Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Security for Costs merupakan suatu fenomena hukum yang berkembang dalam penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara, yang dapat dipahami sebagai suatu bentuk tindakan sementara untuk investor asing memberikan jaminan mengenai pembayaran biaya yang dimintakan oleh negara tuan rumah dalam melakukan pembelaan atas gugatan yang diajukan oleh investor asing. Tesis ini menganalisis, pertama, alasan pentingnya pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional bagi Indonesia berdasarkan praktik permohonan security for costs dalam sengketa García Armas v. Venezuela yang diselesaikan menggunakan aturan arbitrase ICSID dan Herzig v. Turkmenistan yang menggunakan aturan arbitrase UNCITRAL, dan kedua, pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional yang dapat melindungi kepentingan Indonesia berdasarkan perkembangan pengaturan security for costs dalam aturan arbitrase ICSID dan aturan arbitrase UNCTIRAL, dalam undang-undang tentang arbitrase yang berlaku di Inggris dan Indonesia, serta contoh-contoh dalam perjanjian investasi internasional yang disepakati pada masa proses reformasi penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara. Penelitian tesis ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menganalisis penerapan security for costs berdasarkan aturan arbitrase dalam putusan-putusan arbitrase investasi, dan dalam perjanjian investasi internasional. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah, pertama, pengaturan security for costs dalam perjanjian investasi internasional dapat menyeimbangkan kepentingan investor asing dan negara tuan rumah, menghindari kemungkinan eksploitasi mendapatkan keuntungan yang dilakukan oleh investor asing, dan untuk menjaga integritas prosedural penyelesaian sengketa investor-negara. Kedua, Indonesia dapat menerapkan pengaturan security for costs yang telah ada dalam perjanjian investasi internasional mengenai kewenangan majelis arbitrase, syarat-syarat, mekanisme, dan akibat hukum dari perintah security for costs.

---

Security for Costs has been an emerging legal phenomenon in investor-state dispute settlement, which can be defined as a form of provisional or interim measure for a foreign investor to provide security for the payment of costs requested by the host state in defending a claim brought by the foreign investor. This research discusses, first, the importance of the privision of security for costs in international investment agreements for Indonesia based on the practice of the application of security for costs in the García Armas v. Venezuela dispute which was resolved under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and Herzig v. Turkmenistan dispute which was resolved under the ICSID Arbitration Rules, and second, discusses the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements that may protect Indonesia based on the development of the provision of security for costs in ICSID Arbitration Rules and UNCTIRAL Arbitration Rules, in the laws on arbitration in the United Kingdom and Indonesia, and examples in international investment agreements signed during the investor-state dispute settlement reform process. This research is a normative legal research by examining the application of security for costs under arbitration rules in investment arbitration awards, and in international investment agreements. The findings of this research are, first, the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements may balance the interests of foreign investors and host countries, may avoid the possibility of profit exploitation by foreign investors, and may maintain the procedural integrity of investor-state dispute settlement. Second, Indonesia may apply the provision of security for costs in international investment agreements based on the existing provision of security for costs on the authority of the arbitral tribunal, the requirements, the mechanism, and the legal consequences of the security for costs order."

"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."

