Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Sebagai salah satu bentuk ekspropriasi tidak langsung, creeping expropriation kerap menimbulkan permasalahan dalam penyelesaian sengketa antara negara dan penanam modal. Creeping expropriation sering digunakan negara dalam mengambil alih penanaman modal asing. Empat putusan ICSID yang dibahas dalam skripsi ini telah mempertimbangkan mengenai konsep creeping expropriation. Meskipun demikian, tidak terdapat suatu konsep yang jelas dan konsisten mengenai creeping expropriation. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analisis. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan pemahaman dan penerapan konsep creeping expropriation dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing di ICSID.

---

As one form of indirect expropriation, creeping expropriation often rises problems in investor-state investment dispute. Creeping expropriation is often used by a state to undertake foreign investment. Four ICSID awards used in this thesis have acknowledged and put creeping expropriation into consideration. However, there is no clear and consistent understanding regarding creeping expropriation concept. This research is analyzed through normative legal research done through descriptive-analytic method. The research shows the different implementation of creeping expropriation concept in foreign investment dispute in ICSID."

"ABSTRAKDalam perjanjian penanaman modal asing, salah satu bentuk perlakuan yang wajib diberikan oleh negara penerima modal kepada penanam modal asing adalah perlakuan yang adil dan wajar yang dikenal dengan istilah Fair and Equitable Treatment. Saat ini, salah satu unsur standar Fair and Equitable Treatment yaitu legitimate expectations, kerap digunakan sebagai dasar gugatan oleh penanam modal asing terhadap negara penerima modal dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing. Dalam skripsi ini dianalisis putusan-putusan ICSID yang telah mempertimbangkan legitimate expectations. Hasil penelitian ini menjelaskan doktrin legitimate expectations dan pendekatan-pendekatan yang digunakan oleh Dewan Arbiter ICSID dalam menginterpretasikan doktrin legitimate expectations dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing.

---

ABSTRACTn international investment agreements, one form of the treatments that shall be given by the host state to foreign investors is fair and equitable treatment. Nowadays, one of the elements of fair and equitable treatment, namely legitimate expectations, is oftenly used by foreign investors as a claim basis against the host state in foreign investment disputes. This thesis analyzed ICSID arbitration awards that have put legitimate expectations into consideration. The result of this research explains doctrine of legitimate expectations and the approaches used by the ICSID arbitration tribunals to interpret it in foreign investment disputes.;;"

"

Persoalan praktik suap kini tidak jarang ditemukan di dalam kasus-kasus arbitrase ICSID. Hal ini berhubungan erat dengan tingginya angka praktik suap di dunia penanaman modal asing, serta dengan kemampuan ICSID untuk menjatuhkan sanksi komersial yang berat terhadap penanaman modal yang melibatkan praktik suap. Setelah diteliti lebih dekat, ditemukan bahwa terdapat banyak inkonsistensi di dalam kasus-kasus ICSID yang membahas soal praktik suap dalam penanaman modal asing. Penelitian yuridis normatif ini dibuat menggunakan metode deskriptif analitis untuk menjelaskan perkembangan penanganan persoalan praktik suap dalam sengketa penanaman modal asing yang dilakukan oleh ICSID, dengan tujuan untuk menggarisbawahi persamaan prinsipil yang terdapat dalam perkembangan tersebut.

---

Bribery claims are now commonly found amongst ICSID-based arbitrations. This has a direct connection with the high number of bribery cases found in foreign investments and with ICSID’s ability to punish those bribery tainted investments with severe commercial consequences. Upon closer inspection, it is found that ICSID cases that deals with bribery are riddled with inconsistencies. This normative legal research uses descriptive-analytic method in order to describe the development of how ICSID deals with bribery claims in foreign investment disputes, with hopes in underlining the principle similarites found in the development of cases.

