dalam rangka pemberikan perizinan usaha pertambangan minerba, seperti izin investasi, pendirian perusahaan PMA dan pemberian izin usaha pertambangan (IUP), izin usaha jasa pertambangan (IUJP) dan izin usaha lainnya yang diperlukan. "

"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 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 24 Tahun 2012 tentang Perubahan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 23 Tahun 2010 tentang Pelaksanaan Kegiatan Usaha Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara mengatur mengenai kewajiban divestasi saham pemegang izin usaha pertambangan asing, namun pada kenyataannya peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut masih memiliki ketidaklengkapan dan ketidakjelasan pengaturan, diantaranya mengenai mekanisme dan tata cara divestasi saham; prosedur penawaran; pilihan tata cara, kriteria penilaian, dan penetapan harga saham. Selain itu masih terdapat masalah, antara lain potensi sengketa dan renegosiasi KK/PKP2B sebagai akibat pengenaan kewajiban divestasi. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, penelitian ini menganalisis secara kritis dan preskriptif mengenai: (1) peraturan perundang-undangan yang mengatur divestasi saham di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara serta analisis mengenai pembentukan dan penerapan peraturan perundang-undangan divestasi di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara; (2) tujuan pelaksanaan kewajiban divestasi saham di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara serta hambatan yang timbul dalam pencapaian tujuan divestasi saham; (3) persoalan hukum yang terjadi dan yang mungkin akan terjadi dalam pelaksanaan kewajiban divestasi saham di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara serta penyelesaian persoalannya dalam rangka pelaksanaan penanaman modal asing. Adapun metode penelitian yang digunakan yaitu metode penelitian yuridis-normatif. Pendekatan dalam penelitian hukum ini bersifat kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pengaturan divestasi saham telah dimulai sejak Undang-Undang No. 11 Tahun 1967 sampai dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 serta peraturan pelaksanaannya. Pengaturan yang telah ada dan masih berlaku tersebut, belum dapat diterapkan secara implementatif karena proses dan hasil pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan memiliki beberapa kelemahan. Selanjutnya penelitian juga menunjukan hasil bahwa divestasi saham berperan antara lain dalam rangka memastikan kepatuhan perusahaan dalam pembayaran pajak, royalti, dan kewajiban tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan; serta membangun tata kelola dan pengawasan yang lebih baik. Sedangkan hambatan pelaksanaan divestasi saham antara lain hambatan modal, realisasi divestasi pemegang saham asing rendah, dan kemauan politik Pemerintah dan pemerintah daerah. Selanjutnya hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukan bahwa masih banyak persoalan divestasi saham yang ada, diantaranya mengenai potensi sengketa divestasi dan pilihan mekanisme divestasi. Penyelesaian persoalan divestasi saham tersebut dapat dilakukan antara lain melalui pembentukan dan penguatan sovereign wealth funds sebagai unit pengelola divestasi saham; pembentukan holding BUMN di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara; pembentukan perusahaan konsorsium; serta renegosiasi KK dan PKP2B.

---

Act Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining and Government Regulation Number 24 of 2012 on Revision of Government Regulation Number 23 of 2010 on Implementation of Mineral and Coal Mining Business Activity regulate share divestment of foreign mining business permit holder, however, in reality the said legislative regulations are still incomplete and vague in regulatory aspect, among others, on mechanism and procedure of share divestment; procedure of offer; choice of procedure, criteria of selection, and stipulation of share price. Moreover, there remains problems, among others are potential of dispute and KK and PKP2B renegotiation as a result of imposition of divestment obligation.

Based on the above, this research is to analyze critically and prescriptively on: (1) legislative regulations which regulate share divestment in mineral and coal mining area and analysis on making and application of legislative regulations in mineral and coal mining area; (2) goal of share divestment obligation in mineral and coal mining area and obstacle that might occur in reaching the goal of share divestment; (3) legal problem that happens and that might happen in implementation of share divestment obligation in mineral and coal mining area, together with settlement of the problem in the frame of foreign investment implementation. The research method being used is normative-juridical method, and the approach in this legal research is qualitative in nature.

The result of research shows that arrangement of share divestment has begun since Act Number 11 of 1967 until Act Number 4 of 2009 and their implementing regulations. The regulations that have existed and are still valid, cannot be applied because the process and result of making such legislative regulations have some weaknesses. In addition the research also shows the result that share divestment has important role among others, to make certain compliance of the company in payment of tax, royalty, and corporate social responsibility; and develop better governance and supervision. While the obstacles of share divestment, among others are capital, low realization of foreign shareholders divestment, and political will of Government and local government. Furthermore, the result of this research also shows there are still many problems of existing share divestment, among others are potential of divestment dispute and choice of divestment mechanism. Settlement for share divestment problem can be conducted, among others, through creation and reinforcement of sovereign wealth funds as share divestment management unit; creation of SOE holding in mineral and coal mining area; creation of consortium company; and renegotiation of KK and PKP2B."