"Hukum investasi internasional mencatat bahwa pemegang saham dari perseroan penanaman modal asing telah mengajukan gugatan shareholder reflective loss (“gugatan SRL”) terhadap negara tuan rumah, yakni gugatan atas tindakan negara tuan rumah yang merugikan perseroan tersebut yang seringkali menyebabkan timbulnya gugatan berganda (multiple claims). Penelitian ini menjelaskan tiga hal yaitu alasan-alasan perlunya pengaturan gugatan SRL dalam perjanjian investasi internasional; hal-hal yang menentukan diterima atau ditolaknya gugatan SRL oleh majelis arbitrase internasional; serta pengaturan gugatan SRL yang meminimalisir risiko gugatan berganda terhadap Indonesia sebagai negara tuan rumah. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan dan kasus dalam meninjau pengaturan gugatan SRL pada ketentuan perjanjian investasi internasional. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat setidaknya tiga alasan gugatan SRL perlu diatur. Ketiga alasan tersebut adalah untuk mengurangi praktik treaty shopping, meminimalisir gugatan berganda dan menghindari terjadinya pemulihan kerugian berganda oleh pemegang saham perseroan penamaman modal asing. Selain itu, penelitian juga menyimpulkan bahwa gugatan SRL diterima oleh majelis arbitrase karena tidak adanya pengaturan mengenai gugatan SRL pada perjanjian investasi internasional dan ditolak karena sempitnya definisi investor dan investasi dan batasan ruang lingkup berlaku pada perjanjian investasi internasional. Terakhir, penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa untuk mengurangi gugatan SRL terhadap Indonesia sebagai negara tuan rumah, diperlukan adanya pengaturan lain seperti rezim gugatan SRL khusus, ketentuan definisi investor dan investasi, ketentuan denial of benefits, ketentuan pengeyampingan, dan ketentuan konsolidasi dan daluwarsa dalam perjanjian investasi internasional. Hal ini karena aturan gugatan SRL yang dapat melindungi negara tuan rumah tidak dapat berdiri sendiri tetapi harus dikaitkan dengan ketentuan lain.

---

International investment law has witnessed that shareholders of foreign investment companies have submitted shareholder reflective loss claims (“SRL claims”) against host States, namely claims challenging the host State’s measure that has injured the company which often result in multiple claims. This study explains three issues, namely the reasons for the regulation of SRL claims in international investment agreements; the factors that determine arbitral tribunals’ acceptance and rejection of SRL claims; and the appropriate regulation of SRL claims that can minimalize the risk of multiple claims against Indonesia as a host State. This study uses judicial normative method and statutory and case-based approach in evaluating the regulation of SRL claims in international investment agreements. The results of the study conclude that there are at least three reasons for the regulation of SRL claims. These three reasons include reducing treaty shopping, minimizing multiple claims and avoiding the occurrence of double recovery by shareholders of the foreign investment company. Apart from this, this study also concludes that arbitral tribunals accept SRL claims due to the lack of regulation on SRL claims and reject SRL claims based on the narrow definition of investors, investments and the scope of the international investment agreement. Lastly, this study concludes that to minimize multiple claims against Indonesia as a host State, there is the need for other provisions such as a special SRL claim regime, investor and investment definition provision, denial of benefits provision, waiver provision, consolidation and statute of limitations provision in international investment agreements. This is because SRL claims cannot be regulated independently, but rather need to be linked to other provisions. "

