Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas ketentuan State of Necessity dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo sebagai dasar bagi para pihak dalam BIT untuk mengesampingkan pelaksanaan tanggung jawab negara atas tindakan pelanggaran kewajiban internasional dalam BIT Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan studi kasus atas sengketa LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo melawan Republik Argentina melalui pendekatan metode yuridis normatif Permasalahan utama dari penerapan State of Necessity dalam kasus tersebut antara lain sifat self judging klausul State of Necessity dalam BIT serta akibat penerapan State of Necessity terhadap keberlakuan BIT dan kewajiban pemberian ganti rugi Hasil pembahasan skripsi ini menyarankan perlunya pengaturan State of Necessity dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh setiap negara termasuk dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh Indonesia untuk menyeimbangkan kewajiban perlindungan investasi dan kepentingan esensial negara.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis explores the provision of State of Necessity in Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo as a basis for the Parties to preclude the implementation of state responsibility against its wrongful act violating international obligations of BIT. The analysis will be conducted with regard to the case of LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo against Argentine Republic by using normative legal method The main problems of the implementation of state of necessity in the case are the self judging characteristic of State of Necessity provision in BIT and the consequences of its implementation on the enforceability of BIT and the obligation of reparation The result of this thesis suggest the importance of the regulation of State of Necessity in the BIT including the BIT agreed by Indonesia in order to balance investment protection and the safeguarding of essential interests of the State."

"ABSTRAKConsent merupakan landasan utama terbentuknya yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) untuk dapat menyelesaikan sengketa investasi internasional. Dikarenakan pilihan forum penyelesaikan sengketa investasi pada ICSID bukan merupakan suatu hal yang mudah bagi host state, consent digunakan salah satunya untuk membatasi akses investor dalam menyelesaikan sengketa pada ICSID melalui berbagai persyaratan. Namun adanya klausula Most Favoured Nation (MFN) dan penerapannya pada consent dalam BIT secara tidak langsung memperbesar kesempatan bagi investor untuk menggugat host state di ICSID dengan merujuk pada BIT pihak ketiga. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, Tesis ini akan membahas 2 (dua) masalah utama yaitu (i) bagaimana pertimbangan arbiter dalam menentukan bahwa klausula MFN dapat diterapkan pada consent penyelesaian sengketa di ICSID dan (ii) bagaimana perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT yang dibutuhkan untuk menghindari ketidakjelasan penerapannya pada consent. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode yuridis normatif. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa penentuan apakah klausula MFN dapat diterapkan dalam consent penyelesaian sengketa atau tidak masih menjadi perdebatan di kalangan arbiter ICSID. Untuk menyikapi ketidakjelasan atas penerapan ini, host state dapat memilih alternatif perumusan klausula MFN dalam BIT salah satunya dengan mengklarifikasi ruang lingkup klausula MFN dalam sebuah BIT apakah mencakup consent penyelesaian sengketa investasi atau tidak.

---

ABSTRACTConsent is the cornerstone of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) jurisdiction to resolve international investment disputes. Because the choice of an investment dispute resolution forum in ICSID is not an easy thing for host states, consent is used to limit investor access to resolve disputes on ICSID through various conditions. However, the existence of the Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause and its application to consent in BIT indirectly increases the chance for investors to sue host state in ICSID by referring to third party BIT. Based on this, the Thesis discusses two main issues: (i) how the arbitrator's consideration in determining that the MFN clause can be applied to the dispute resolution consent in ICSID and (ii) how the MFN clause formulation in BIT is needed to avoid the unclear of its application on consent. The method used in this research is the normative juridical method. This study concludes that the determination of whether the MFN clause can be applied in dispute resolution or not is still a debate among ICSID arbitrators. To address the ambiguity of this application, the host state may determine alternatives for the formulation of the MFN clause in the BIT by clarifying scope of the MFN clause in a BIT whether or not to cover investment dispute resolution."

