Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKSktipsi ini membahas tentang konsep dana pihak ketiga (DPK) yaitumetode pendanaan alternatif sebagai solusi untuk mengatasi kenaikan biaya diperlukan dalam penyelesaian sengketa dan penerapannya di Indonesia. Di Secara khusus, tesis ini mengkaji apa itu konsep DPK dan kegunaannya yang mulai berkembang dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase. Kemudian, juga membahas upaya beberapa negara untuk mengatur konsep ini dalam undang-undang perjanjian nasional maupun internasional, serta yang penting harus diatur untuk mengajukan TPF dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase. Pembahasan dalam tesis ini disusun berdasarkan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan konseptual, normatif, historis, dan hukum. Berdasarkan hasil Hasil penelitian, tulisan ini menyimpulkan bahwa DPK adalah metode pendanaan resolusi perselisihan sekarang semakin populer dan penggunaannya dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase, yang kemudian disambut dengan upaya-upaya yang diatur oleh beberapa negara dalam hukum nasional serta dalam instrumen perjanjian internasional tentang hal-hal penting dapat mengatur dan meminimalkan risiko dalam penggunaan DPK. Meskipun mengenali praktik pendanaan informal dan mulai terlibat dalam perselisihan arbitrase internasional yang melibatkan TPF, Indonesia masih belum punya pengaturan khusus terkait TPF. Mengenai masalah ini, maka makalah ini mengusulkan beberapa hal yang perlu diatur untuk menerapkan konsep DPK dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase di Indonesia.ABSTRACTThis thesis discusses the concept of third party funds (DPK), namelyAlternative funding methods as a solution to address rising costs are required in dispute resolution and implementation in Indonesia. In particular, this thesis examines what the DPK concept is and its uses which have begun to develop in dispute resolution through arbitration. Then, it also discusses the efforts of several countries to regulate this concept in national and international treaty laws, and what is important must be arranged to submit TPF in dispute resolution through arbitration. The discussion in this thesis is prepared based on normative juridical methods with conceptual, normative, historical, and legal approaches. Based on the results of the research, this paper concludes that TPF is a method of funding dispute resolution which is now increasingly popular and its use in dispute resolution through arbitration, which is then greeted by efforts regulated by several countries in national law as well as in international treaty instruments on matters it is important to be able to regulate and minimize risks in the use of TPF. Despite recognizing informal funding practices and starting to get involved in international arbitration disputes involving the TPF, Indonesia still does not have specific arrangements regarding the TPF. Regarding this issue, this paper proposes several things that need to be regulated to apply the DPK concept in dispute resolution through arbitration in Indonesia."

"Skripsi ini membahas ketentuan di Indonesia tentang bergabungnya sebuah pihak ketiga yang bukan merupakan pihak dari perjanjian arbitrase dalam sebuah proses arbitrase beserta analisis yuridis terhadap pandangan majelis hakim di Mahkamah Agung dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 367.K/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2013. Dalam tulisan ini digunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan studi kepustakaan.Hasil penelitian yang ditemukan adalah bahwa pengaturan dalam hukum positif Indonesia tentang penggabungan pihak ketiga benar ada dan berlaku, dan sesuai dengan asas-asas dalam hukum perdata dan arbitrase pada umumnya. Namun, lembaga peradilan di Indonesia masih gagal dalam mengakui dan menerapkan peraturan ini. Hal ini dapat dilihat dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung dalam kasus antara PT. Royal Industries Indonesia melawan PT Identrust Security Internasional dan PT. Komoditi dan Derivatif Indonesia mengenai arbitrase di lembaga Badan Arbitrase Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditi, dimana sebuah pihak ketiga yang telah sah bergabung dalam suatu proses arbitrase menurut Undang-Undang No. 30 Tahun 1999 tidak diakui penggabungannya oleh majelis hakim di Mahkamah Agung.

---

This paper analyzes the positive law in Indonesia regarding the joinder of a third party originally not a party to an arbitration agreement to an arbitration process and the view of a panel of judges in the Indonesian Supreme Court in Supreme Court Decision No. No. 367.K/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2013. This paper uses the juridical-normative research method with literature studies.