"

"ABSTRACTDalam proyek investasi lintas negara, proyek investasi seringkali dilakukan melalui beberapa kontrak. Pada saat terjadi sengketa atas proyek investasi yang dilaksanakan melalui beberapa kontrak, tidak jarang claimant mengajukan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak yang berbeda dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase. Pengaturan mengenai pemeriksaan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase tidak ditemukan dalam aturan arbitrase pada lembaga ICSID. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan metode deskriptif analitis. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan penerapan prinsip-prinsip pemeriksaan claim yang didasari beberapa kontrak dalam satu proses persidangan arbitrase yang diterapkan dalam praktik arbitrase internasional oleh majelis arbitrase ICSID.

---

ABSTRACTIn cross-border investment projects, it is common to find an investment project made through several contracts. When dispute over an investment project made through several contracts arises, the claimant in some case submitted a claim based on several contracts in a single proceeding. The rules regarding the hearing of claim based on several contracts in a single proceeding cannot be found in the arbitration rules of ICSID. Normative research with descriptive-analysis method is used to analyse this matter. The result of the research shows the application of principles of the hearing of claim that based on several contracts in a single proceeding that are applied in international arbitration practice"

"International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) adalah forum penyelesaian sengketa penanaman modal asing yang memiliki yurisdiksi berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID. Dalam menentukan yurisdiksi, Majelis Arbiter ICSID mengualifikasi penanaman modal untuk memeriksa syarat ratione materiae. Majelis Arbiter ICSID menggunakan metode Piecemeal Test atau Dual-Test untuk mengualifikasi penanaman modal. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kualifikasi penanaman modal oleh Majelis Arbiter ICSID pada sengketa antara Rafat Ali Rizvi melawan Republik Indonesia dengan menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif yang dilakukan secara deskriptif analitis. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa penggunaan metode kualifikasi penanaman modal yang berbeda memengaruhi hasil kualifikasi.

---

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is foreign investment dispute settlement forum which has jurisdiction according to Article 25 of ICSID Convention. In determining its jurisdiction, ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal qualify investment to examine the requirement of ratione materiae. ICSID?s Arbitral Tribunal uses the method of Piecemeal Test or Dual-Test to qualify investment.

This research is aimed to analyse the qualification of investment by ICSID's Arbitral Tribunal in the matter between Rafat Ali Rizvi v. the Republic of Indonesia using normative juridical approach conducted through descriptive-analytic method. This research finds that using different methods of investment qualification influence the result of such qualification."

"[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.]"

"ABSTRAKTujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji apa saja yang menjadi dasarditerimanya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc oleh Arbiter pada badan arbitraseICSID dan menganalisa apakah dasar-dasar penerimaan gugatan tersebutmenjadikan badan arbitrase ICSID memang memiliki yurisdiksi untuk memeriksaperkara yang diajukan oleh Churchill Mining Plc. Sehingga perlu untuk ditinjausecara yuridis apakah memang sepatutnya gugatan Churchill Mining Plc tersebutditerima oleh ICSID atau tidak. Metode penelitian yang digunakan pada penulisanini adalah metode yuridis-normatif. Metode yuridis-normatif tersebut akandigunakan untuk melakukan analisa terhadap data sekunder. Adapun bahanhukum primer yang digunakan berupa peraturan Konvensi ICSID, UndangundangNomor 5 Tahun 1968 tentang Ratifikasi atas Konvensi ICSID dan bahanhukum sekunder berupa buku, jurnal ilmiah, dan artikel ilmiahBahwa adapun Churchill Mining Plc menggugat Indonesia dengan mendasarkangugatannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 7 ayat (1) BIT UK-Indonesia. Dimana atas haltersebut tergugat mengemukakan statement of defence tentang keberatan terhadapyurisdiksi ICSID, maka Dewan Arbitrase harus terlebih dahulu mengemukakankeputusan mengenai yurisdiksinya untuk menangani perkara. Dimana dewanarbitrase harus mendasarkan putusannya tersebut terhadap Pasal 25 KonvensiICSID yang mengatur secara khusus mengenai yurisdiksi ICSIDBahwa berdasarkan ketentuan-ketentuan tersebut di atas, maka untuk kasusChurchill Mining Plc vs Republik Indonesia sepatutnya tribunal ICSID tidakmenerima gugatan tersebut, hal ini karena seharusnya yang menggugat Indonesiaadalah bukan Churchill Mining melainkan perusahaan Ridlatama Group, karenasesungguhnya yang dicabut Izin Kuasanya adalah Ridlatama Group dan bukanChurchill. Sehingga sepatutnya masalah ini tidak dicampuradukkan denganmasalah hukum internasional dan sepatutnya diselesaikan melalui ranah hukumnasional Indonesia. Adapun menurut penulis untuk menghindari terjadinya halyang sama, ada baiknya Indonesia melakukan amandemen terhadap BillateralInvestment Treaty dan bahkan Indonesia juga lebih baik mempertimbangkanuntuk keluar sebagai anggota Konvensi ICSID, dimana berdasarkan Pasal 71Konvensi ICSID hal tersebut diperolehkan