"Pemberlakuan UU Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal telah membuka babak baru dalam mewujudkan kepastian hukum bagi kegiatan penanaman modal baik asing maupun domestik di Indonesia. Keberadaan klausula pendahulu (grandfather clause) dalam Undang-Undang tersebut khususnya menjamin kepastian hukum bagi investasi yang telah dilakukan sebelum berlakunya UU Nomor 25 Tahun 2007. Akan tetapi, sayangnya komitmen ini tidak dijabarkan lebih lanjut dalam tataran operasional dan sektoral. Dalam sektor-sektor layanan kesehatan dan perdagangan internasional, berbagai peraturan pelaksana justru menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum yang merugikan tidak saja para investor asing tetapi juga Indonesia sendiri. Peraturan-peraturan baru mengenai industri farmasi, pedagang besar farmasi dan registrasi obat telah mengacaukan struktur industri farmasi yang selama ini telah bekerja dengan baik di Indonesia. Terlebih lagi, ketentuan mengenai satu angka pengenal importir (API) bagi satu importir juga tidak mengindahkan cara kerja industri farmasi sehingga menimbulkan berbagai kesulitan. Penelitian ini mengidentifikasi dan menganalisis peraturan-peraturan tersebut dan memberikan usulan mengenai bagaimana peraturan-peraturan itu disinkronisasi dan dikonsistenkan dengan kerangka hukum mengenai penanaman modal pada umumnya.

---

The enactment of Law Number 25 Year 2007 on Investments has opened a new chapter in the realization of legal certainty for investment activities both foreign and domestic in Indonesia. The existence of grandfather clause in the Law particularly provides legal certaincy for investments already performed before the enactment of Law Number 25 Year 2007. Unfortunately, however, this commitment is not translated further into operational and sectoral levels. In healthcare and international trade sectors, various implementing regulations have stirred legal uncertainty that is detrimental not only for foreign investors but also Indonesian national economy itself. New regulations concerning pharmaceutical industries, pharmaceutical wholesaler and drug registration have disrupted Indonesian pharmaceutical industry’s existing structure that has proven to work well for a long time. Moreover, legal provision requiring an importer to only have one importer identification number clearly disregarded the working of pharmaceutical production thus causing so much troubles. This research seeks to identify and analyse those implementing regulations and thereupon proposing on how the regulations should be synchronized and made consistent with the general legal framework for investments in Indonesia."

"Penelitian ini membahas mengenai kepastian hukum penanaman modal asing di Indonesia kemudian membandingkan Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal di Indonesia dan Vietnam. Pokok permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana kepastian hukum penanaman modal asing di Indonesia serta bagaimana perbandingan undang-undang penanaman modal di Indonesia dan Vietnam. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui, memahami dan menganalisi masalah kepastian hukum Penanaman Modal Asing di Indonesia, dan perbandingan Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal antara Indonesia dan Vietnam. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan data sekunder diantaranya peraturan perundang-undangan dan buku-buku.Penanaman Modal Asing memberi manfaat dan dampak yang positif untuk pertumbuhan ekonomi suatu negara, begitu juga untuk Indonesia dan Vietnam yang masih dianggap sebagai destinasi investasi Asia dan dunia. Banyak faktor yang menjadi bahan pertimbangan bagi penanam modal untuk menanamkan modalnya pada suatu negara, salah satunya adalah jaminan kepastian hukum. Masalah kepastian hukum seringkali menjadi penghambat masuknya investasi, khususnya di Indonesia karena ketidakpastian hukum menyebabkan iklim investasi menjadi tidak kondusif. Penelitian ini membandingkan Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal antara Indonesia dan Vietnam, kemudian menemukan beberapa persamaan dan perbedaan didalamnya. Undang-Undang Penanaman Modal harus bisa mengakomodir kepentingan penanam modal asing dengan memberi kepastian hukum, diikuti dengan penegakan hukum, tanpa mengurangi kepentingan nasion.

---

This research examines the legal certainty of foreign investment in Indonesia and subsequently compares the investment laws between Indonesia and Vietnam. The principal issue raised in this research is about the legal certainty of foreign investment in Indonesia as well as how the Indonesian laws of investment are compared to the laws of investment in Vietnam. As for the purpose of this research is to discover, comprehend and analyze the legal certainty problem of Foreign Investment in Indonesia, and the comparison of Investment Laws between Indonesia and Vietnam. This research is a legal research which is juridical normative using secondary data such as legislation and books.