From the resulting research, it is concluded that the regulation regarding joinder of a third party in Arbitration in Indonesia truly valid and exists, and this part of the regulation is consistent with the applicable principles of private law and arbitration in general. However, the Indonesian judicial body fails in upholding these principles. This can be seen in the Indonesian Supreme Court decision in the case between PT. Royal Industries Indonesia against PT. Identrust Security International and PT. Komoditi dan Derivatif Indonesia regarding an arbitration held before Badan Arbitrase Perdagangan Berjangka Komoditi, where a third party validly joining an arbitration process satisfying the requirements in Law No. 30 Year 1999 was not recognized by the Indonesian Supreme Court."

"Third-Party Funding merupakan metode pendanaan di mana penyandang dana memberikan dana kepada salah satu pihak dalam sengketa untuk menggugat atau meminimalkan gangguan arus kas, dan jika kasus dimenangkan, penyandang dana akan mendapatkan bagian dari putusan akhir yang diperoleh. TPF awalnya dipergunakan dalam litigasi di beberapa yurisdiksi, namun kini semakin populer dalam arbitrase investasi internasional. Peningkatan pemanfaatan TPF ini berpotensi menghadirkan dampak yang signifikan. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menganalisis data sekunder dari studi literatur, terutama ICSID Rules and Regulations setelah amandemen keempat. Amandemen ini menghadirkan aturan baru terkait praktik TPF, yakni Pasal 14 dalam ICSID Arbitration Rules tentang Notice of Third-Party Funding. Analisis Skripsi ini terutama difokuskan pada potensi dampak pengaturan baru terhadap praktik arbitrase investasi internasional, bagi Indonesia sebagai host state dalam ICSID, serta sebagai negara pelaksana arbitrase. Skripsi ini diharapkan dapat mendukung implementasi TPF yang lebih mengutamakan akses keadilan berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip Konvensi ICSID, menganalisis hambatan dan tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi oleh Indonesia di kemudian hari, serta dampak yang mungkin dihadirkan terhadap pengaturan arbitrase di Indonesia.

---

Third-Party Funding is a method in which a funder provides funds to one of the parties in a dispute to initiate a claim or minimize cash flow disruption. If the case is won, the funder will receive a share of the final award obtained. TPF was originally used in litigation in several jurisdictions, but is now increasingly popular in international investment arbitration. The increased use of TPF potentially presents significant implications. This thesis employs a normative legal research method by analyzing secondary data from literature studies, especially the ICSID Rules and Regulations after the fourth amendment. The amendment introduces new rules related to TPF practices, namely Article 14 in the ICSID Arbitration Rules concerning Notice of Third-Party Funding. This thesis analysis mainly focuses on the potential implications of the new regulation on international investment arbitration practices, for Indonesia as a host state in ICSID and a state that implements arbitration. This thesis is expected to support the implementation of TPF that prioritizes access to justice based on the principles of the ICSID Convention, analyze barriers and challenges that Indonesia may face in the future, and the potential impact on arbitration regulations in Indonesia."

"ABSTRAKDengan perkmebangan dalam bidang hukum dan bisnis, saat ini perkembangan tersebut terlihat dari banyak bermunculan jenis perjanjian-perjanjian baru dalam bidang hukum. Perjanjian third party litigation funding merupakan salah satu jenis perjanjian yang baru dikenal dalam dunia hukum internasional. Indonesia sebagai Negara dengan sistem hukum civil law tidak mengenal perjanjian ini dalam KUHPerdata Indonesia. Penelitian ini akan membahas bagaimana hukum perdata Indonesia melihat praktek perjanjian TPLF yang diadili dalam forum Indonesia dengan menggunakan teori Hukum Perdata Internasional Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Melalui penelitian ini dapat diketahui bahwa bagaimana hukum perdata Indonesia dan ketertiban umum Indonesia melihat praktek perjanjian TPLF yang diadili di forum Indonesia dengan hukum Indonesia.

---

ABSTRACTWith legal and business development, it shows from the emergence of new types of agreement in the field of law. The third party litigation funding agreement is one of the newly recognized agreement in the world of international law. Indonesia as a State with a civil law legal system does not recognize this agreement in the Indonesian Civil Code. This research will discuss how Indonesian civil law sees the TPLF agreement practices prosecuted in an Indonesian forum using the theory of Indonesian Private International Law. The research method used is normative juridical research method. Through this research it can be seen how the civil law of Indonesia and the Indonesian public order see the practice of TPLF agreement which is tried in Indonesia forum with Indonesian law."