"Dalam proses arbitrase investasi internasional antara suatu investor asing dan pihak negara, terdapat perjanjian investasi internasional yang mengatur persyaratan-persyaratan yang wajib dipenuhi sebelum proses arbitrase dapat dimulai. Persyaratan-persyaratan ini tidak sama untuk setiap perjanjian investasi internasional. Namun, setiap perjanjian investasi internasional pasti mengandung persyaratan ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, dan ratione voluntatis. Persyaratan-persyaratan ini menunjukkan apa saja yang perlu dipenuhi investor asing sebelum dapat mengajukan sengketanya kepada proses arbitrase. Ratione voluntatis sendiri merupakan persyaratan mengenai persetujuan negara yang dibagi menjadi Cooling-off period dan Exhaustion of Local Remedies. Cooling-off period merupakan persyaratan yang mengatur bahwa suatu investor asing perlu melakukan negosiasi untuk mendapatkan penyelesaian sengketa yang saling menguntungkan terlebih dahulu selama jangka waktu yang ditentukan sebelum investor asing tersebut dapat mengajukan sengketanya untuk diselesaikan melalui arbitrase. Exhaustion of Local Remedies merupakan persyaratan yang mengatur bahwa suatu investor asing perlu mengajukan gugatannya terlebih dahulu kepada pengadilan negeri negara tersebut selama waktu yang ditentukan sebelum investor asing tersebut dapat mengajukan sengketanya untuk diselesaikan melalui arbitrase. Dalam tujuh kasus arbitrase investasi internasional yang telah dilewati Indonesia, semua perjanjian investasi internasional yang berlaku mengandung klausul Cooling-off period sebagai bentuk ratione voluntatis yang ditentukan dalam perjanjian investasi internasional tersebut. Namun, pada tujuh kasus tersebut tidak ada satupun pembahasan mengenai Cooling-off period dikarenakan isu tersebut tidak diajukan oleh Indonesia sebagai keberatan terhadap yurisdiksi majelis arbiter. Dalam tujuh kasus tersebut, hanya satu yang memberikan fakta bahwa investor asing yang mengajukan gugatan telah mencoba melakukan negosiasi dengan pihak negara. Tidak adanya fakta bahwa investor asing mencoba menyelesaikan sengketa melalui negosiasi berarti bahwa persyaratan Cooling-off period tidak dipenuhi oleh investor asing sebelum mengajukan sengketa yang sedang dialami pada arbitrase. Penulis berharap bahwa skripsi ini dapat memberikan pemahaman yang merinci mengenai klausul Cooling-off period beserta penerapan dan dampak dari klausul tersebut pada yurisdiksi majelis arbiter pada arbitrase investasi internasional. Metode penelitian yang akan digunakan pada penulisan skripsi ini adalah dengan metode doktrinal, yakni yaitu penelitian yang difokuskan untuk mengkaji penerapan kaidah-kaidah atau norma-norma dalam hukum positif.

---

In international investment arbitration proceedings between a foreign investor and a state party, there is an international investment agreement that sets out the requirements that must be met before arbitration proceedings can commence. These requirements are not the same for every international investment agreement. However, every international investment agreement must contain the requirement of ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis, and ratione voluntatis. These requirements indicate what a foreign investor needs to fulfil before it can submit its dispute to arbitration proceedings. Ratione voluntatis is a requirement regarding state consent which is divided into the requirement of a Cooling-off period and an Exhaustion of Local Remedies. Cooling-off period is a requirement in which a foreign investor needs to negotiate for amicable resolutions for a specified period of time before it can submit its dispute for resolution through arbitration. Exhaustion of Local Remedies is a requirement in which a foreign investor needs to first file its claim with the country's domestic courts for a specified amount of time before the foreign investor can submit its dispute for resolution through arbitration. In the seven international investment arbitration cases that Indonesia has experienced, all the applicable international investment agreements contain Cooling-off period clauses as a form of ratione voluntatis that is adopted. However, in none of the seven cases was the Cooling-off period discussed as the issue was not raised by Indonesia as a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. In the seven cases, only one provided the fact that the foreign investor who filed the arbitration proceedings had tried to negotiate with the state party. The absence of the fact that the foreign investor tried to resolve the dispute through negotiation means that the Cooling-off period requirement was not met by the foreign investor before submitting the dispute to arbitration. The author hopes that this thesis can provide a detailed understanding of the Cooling-off period clause and the application and impact of the clause on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in international investment arbitration. The research method that will be used in writing this thesis is the doctrinal method, which is research focused on examining the application of rules or norms in positive law."

"Asimetri hubungan (hak dan kewajiban) antara host country dengan investor asing dalam perjanjian investasi internasional terus mengkhawatirkan host country, terutama dalam hal kedaulatan dan keamanan nasionalnya. Negara-negara semakin sadar atas keperluan untuk mengambil langkah strategis melalui penyertaan ketentuan perjanjian investasi internasional yang ditujukan secara khusus demi menjamin perlindungan hak fundamentalnya tersebut. Penelitian (tesis) ini mengeksplorasi lebih lanjut tentang hubungan ketentuan pengecualian keamanan dengan necessity dan state immunity yang akan mengarah pada pemahaman yang lebih baik dalam merumuskan klausul yang melindungi keamanan nasional tanpa melanggar perjanjian investasi internasional ataupun hukum kebiasaan internasional. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum dokrinal dengan objek hukum yang dikonsepkan sebagai kaidah perundang-undangan berdasarkan doktrin aliran positivisme (yuridis normative). Penelitian ini mempertanyakan bagaimana penerapan perlindungan keamanan nasional host country dalam perjanjian investasi internasional. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk memahami dan merumuskan strategi formulasi penyusunan model perjanjian investasi internasional ideal dan kebijakan hukum yang sesuai dengan keamanan nasional tanpa melanggar hukum internasional.