Foreign investment gives benefits and impact which are positive for economic growth of a country, as well as to Indonesia and Vietnam which are still regarded as the investment destination in Asia and in the world. There are many factors taken into consideration for investors to invest in a country, one of them is legal certainty assurance. Legal certainty problem often obstructs the entry of investment, especially in Indonesia because the legal uncertainty made it inconducive for investment. This research attempts to compare the laws of investment between Indonesia and Vietnam, and subsequently locate the similarities and differences between them. Investment laws should be able to accommodate the interests of foreign investors by providing legal certainty, followed by law enforcement, without jeopardizing national interest."

"[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.]"

"Penelitian ini membahas tentang kepastian hukum penanaman modal asing dalam hukum penanaman modal di Indonesia yaitu dengan membandingkan peraturan penanaman modal asing di Indonesia dan Thailand, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal dan The Investment Promotion Act. B.E. 2560, serta melihat juga kepastian hukum terhadap Penanaman Modal Asing di bidang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perbandingan hukum dan pendekatan perundang-undangan, sehingga diketahui bahwa terdapat ketidakjelasan mengenai pengaturan penanaman modal asing di Indonesia, yang menimbulkan tumpang tindih antara peraturan pemerintah pusat dan pemerintah daerah, serta menimbulkan ketidakjelasan birokrasi. Kemudian dalam penanaman modal asing di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batubara, pemerintah seharusnya dapat mengontrol dalam pengelolaannya karena mineral dan batubara berperan penting dalam kemakmuran dan kesejahteraan rakyat. Kemudian terdapat perbedaan dan persamaan antara Undang-Undang Nomor 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal dan The Investment Promotion Act. B.E. 2560 di Thailand. Persamaannya terdapat pada pemberlakuan undang-undang, adanya lembaga khusus, dan pemberian fasilitas serta insentif dalam kegiatan penanaman modal. Perbedaanya, terdapat pada substansi undang-undang, bentuk badan usaha, koordinasi dan pengawasan serta evaluasi terhadap kegiatan penanaman modal asing. Dengan demikian, diperlukan ketentuan yang ada harus jelas dan detail, dari peraturan tertinggi hingga peraturan pelaksananya harus sesuai dan dapat direalisasikan, khususnya ketentuan mengenai perizinan dan koordinasi antara pemerintah pusat dan daerah, serta pengawasan terhadap penegakan hukum juga harus tetap dilaksanakan dan berkelanjutan.

---

This research discusses the legal certainty of foreign investment in investment law in Indonesia by comparing the regulations of foreign investment in Indonesia and Thailand, under The Act Number 25 of 2007 on Investment and The Investment Promotion Act. B.E. 2560, and also see legal certainty to Foreign Capital Investment in Mineral and Coal Mining according to The Act Number 4 of 2009 about Mineral and Coal Mining. This research uses normative juridical research method with comparative law approach and statutory approach, there is unclear about foreign investment arrangement in Indonesia, causing overlap between central and local government regulations, and causing bureaucratic uncertainty. Then in foreign investment of mineral and coal mining, the government should be able to control in its management because mineral and coal have an important role in prosperity. There are differences and similarities between The Act Number 25 of 2007 on Investment and The Investment Promotion Act. B.E. 2560 in Thailand. The similarities are in the enactment of the law, the existence of special institutions, and the provision of facilities and incentives in investment activities. The difference is in the substance of the law, the form of business entity, coordination and supervision and evaluation of foreign investment activities. Therefore, the necessary provisions must be clear and detailed, from the highest regulation to the implementing regulations to be appropriate and realizable, in particular provisions on licensing and coordination between central and local government, and supervision of law enforcement must also be implemented and sustained."

"Terjadi beberapa perubahan ketentuan hukum terkait dengan perizinan di bidang pertambangan di Indonesia. Salah satunya yaitu mengenai kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan. Pada Undang-Undang No.3 Tahun 2020 terdapat perubahan ketentuan mengenai kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan. Perubahan ini menimbulkan akibat hukum terhadap perusahaan penanaman modal asing di bidang pertambangan mineral dan batu bara di Indonesia. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai ketidakpastian hukum kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan perusahaan penanaman modal asing yang terjadi. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode yuridis normatif. Dari hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa perubahan kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan yang terdapat pada Undang-Undang No. 3 Tahun 2020 dimana kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan menjadi kewenangan pemerintah pusat memberikan jawaban atas ketidakpastian hukum mengenai kewenangan pencabutan izin usaha pertambangan penanaman modal asing. Kepastian hukum tersebut dapat meningkatkan iklim investasi di Indonesia.