"Pertumbuhan sistem perekonomian Islam ditunjukkan dengan lahirnya praktik keuangan yang menggunakan prinsip syariah Islam, seperti Bank Syariah, dimana salah satu bentuk kegiatan usaha bank syariah adalah pembiayaan murabahah. Setiap pembiayaan murabahah selalu didahului dengan dibuatnya akad atau perjanjian antara Bank dengan nasabah. Dalam akad termuat kalusul-klausul yang berkaitan dengan pembiayaan murabahah, termasuk pilihan penyelesaian sengketa dalam hal terjadi sengketa antara bank dengan nasabah. Sengketa dalam perbankan syariah dimungkinkan untuk diselesaikan melalui Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional (BASYARNAS).Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah Bagaimanakah penyelesaian sengketa melalui Badan Arbitrase Syariah Nasional (BASYARNAS)? Dan Bagaimanakah putusan BASYARNAS dalam perkara PT. X dengan nasabah Y yang sesuai dengan peraturan perundanganundangan.Penelitian ini dianalisis secara preskriptif analitis dengan menggunakan pendekatan yuridis normatif. Dari hasil penelitian diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa penyelesaian sengketa melalui BASYARNAS tidak hampir sama dengan proses beracara di pengadilan, perbedaannya terdapat pada sistem pembuktiannya, dimana pembuktian di basyarnas bersifat tertutup, sedangkan pembuktian di lembaga peradilan pembuktiannya bersifat terbuka. Proses pemeriksaan dalam hal pembuktian, di Basyarnas lebih ditekankan kepada saksi dan ahli saja. Dalamp Putusannya, BASYARNAS menyatakan bahwa akad murabahah nomor 53 tanggal 23 februari 2003 mengandung unsur riba dan gharar sehinga akad tersebut dibatalkan, dan PT. bank X dinyatakan wanprestasi.

---

The growth of Islamic economic system is indicated by the birth of financial practices using the principle of Islamic law, such as the Islamic Bank, where one of the business activities of Islamic banks is murabaha financing. Each financing murabaha is always preceded by a contract or agreement made between the Bank and the customer. Kalusul-contained in the contract clause relating to the financing murabaha, including the choice of dispute resolution in the event of a dispute between the bank and its customers. Disputes in Islamic banking is possible to be settled through the National Sharia Arbitration Board (BASYARNAS).

The main problem in this research is How the settlement of disputes through the Arbitration Board of the National Sharia (BASYARNAS)? And How BASYARNAS verdict in the case of PT. X with Y customers in accordance with laws and regulations.

This research analyzed using analytical prescriptive normative juridical approach. From the research we concluded that the settlement of disputes through BASYARNAS not nearly the same as the proceedings in the court, there are differences in the systems of proof, where proof in Basyarnas are closed, while the proof of evidence in judicial institutions are open. The inspection process in terms of proof, in Basyarnas more emphasis to the witnesses and experts alone. DalampPutusannya, BASYARNAS stated that murabahah number 53 dated 23 February 2003 contain elements of usury and gharar so that the contract is canceled, and PT. bank X is declared in default."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas mengenai penggunaan logistik pihak ketiga (3PL) pada perusahaan agrokimia yang ada di Indonesia. Fokus bahasan dari penelitian ini antara lain adalah jenis layanan 3PL yang dipilih oleh perusahaan agrokimia, kriteria pemilihan 3PL yang digunakan perusahaan, proses pemilihan 3PL, peranan perusahaan 3PL, dan bagaimana 3PL mempengaruhi kinerja rantai pasokan perusahaan. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui hasil analisis dari perspektif perusahaan agrokimia bagaimana 3PL dapat memenuhi kebutuhan perusahaan dengan baik. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode triangulasi yang menggabungkan metode kuantitatif dan metode kualitatif. Hasil utama dari penelitian ini adalah : (1) jenis layanan 3PL yang paling banyak digunakan di perusahaan agrokimia adalah domestic transportation dan freight forwarding, (2) kriteria 3PL yang banyak digunakan perusahaan agrokmia adalah experience, dan document accuracy, (3) peranan perusahaan 3PL bagi perusahaan adalah perusahaan 3PL dapat mengurangi biaya logistik perusahaan, dan (4) hasil pencapaian kinerja rantai pasokan yang sudah berhasil dicapai perusahaan adalah COGS, total supply chain management costs, dan cash-to-cash cycle time. Saran yang dapat diajukan dari penelitian ini adalah bagi perusahaan 3PL untuk meningkatkan pelayanan mereka dan fokus terhadap layanan yang digunakan perusahaan.