"Penelitian ini menganalisis pertimbangan majelis arbitrase dalam memberikan kompensasi moral damages dalam penyelesaian sengketa antara investor dan negara (ISDS) dan cara Indonesia untuk melindungi diri terhadap pembayaran ganti rugi moral damages dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral (BIT) generasi baru. Moral damages diakui sebagai bentuk kerugian non-material yang dapat dialami investor, namun standar pemberiannya masih kontroversial dan sering kali menimbulkan risiko gugatan yang signifikan bagi negara tuan rumah. Penelitian ini berbentuk doktrinal dengan pendekatan kasus dan perbandingan. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa majelis arbitrase mempertimbangkan tiga standar utama dalam pemberian kompensasi moral damages: pertama, keadaan luar biasa yang melibatkan tindakan dengan niat jahat dari negara tuan rumah, kedua, standar pembuktian yang ketat dengan adanya pelanggaran serius yang menyebabkan penderitaan mental atau hilangnya posisi sosial yang memiliki dampak substansial, dan terakhir, kerugian reputasi yang memerlukan bukti hubungan sebabakibat yang memadai. Selanjutnya, untuk melindungi diri dari gugatan moral damages, Indonesia sebagai negara tuan rumah perlu memasukkan klausul yang secara eksplisit melarang gugatan moral damages dalam BIT generasi baru untuk mengeliminasi risiko hukum dan melindungi kepentingan nasional.

---

This research analyzes the arbitral tribunal’s considerations in awarding moral damages in investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases and explores how Indonesia can protect itself against such claims in the new-generation of bilateral investment treaties (BITs). Moral damages are recognized as non-material losses that investors may suffer, yet the standard for awarding such damages remains controversial and often impose significant risks for host States. This doctrinal research employs a case law and comparative approach. The study concludes that arbitral tribunals consider three main factors when awarding moral damages: first, exceptional circumstances involving malicious conduct by the host State, second, a stringent burden of proof requiring a serious breach of international obligations that causes mental suffering or loss of social position with substantial impact, and lastly, reputational harm necessitating adequate evidence of causality. Further, this research emphasizes the necessity for Indonesia as a host State to include a clause that explicitly prohibits claims for moral damages in new-generation BITs to mitigate legal risks and safeguard national interests."

"[ABSTRAKTesis ini mengkaji putusan ICSID dalam sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia yang diputus berdasarkan Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) antara negara Indonesia dan negara Inggris, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, yang ditandatangani pada tanggal 27 April 1976 dan mulai berlaku tanggal 24 Maret 1977. Permasalahan utama yang menjadi fokus penelitian ini adalah (i) apakah yang menjadi pokok sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dan (ii) bagaimana pendapat majelis arbitrase ICSID yang memeriksa dan mengadili perkara tersebut dikaitkan dengan penafsiran atas ketentuan BIT dalam sengketa penanaman modal. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pokok sengketa yang terjadi adalah masalah proses dan prosedur masuknya penanaman modal asing (admission process) yang harus dilalui investor berdasarkan BIT. Proses tersebut menentukan legalitas penanaman modal yang dilakukan. Tidak terpenuhinya admission process tersebut menjadikan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa dan mengadili sengketa tersebut sehingga pokok perkara tidak dapat diperiksa. Penafsiran atas ketentuan-ketentuan dalam BIT utamanya menggunakan Pasal 31 ayat (1) Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang Hukum Perjanjian, khususnya penafsiran berdasarkan makna biasa dari rumusan ketentuan BIT. Kajian tesis ini menyimpulkan bahwa penanaman modal yang dilakukan Penggugat tidak memenuhi ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT mengenai admission process sehingga Majelis Arbitrase menyatakan tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksa perkara tersebut. Majelis Arbitrase menafsirkan frasa ?granted admission in accordance with? dalam ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat (1) BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris berdasarkan Konvensi Wina 1969 tentang hukum perjanjian khususnya Pasal 31 ayat (1). Penggunaan aturan penafsiran tersebut juga ditemukan dalam putusan-putusan ICSID lainnya yang menafsrikan ketentuan BIT yang serupa dengan ketentuan BIT antara Indonesia dan Inggris.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.;This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (?BIT?) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant?s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase ?granted admission in accordance with? in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom., This thesis analyzes the decision of ICSID tribunal in the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia based on Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and United Kingdom, Agreement between the Government of United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, signed on 27 April 1976 and entered into force on 24 March 1977. The research questions of this thesis are (i) what is the subject matter of the case between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. Republic of Indonesia; (ii) how is the opinion of the Tribunal in examining and adjudicating the case related to the interpretation of BIT provisions in investment disputes. The method used in analyzing the problems is normative legal research method. Research result shows that the subject matter of the case is the admission process of foreign investment. There is admission process that should be followed based on BIT in that process which determines the legality of the investment. This legality requirement is related to ICSID jurisdiction. If these processes are unfulfilled, the ICSID tribunal will not have jurisdiction on the case. Thus, the merit of the case will not be examined. The rule of interpretation used is mainly the provision of Article 31 (1) of the 1969 Vienna Covention on the Law of Treaty especially interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. This study concludes that the Claimant’s investment does not fulfil the provision of Article 2 (1) of BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom concerning the admission process that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the case. The Tribunal inbterprets the phrase “granted admission in accordance with” in the provision of Article 2 (1) of the BIT based on the 1969 Vienna Convension on the Law of Treaty especially Article 31 (1) concerning interpretation based on the ordinary meaning of the BIT provision. The use of this rule of interpretation is also found in other ICSID decisions which interpret similar phrase of BIT as that in the BIT between Indonesia and United Kingdom.]"