---

There have been several changes in legal provisons related to mining licensing in Indonesia. One of them is regarding the authority to revoke mining business permits. According to Law No. 3 of 2020, there is a change in provisions regarding the authority to revoke mining business permits. The following thesis is discussing about the legal uncertainty of the authority to revoke mining business permits for foreign investment companies. This thesis used juridicial norms method as research implementation method. The result of this thesis found that the amandement in the authority to revoke mining business permits contained in Law No. 3 of 2020 where the authority to revoke mining business permits turned into the authority of the central government provides an answer to the legal uncertainty regarding the authority to revoke foreign investment mining license. This legal certainty can improve the investment climate in Indonesia."

"Kebijakan Clear and Clean pada awalnya bertujuan untuk menata Izin Usaha Pertambangan IUP Mineral dan Batubara dikarenakan permasalahan administrasi dan kewilayahan yang ditemukan dalam proses penerbitan IUP tersebut oleh Pemerintah Provinsi, dan/atau Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota sesuai dengan kewenangannya. Namun, seiring berjalannya waktu, ditemukan permasalahan lainnya dalam proses penerbitan IUP salah satunya adalah tidak lengkapnya dokumen lingkungan sebagai syarat untuk menjalankan kegiatan usaha pertambangan. Maka, Pemerintah setelah itu mengeluarkan Peraturan Menteri Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral yang mengatur bahwa penataan IUP dilakukan dengan mengevaluasi tata cara penerbitan IUP Mineral dan Batubara melalui 5 kriteria aspek, yakni administrasi, kewilayahan, teknis, lingkungan, dan finansial.Hasil dari evaluasi 5 kriteria aspek atas IUP ini yang selanjutnya menghasilkan status dan sertifikat Clear and Clean bagi pemegang IUP yang telah dinyatakan memenuhi 5 kriteria aspek tersebut. Sebagai kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk menata, kebijakan ini di sisi lain juga memaksakan ketaatan/kepatuhan compliance terhadap pemegang IUP untuk menaati/mematuhi 5 kriteria aspek evaluasi tersebut agar IUP nya dapat menjadi IUP Clear and Clean. Skripsi ini membahas mengenai Kebijakan Clear and Clean dengan mengaitkannya sebagai instrumen penaatan hukum lingkungan melalui pendekatan manajemen lingkungan dan tipologi kebijakannya.

---

The objective of Clear and Clean policy at the beginning is to manage the Mineral and Coal Mining Business License IUP due to the findings of administration and territoriality issues during the IUP issuance process by Provincial Government and or Local City Government based on their authority. However, other issues had also been found afterwards during the IUP issuance process, one of them is the incompletion of environmental documents which is required in order to run a mining business, thus, Government subsequently invoke a Minister of Energy dan Mineral Resources Regulation which regulates that IUP management is conducted by evaluating the IUP issuance procedure through 5 criterias, which are administration, territoriality, technical, environment, and financial.

The evaluation that is conducted on IUP through these 5 criterias hereafter resulting a Clear and Clean status and certificate for the IUP holder which declared the IUP holder has met all the 5 criterias. As a policy that aims to manage, this policy in the other hand is also forcing a compliance towards IUP holder to comply all the 5 evaluation criterias in order to have their IUP as Clear and Clean IUP. This thesis discusses Clear and Clean policy by associating it as an instrument of environmental law compliance through environmental management approach and the typology of its policy."

"Skripsi ini membahas penyelesaian sengketa investasi asing di sektor pertambangan minerba di Indonesia dalam kaitannya dengan hukum perdata internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dan metode yuridis empiris. Hasil penelitian menyarankan agar Majelis Arbitrase Internasional dan para pihak dalam KK dan PKP2B untuk lebih memperhatikan penerapan hukum Indonesia sebagai hukum yang berlaku dalam KK dan PKP2B (governing law), sekaligus sebagai hukum materiil (substantive law) dalam proses arbitrase internasional untuk menyelesaikan perkara-perkara utama HPI di dalamnya.

---

The focus of this study is the settlement of foreign investment dispute in mineral and coal mining sector in Indonesia in relation to private international law. This study uses a juridical normative and empirical methods. The results suggest that the International Arbitration Tribunal and the parties in KK and PKP2B to pay more attention to the implementation of Indonesian law as the governing law in KK and PKP2B, as well as the substantive law in the process of international arbitration to resolve major matters of HPI in it."