Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

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

---

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

"Perjanjian Investasi Internasional terdiri dari Perjanjian Multilateral dan Bilateral. Perjanjian ini ditandatangani sebagai alat untuk memberikan jaminan perlindungan terhadap investor asing dan investasinya. Skripsi ini membahas dampak hukum bagi Indonesia dari keberadaan klausa penyelesaian sengketa penanam modal asing dan negara yang teracantum dalam Perjanjian Investasi Bilateral. Skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yuridis dan descriptive analysis sebagai bentuk penelitian. Skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa dampak hukum dari keberadaan pasal tersebut adalah dimana Indonesia telah melepaskan sebagian dari kedaulatannya sehingga penanam modal asing dapat menggugat negara dihadapan Arbitrase Internasional secara langsung. Hal ini berdampak pula pada berkurangnya kekuasaan negara dalam menerapkan peraturan untuk kepentingan publik. Lebih jauh, Skripsi ini menyimpulkan bahwa formulasi dari klausa tersebut tidak memberikan perlindungan terhadap Indonesia.

---

International Investment Agreement consists of Multilateral and Bilateral Investment Treaties. These treaties signed as instrument providing greater assurance for foreign investment and his investment. This thesis discusses the legal impacts of the investor-state dispute settlement clause stipulated in the Bilateral Investment Treaties for Indonesia and the legal protection for Indonesia by the existence of such clause. This thesis employs the juridical normative research methodology and uses descriptive analysis as type of research. The thesis concludes the legal impact is that since Indonesia has waived part of its sovereignty in the investor-state dispute settlement clause, foreign investor, hence, can have direct recourse against Indonesia in international arbitration. It curtails the sovereign power of the host state in enacting regulation for the public purpose, especially for matter related investment. Further, this thesis concludes that the formulation of the clause does not provide protection for Indonesia."

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

---

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

"Dengan adanya tujuan untuk menegaskan kembali komitmen untuk membentuk rezim perdagangan internasional yang liberal, fasilitatif, kompetitif serta dapat berkontribusi pada pertumbuhan dan pembangunan ekonomi global, negara-negara anggota ASEAN bersama dengan Selandia Baru, Australia, China, Jepang dan Korea Selatan menandatangani perjanjian Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) pada tanggal 15 November 2019 secara virtual pada Konferensi Tingkat Tinggi ASEAN ke-36 yang diselenggarakan di Vietnam. Bersama dengan negara Filipina yang telah resmi bergabung menjadi anggota dan meratifikasi perjanjian RCEP pada tanggal 21 Februari 2023 lalu, perjanjian yang memuat pengaturan mengenai pengurangan pajak tarif kepabeanan ini diharapkan dapat merealisasikan intensi utamanya dalam mengurangi hambatan kegiatan transaksi perdagangan internasional. Keberhasilan eksistensi dari RCEP sangatlah berpangkal pada rincian substansi perjanjian yang ekstensif maupun fasilitatif dan aturan penyelesaian sengketa yang akan ditemui. Sedangkan berbeda dengan perjanjian perdagangan bebas multilateral pada umumnya, RCEP tidak memuat mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa antara investor dengan negara tujuan investasi (host country). Sebagai perjanjian yang mencakup seperempat dari Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) dunia, pengaturan mengenai investasi asing menjadi penting dan perlu diperhatikan.

---

With the sole purpose as to reaffirm their commitment to form a liberal, facilitative, and competitive international trade regime that can furthermore contribute in the interest of global economic growth and development, ASEAN member countries along with New Zealand, Australia, China, Japan and South Korea through its delegates signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement on November 1th 2019 virtually at the 36th ASEAN Summit hosted by Vietnam. Together with the Philippines which has officially joined as a member and ratified the RCEP agreement that covers provisions concerning the reduction of customs tax rates on February 21st 2023, RCEP is expected to achieve its main objective in reducing barriers to international trade. The default of the existence of RCEP is very much based on the details of the substance of the provisions in terms to provide an extensive and facilitative substance of the agreement, as well as the dispute resolution mechanism that will be encountered in the future. Whereas, in contrast to multilateral free trade agreements in general, RCEP does not include a dispute resolution mechanism between investors and host country. As an agreement that covers a quarter of the world’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), regulations regarding foreign investment are essential and need to be paid attention to."