---

ABSTRACTThis paper discussed about Third Party Logistic in Indonesian Agrochemical Company. Focus of this research are to know which 3PL services that Agrochemical Company?s needs, 3PL selection criteria that Agrochemical Company used, 3PL selection process, the role of 3PL company, and how 3PL can affect supply chain performance in Agrochemical Indonesia. The purpose of this research is to analyse from the Agrochemical Company?s perspective, how 3PL providers could meet theirs need better. This research used triangulation as methodology that combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The main findings from this research are : (1) the most 3PL services that Agrochemical Company used are domestic transportation and freight forwarding, (2) the most 3PL selection criteria that Agrochemical Company used are experience and document accuracy, (3) the role of 3PL company for Agrochemical Company is they helped to reduce logistics costs, and (4) the result of supply chain performance that Agrochemical Company success to achieve are COGS, total supply chain management costs, and cash-to-cash cycle time. The advice that can be submitted, in order for 3PL company is they have to evaluation and improve their services, and they should focus in 3PL services that commonly used by Agrochemical Company."

"Jika konflik tidak dikelola dengan baik, mereka dengan cepat berubah menjadi sengketa. Salah satu lembaga badan arbitrase untuk penyelesaian sengketa konstruksi di Indonesia adalah Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia BANI. Penelitian ini menunjukan proses arbitrase pada proyek konstruksi dan faktor-faktor risiko yang mempengaruhi waktu penyelesaian sengketa konstruksi dalam proses arbitrase di Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia BANI. Penelitian dilakukan dengan wawancara terstruktur dan survei untuk mengumpulkan data. Selanjutnya dilakukan analisa statistik dan analisa risiko kualitatif. Terdapat 3 tiga proses yang memiliki risiko dominan dalam arbitrase yaitu putusan, pemeriksaan, dan permohonan arbitrase yang dilakukan respon untuk mengurangi waktu yang dibutuhkan dalam penyelesaian sengketa melalui arbitrase.

---

If conflicts are not managed properly, they quickly turn into disputes. One of the institutions of the arbitration institutional for the settlement of construction disputes in Indonesia is the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration BANI. This study shows the arbitration process on construction projects and risk factors that are in the process of arbitration at the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration BANI. The study was conducted with structured interviews and surveys to collect data. Furthermore, statistical analysis and qualitative risk analysis. There are 3 three processes that have the dominant criteria in arbitration, namely award, examinations, and arbitration appeals made to reduce the time required in arbitration dispute settlement."

"[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.]"

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh kepemilikan pada perusahaan perbankan di Indonesia terhadap kemampuan bank dalam menghimpun dana pihak ketiga (DPK) melalui rezim sistem Penjaminan Terbatas pada periode 2006-2012 dengan menggunakan 70 sampel bank umum konvensional di Indonesia. Indonesia. Dalam penelitian ini ditemukan adanya pengaruh positif antara kepemilikan negara dengan jumlah dana pihak ketiga (DPK). Selain itu, ditemukan bahwa perusahaan bank milik negara dapat meningkatkan jumlah dana pihak ketiga (DPK) dalam rezim sistem penjaminan terbatas yang berlaku di Indonesia. Peningkatan ini terbukti lebih kuat ketika jumlah simpanan yang dijamin sebesar Rp 2 miliar dibandingkan Rp 100 juta pada tahun 2006-2012.ABSTRACTThis study aims to determine the effect of ownership in banking companies in Indonesia on the ability of banks to collect third party funds (TPF) through the Limited Guarantee system regime in the period 2006-2012 using 70 samples of conventional commercial banks in Indonesia. Indonesia. In this study, it was found that there was a positive influence between state ownership and the amount of third party funds (DPK). In addition, it was found that state-owned bank companies could increase the amount of third party funds (DPK) under the limited guarantee system regime in effect in Indonesia. This increase proved to be stronger when the amount of guaranteed deposits was Rp. 2 billion compared to Rp. 100 million in 2006-2012."