---

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this research is to assess what is the basis of the acceptance ofChurchill Mining Plc Lawsuit by the Arbitrator in ICSID and analyze whether thefundamentals of the acceptence of the lawsuit indeed made the ICSID does have ajurisdiction to examine the case. Therefore it is necessary to make a judicialreview, whether the Lawsuit which had been filed by Churchill should be receivedby ICSID or not. The method used in this paper is a method of juridicalnormative.Juridical-normative methods will be used to conduct an analysis thesecondary data. The primary legal materials use in this research are the regulationsof the ICSID Convention and Law No. 5 of 1968 concerning the Ratification ofthe Convention ICSID and the secondary legal materials use in this research arebooks, scientific journals and scientific articlesWhereas Churchill file a lawsuit against Indonesia, based on Article 7 paragraph 1BIT UK-Indonesia and the Approval of BKPM. Where based on the claim byChurchill, Indonesia as the Defendant also has submit the statement of defenceregarding their objection toward the jurisdiction of ICSID. Based on Article 41ICSID Convention, the Board of ICSID Arbitration in advance must make adecisions regarding its jurisdiction to handle the case. Where the decision ofBoard of ICSID Arbitration must be made under the Article 25 of the ICSIDConvention that specifically regulates the jurisdiction of ICSID.Based on the regulations as above, therefore for the case of Churchill Mining vsRepublic of Indonesia, ICSID tribunal should not accept the claim of ChurchillMining. The reason is because the one who should suing Indonesia is notChurchill Mining but Ridlatama Group, because the party who‟s their mininglicense are revoked by the Regent of Kutai Timur is Ridlatama Group notChurchill Mining. So this problem should not be yoked with the international lawand should be resolved through national (Indonesia) legal sphere. To prevent thesame thing accure again, Indonesia should consider to amendment the BillateralInvestment Treaty between United Kingdom and Indonesia and it is better toconsider to drop out as a member of the ICSID Convention, where that is possibleunder Article 71 of the ICSID Convention"

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan menganalisis pengaturan mengenai yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter berdasarkan Konvensi ICSID dan penerapannya. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa berdasarkan Pasal 25 Konvensi ICSID, yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dalam mengadili suatu sengketa ditentukan oleh adanya kesepakatan para pihak, ketentuan ratione materiae dan ratione personae. Pentingnya ketiga persyaratan tersebut untuk dipenuhi dalam menentukan yurisdiksi Majelis Arbiter dapat dilihat dalam perkara Pemda Kaltim melawan PT Kaltim Prima Coal dkk. Dalam perkara tersebut, ketentuan ratione personae tidak terpenuhi sehingga Majelis Arbiter ICSID menyatakan diri tidak memiliki yurisdiksi untuk mengadili perkara tersebut.

---

This research is aimed to describe and analyze the rules regarding the Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction based on the ICSID Convention and its implementation. The result of this research shows that based on Article 25 of the ICSID Convention, the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal`s jurisdiction is determined by the consent of the disputing parties, requirements ratione materiae and ratione personae. In GPEK v. PT Kaltim Prima Coal and others, it is obvious that the compliance of those requirements is very fundamental in determining the Tribunal`s jurisdiction over the dispute. In the mentioned case, requirements ratione personae were not fulfilled. Consequently, the Tribunal lacks of jurisdiction over the dispute."

"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."