---

The asymmetry of host-countries and foreign investors’s relationship (rights and obligations) in the International Investment Agreements (IIAs) continues to distress host-countries, particularly in terms of its sovereignty and national security. Host-countries are increasingly aware of the need to take strategic steps through the inclusion of IIAs provisions which are specifically aimed at ensuring the protection of these fundamental rights. This research (thesis) further explores the relationship between the provision of security exceptions with necessity and state immunity which will lead to a better understanding in formulating clauses that protect national security without violating IIAs obligations or customary international law. This research is a doctrinal law research with a legal object that is conceptualized as a rule of law based on the doctrine of positivism (normative juridical). This study questions how the implementation of host country national security protection in IIAs. The purpose of this research is to understand and create strategies for formulating ideal IIAs models and legal policies that are compatible and consistent with national security without violating international law."

"[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 mengacu pada studi kasus sengketa impor hortikultura, hewan, danproduk hewan antara Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia di WTO. Sengketa iniberawal dari sikap keberatan AS terhadap kebijakan prosedur impor Indonesiayang didasari oleh perangkat hukum Indonesia berupa Undang-undang danPeraturan Menteri. Atas dasar acuan itu berimplikasi pada penerapan prosedurimpor yang baru dan dianggap oleh AS sebagai rezim perizinan impor tidaklangsung atau Non-Automatic Import Licensing menyalahi ketentuan-ketentuanWTO. AS telah mengajukan permohonan kosultasi dengan Indonesia ke WTOdan telah dilangsungkan konsultasi tersebut dimana tidak dapat diraih kesepakatanbersama terkait Sengketa Impor Hortkultura, Hewan dan Produk Hewan. Olehkarena itu AS mengajukan permohonan pembentukan Panel dan hingga saat inikasus tersebut masih dalam proses Panel. Dari hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkanbahwa pada dasarnya setiap negara baik AS maupun Indonesia memilikikepentingan nasional masing-masing yang diperjuangkan. Kepentingan nasionalAS ini sangat terlihat ketika AS berusaha menyimpulkan suatu ketentuan yangbersifat spesifik untuk dikorelasikan ke ketentuan yang bersifat umum. Melaluipenelitian ini penulis mencoba untuk menganalisa permasalahan dan menemukanupaya yang dapat diambil oleh pemerintah guna menghadapi tuntutan AS tersebut

---

ABSTRACTThe research‘s objective based on its case of study The Dispute of Importation ofHorticulture, Animal, and Animal Product Between United States and Indonesiain WTO. These research shows the explanation of Indonesia‘s interest and stepsthat might be used by the government in facing US complaint whose questioningIndonesia‘s transparency and by making an accusation related to the practice nonautomaticimport licese regime based on its law and regulations.US complaintderive from United States of Trade Representative that Indonesia weren‘ttransparent in practicing the import regulation. By implemeting those regulation,Indonesia have made a fallacies against the provision of WTO.As the conclussionof this research that naturally both US and Indonesia has it own national interestwhich suppose to be fight for.As in these case, US claimed that this barrier isagainst their national interest and they feel legitimate to propose it to WTO whichnow is in Panel Process. US national interest is clearly described when the USbegan to generate a specific provision in order to find its corelation as beingstrated in general provission.By doing this research, the author try to analyze theissues and finding the proper step that might be use by the government."

"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."