"Kepastian hukum dalam upaya penyelesaian sengketa merupakan faktor terpenting dalam terciptanya perlindungan konsumen. Awal pergerakan perlindungan konsumen di dunia salah satunya berkaitan dengan adanya revolusi industri yang mengubah kedudukan konsumen dan pelaku usaha, perkembangan industrialisasi dan globalisasi yang terjadi di Amerika Serikat dan Eropa yang dalam menyelesaikan penyelesaian sengketa dilakukan dengan sengketa alternatif. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini dimulai dari bagaimana perbandingan proses penyelesaian sengketa konsumen di Amerika Serikat dan di Indonesia dan bagaimana proses penyelesaian sengketa konsumen melalui penyelesaian sengketa alternatif di Indonesia dilaksanakan untuk memperoleh kepastian hukum bagi konsumen di Indonesia. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian doktrinal yang menggunakan pendekatan komparatif. Hasil dalam penelitian ini adalah Perbandingan penyelesaian sengketa konsumen di Amerika Serikat dan di Indonesia, dalam hal penyelesaian sengketa melalui sengketa alternatif, baik di amerika dan di Indonesia tidak ditemukan perbedaan yang mendasar yang mengkhususkan terhadap konflik antara konsumen dan pelaku usaha. Di Indonesia khususnya penyelesaian sengketa konsumen melalui alternatif dilaksanakan oleh BPSK sebagai lembaga penyelesaian sengketa alternatif di luar pengadilan diberikan kewenangan yudikatif untuk menyelesaikan sengketa konsumen berskala kecil dan bersifat sederhana. Secara kelembagaan BPSK dibentuk berdasarkan adopsi dari model small claim tribunal, seperti yang ada di Amerika Serikat namun pada akhirnya pembentukan BPSK didesain dengan memadukan kedua model small claim tribunal diadaptasikan dengan model pengadilan dan model penyelesaian sengketa alternatif (alternative dispute resolution-ADR) yang menggunakan ciri khas penyelesaian sengketa alternatif khas Indonesia. Namun pada pelaksanaannya keputusan BPSK belum dapat mewujudkan kepastian hukum pada Pasal 54 ayat (3) Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen yang berbunyi “Putusan Majelis bersifat final dan mengikat”, yakni dengan menambahkan ketentuan bahwa Putusan BPSK wajib memuat irah-irah “Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa”, dan lain sebagainya

---

Legal certainty regarding dispute resolution is the most important factor in the creation of consumer protection. One of the early movements of consumer protection in the world was related to the industrial revolution which changed the position of consumers and business actors, the development of industrialization and globalization that occurred in the United States and Europe which in resolving dispute resolution carried out with alternative dispute. The problem in this research starts with how the consumer dispute resolution process in the United States and Indonesia compares and how the consumer dispute resolution process in Indonesia is implemented to obtain legal certainty for consumers in Indonesia. The research method used in this research is doctrinal research that uses a comparative approach. The results in this study are a comparison of consumer dispute resolution in the United States and in Indonesia, in terms of dispute resolution through the courts, both in America and Indonesia there are no fundamental differences that specialize in conflicts between consumers and business actors. In Indonesia, especially through alternative consumer dispute resolution implemented by BPSK as an alternative dispute resolution institution outside the court, it is given judicial authority to resolve small-scale and simple consumer disputes. Institutionally BPSK was formed based on the adoption of the small claim tribunal model, as in the United States but in the end the formation of BPSK was designed by combining the two small claim tribunal models adapted to the court model and the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) model which uses typical Indonesian alternative dispute resolution characteristics specifically in relation to the law assurance, Article 54, paragraph (3) of Law on Consumer Protection that reads “The decision of Assembly shall be final and binding”, and adding the provision that the decision of BPSK shall contain the heading “For the sake of Justice under the One Almighty God”, and others."