"Pada skripsi ini dibahas mengenai konsep perlindungan investor di dalam Perjanjian Bilateral Investasi (Bilateral Investment Treaty/BIT) dan definisi seputar investasi dan penanaman modal asing merujuk kepada pengertian secara global dan definisinya sesuai dengan perundang-undangan Indonesia. Selain itu, di dalam skripsi ini akan diberikan pula definisi seputar BIT dengan menyertakan contoh BIT Inggris-Indonesia sebagai kajian utama dan dua buah kasus arbitrase internasional terkait penanaman modal asal Inggris di Indonesia, yaitu kasus Churchill Mining Plc melawan Pemerintah Indonesia dan kasus Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Pemerintah Indonesia. Dua buah kasus ini kemudian dibandingkan dan dijadikan patokan bagi Penulis untuk menentukan sejauh mana BIT Inggris- Indonesia dalam melindungi penanaman modal yang dilakukan oleh penanam modal asal Inggris.

---

The main discussion of this thesis is the concept of investor protection in the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the global definition of foreign investment and its definition referring to Indonesian Law. This definition of BIT will be provided in this thesis with also a study of BIT between UK and Indonesia, and two cases related to British investment in Indonesia as examples. These cases are the dispute between Churchill Mining Plc and The Government of Indonesia and Rafat Ali Rizvi and The Government of Indonesia. These two cases will be compared and used as a benchmark for the Author to determine the extent to which the UK-Indonesia BIT protection protects the investment made by UK investors."

"Skripsi ini mengkaji penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam penyelesaian sengketa investasi internasional yang berasal dari Bilateral Investment Treaties. Melalui penelitian yuridis-normatif, skripsi ini membahas mengenai prinsip The Most Favoured Nation menurut hukum internasional, prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties dan sengketa-sengketa investasi internasional yang berkaitan dengan penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation menurut keputusan pengadilan dan arbitrase internasional. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada beberapa prinsip umum hukum internasional dan instrumen hukum internasional yang mengatur mengenai prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di bidang investasi, ragam ketentuan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam Bilateral Investment Treaties serta adanya perdebatan tentang penerapan prinsip The Most Favoured Nation di dalam sengketa investasi internasional.