"Indonesia telah menyampaikan kekhawatirannya terhadap mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa investor dengan negara (Investor State Disputes Settlement atau ISDS), yang dinilai merugikan. Indonesia meninjau dan tidak memperpanjang beberapa Perjanjian Perlindungan Penanaman Modal (P4M) untuk menegosiasikan perjanjian baru yang lebih sesuai. Gugatan balik oleh negara dapat menyeimbangkan posisi dalam ISDS yang tidak simetris. ICSID dan UNCITRAL telah mengatur mekanisme gugatan balik, tetapi kasusnya masih jarang. Banyak gugatan balik ditolak karena tidak memenuhi persyaratan kesepakatan kedua pihak dan keterkaitan dengan klaim utama. Di Indonesia, dua kasus penting terkait gugatan balik adalah Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia dan Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia. Majelis arbitrase mengakui yurisdiksi Indonesia untuk mengajukan gugatan balik tetapi menolak gugatan karena gagal dalam substansi. Indonesia dapat menggunakan gugatan balik untuk mengurangi risiko dan biaya ISDS serta memastikan kepatuhan investor terhadap peraturan. Implementasi gugatan balik di Indonesia masih terbatas dan memerlukan reformasi. Meskipun banyak perjanjian investasi memungkinkan gugatan balik, keberhasilannya bergantung pada substansi dan landasan hukum yang kuat. Reformasi ISDS di Indonesia dapat memasukkan mekanisme gugatan balik untuk mencapai keseimbangan antara hak dan kewajiban negara dan investor asing.

---

Indonesia has expressed its concerns about the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which is considered disadvantageous. Indonesia has reviewed and decided not to renew several Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) to negotiate new agreements that are more suitable. Counterclaims by the state can balance the asymmetrical positions within ISDS. ICSID and UNCITRAL have established counterclaim mechanisms, but such cases are still rare. Many counterclaims are rejected because they do not meet the agreement requirements of both parties and the connection with the main claim. In Indonesia, two significant cases related to counterclaims are Amco Asia Corporation and others v. Republic of Indonesia and Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia. The arbitration tribunal recognized Indonesia's jurisdiction to file counterclaims but rejected them due to lack of substance. Indonesia can use counterclaims to reduce the risks and costs of ISDS and ensure investor compliance with regulations. The implementation of counterclaims in Indonesia is still limited and requires reform. Although many investment treaties allow for counterclaims, their success depends on strong substantive and legal foundations. ISDS reform in Indonesia can include counterclaim mechanisms to achieve a balance between the rights and obligations of the state and foreign investors."

"Penulisan ini membahas pengaturan Denial of Benefits dalam perjanjian investasi bilateral dan penerapannya dalam sengketa-sengketa arbitrase internasional. Klausul Denial of Benefits merupakan klausul yang memperbolehkan host state untuk tidak memberikan perlindungan dan keuntungan lainnya kepada investor asing dengan persyaratan sebagaimana diatur dalam perjanjian investasi. Klausul ini telah digunakan oleh berbagai lembaga arbitrase untuk menerima ataupun menolak sengketa investasi yang diajukan kepadanya. Untuk menganalisis permasalahan ini, digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisis yuridisnormatif. Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan perkembangan penerapan klausul Denial of Benefits dalam menentukan yurisdiksi International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) dan Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).

---

This writing discusses the Denial of Benefits clause under bilateral investment treaty and its application in international arbitration disputes. Denial of Benefits clause allows Host State to deny the treaty protection to foreign investors with certain conditions set forth in the investment treaty. This clause has been used by international arbitration tribunals to accept or reject investment disputes submitted to them. Legal normative study and normative-juridical analysis are used to analyse this issue. The result of this study shows the evolution of the use of Denial of Benefits clause in determining jurisdiction of international arbitration tribunal International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)."

"Investor-state dispute settlement adalah ketentuan yang umum terdapat di P4M. Ketentuan tersebut bertujuan untuk memberikan perlindungan kegiatan investasi asing di negara penerima investasi. Ketentuan tersebut juga terdapat di ACIA dan lebih dari satu P4M bilateral yang berlaku di ASEAN. Banyaknya P4M yang berlaku tersebut mengakibatkan banyaknya ketentuan investor-state dispute settlement yang berlaku pula di ASEAN karena tidak seragamnya ketentuan investor-state dispute settlement di setiap P4M. Adanya perbedaan ketentuan tersebut dapat dimanfaatkan oleh investor asing untuk mencari keuntungan dari suatu P4M bagi kegiatan investasi yang dilakukan di negara ASEAN lainnya. Keuntungan tersebut dapat diraih dengan cara treaty shopping dan forum shopping.

---

Investor-state dispute settlement is a common provision in a BIT. The provision is intended to provide protection of foreign investment activity in the host state. The provision could also be found in ACIA and more than one BIT in ASEAN. Those investment agreements resulted many investor-state dispute settlement are in force in the ASEAN because there is no uniform provision of the investor-state dispute settlement in each of those agrements. The difference in those provisions could be used by foreign investors to get benefits from a BIT or ACIA for their investment activities in other ASEAN countries. The benefits could be achieved by treaty shopping and forum shopping."

"[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.]"

"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."