---

This study discusses about the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle in international investment dispute settlement originating from Bilateral Investment Treaties. Through juridical-normative research, this study elaborates about the Most Favoured Nation principle under international law, the principle of the Most Favoured Nation principle in the Bilateral Investment Treaties and international investment disputes related to the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle according to the decisions of international courts and international arbitration. The research of this study shows some general principles of international law and international legal instruments that governs the Most Favoured Nation principle in investment field, diversity of the Most Favoured Nation provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties and debates about the application of the Most Favoured Nation principle in international investment disputes."

"Menurut prinsip necessity, negara dapat dibenarkan melanggar hukum internasional jika ada ancaman terhadap kepentingan esensial negara. Untuk melindungi perekonomian dalam krisis, Argentina mengeluarkan kebijakan yang melanggar perlindungan investor dalam BIT. Argentina digugat ke ICSID dan terjadi variasi putusan, ada putusan yang membenarkan necessity dan ada pula putusan yang menolak. Tulisan ini meninjau penerapan prinsip necessity dikaitan dengan sengketa investasi yang terjadi. Penulis menelusuri perkembangan necessity dan penerapannya dalam sengketa, lalu meninjau pertimbangan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID. Necessity menurut Pasal 25 Draft Articles sulit diterapkan dalam sengketa investasi karena perumusan yang limitatif. Necessity lebih mudah diterapkan dalam BIT yang bersifat lex specialis, yaitu Pasal XI BIT AS - Argentina.

---

According to necessity principle, state can be excused for breach of international law if there are threats to the essential interest of the State. To protect its economy during crisis, Argentine enacted policies that violate investor protection in BIT. Argentine was sued to ICSID, and awards are varied. Some Tribunals accept Argentine's necessity defense, and some others don?t. This thesis revisits the application of necessity principle in the context of investment disputes. Author will trace the development of necessity and its application in various disputes, then analyze related ICSID Tribunal awards. Necessity according Article 25 Draft Articles is considered inapplicable in the context of investment dispute because of its strict formulation. Invocation of necessity is considered less difficult if stipulated in BIT as lex specialis, in this particular case is Article XI of US - Argentina BIT."

"Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) Indonesia dan Singapura yang dibentuk pada tahun 2005 diputuskan untuk tidak dilanjutkan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia pada tahun 2016 karena Pemerintah Indonesia memilih untuk menegosiasikan BIT yang baru. Pada tahun 2018, Pemerintah Indonesia dan Pemerintah Singapura telah berhasil membentuk BIT dengan ketentuan yang jauh berbeda dibandingkan dengan BIT terdahulu. Penelitian ini mencoba untuk meneliti perbandingan ketentuan dalam BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2005 dengan BIT dan Singapura tahun 2018. Selain itu, penelitian ini mencoba untuk mengetahui dampak BIT terhadap penanaman modal asing langsung di Indonesia. Bentuk penelitian ini bersifat yuridis-normatif dengan tipologi deskriptif analitis yang didukung oleh studi bahan pustaka dan wawancara sebagai alat pengumpul data. Dari penelitian ini dapat disimpulkan bahwa BIT Indonesia dan Singapura tahun 2018 dirumuskan secara lebih terperinci dan jelas dan memasukan banyak safeguard di dalamnya. Selain itu, BIT diketahui tidak memiliki dampak langsung untuk mendorong nilai investasi asing di Indonesia, tetapi kehadiran BIT tetap diperlukan untuk memberikan perlindungan dan meningkatkan kepercayaan investor Singapura, mendorong pembentukan iklim peraturan yang baik, dan pelengkap instrumen hukum perlindungan investasi. Saran yang dapat diberikan adalah Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal dalam merumuskan perjanjian investasi internasional kedepannya tetap mempertahankan rumusan perjanjian investasi yang jelas dan rinci demi menghindari penafsiran yang berbeda antara host state dengan penanam modal.

---

Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) between Indonesia and Singapore that was signed in 2005 was discontinued by the Government of Indonesia in 2016 because the Government of Indonesia elected to renegotiate a new BIT. In 2018, the Government of Indonesia and the Government of Singapore successfully agreed on a new BIT with new and different provisions. This research tries to do a comparative analysis on the BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2005 and BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018. This research also looks to determine the impact of BIT on foreign direct investment. The research method of this thesis is juridical-normative with a descriptive research approach through literature review and desk study, and key informant interviews as a tool for collecting data. This research concludes that BIT Indonesia and Singapore 2018 was formulated with more details, containing explicit clauses and safeguards. This thesis also argues that BIT does not have any direct impact on increasing foreign direct investment in Indonesia. Nevertheless, the presence of BIT is still necessary and effective to provide protection of investment and increase investor confidence, encourage the creation of favourable regulatory climate, and complement other legal instruments for investment protection. In the future, the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) should seek to establish international investment agreements that maintain

a clear and detailed clause of investment agreements in order to avoid different interpretations between the host state and investors."

"Dalam satu dekade terakhir, Indonesia telah mengakhiri hampir semua perjanjian investasi bilateralnya dengan salah satu alasan yang merupakan kemudahan investor dalam mengajukan gugatan terhadap Indonesia ke arbitrase internasional. Pengakhiran massal tersebut disebabkan oleh susunan kata dalam perjanjian bilateral tersebut yang memungkinkan majelis arbiter untuk dengan mudah menyimpulkan bahwa Indonesia telah memberi persetujuan terhadap arbitrase yang memberi majelis arbiter kewenangan untuk mengadili sebuah sengketa. Skripsi ini mengkaji faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi persetujuan negara terhadap arbitrase berdasarkan hukum investasi internasional sehubungan dengan perkembangan yang terlihat dalam yurisprudensi arbitrase investasi. Selanjutnya, skripsi ini akan juga akan menentukan apakah kerangka hukum Indonesia, yang terdiri dari undang-undang investasinya dan perjanjian investasi internasional yang baru, menangani masalah persetujuan yang sebelumnya menjadi permasalahan. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan teoritis maupun pendeketan perundang-undangan. Skripsi ini akan mendalami pengalaman Indonesia dalam menangani persetujuan terhadap arbitrase dengan membahas kata-kata dari perjanjian investasi bilateral yang lama serta sengketa yang muncul dari akibat gugatan yang tidak tepat. Selanjutnya, perjanjian investasi internasional Indonesia yang baru akan dibahas dan dibandingkan dengan perjanjian investasi bilateral yang lama. Skripsi ini akan menyimpulkan bahwa kerangka hukum Indonesia saat ini, yang terdiri dari Undang-Undang Penanaman modal dan perjanjian investasi internasional baru, dengan tepat menangani sebagian besar perkembangan hukum dalam hukum investasi internasional yang mempengaruhi persetujuan negara dan oleh karena itu mengatasi masalah yang timbul dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral lama yang telah diakhiri oleh Indonesia.

---

Within the last decade, Indonesia has terminated almost all of its bilateral investment treaties with one of the reasons being the ease of which investors were able to submit claims against Indonesia to international arbitration. This mass termination was attributed to the poor wording present within the bilateral investment treaties which allowed arbitral tribunals to infer Indonesia’s consent to arbitration and which provides them with jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. This thesis examines the factors which affect state consent to arbitration under international investment law with regards to the developments seen in investment arbitration jurisprudence. Subsequently this thesis will also determine whether or not the Indonesian legal framework, which comprises of its investment law and new international investment agreements, addresses the issues of consent which have previously been of concern. This thesis adopts a juridical normative research method utilizing a theoretical and statutory approach. This thesis will explore Indonesia’s experience in dealing with consent to arbitration as it discusses the wording of its old bilateral investment treaties as well as the disputes which arose out of unwarranted treaty claims. Furthermore, Indonesia’s new international investment agreements will be discussed in comparison to the old bilateral investment treaties. This thesis will conclude that the current Indonesian legal framework, consisting of the Investment Law and the new international investment agreements, properly address the majority of developments which would affect state consent under international investment law and therefore addresses the problems presented by Indonesia’s terminated bilateral investment treaties."