[
ABSTRAKSkripsi ini dilatarbelakangi oleh permasalahan karena adanya stabilization clause
di dalam kontrak-kontrak investasi asing yang dapat berpengaruh negatif terhadap
perkembangan Hak Asasi Manusia. Hal ini terjadi karena stabilization clause
membatasi kemampuan negara untuk memberlakukan hukum baru terhadap
investasi sebagai suatu bentuk pemberian kepastian hukum kepada investor asing.
Permasalahan menjadi kian kompleks karena stabilization clause juga membatasi
ruang negara untuk memberlakukan hukum baru mengenai Hak Asasi Manusia.
Akibatnya, terjadi konflik antara kewajiban negara menuruti kontrak investasi dan
kewajiban internasional negara atas Hak Asasi Manusia. Pembahasan
permasalahan ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisis
yuridis-normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah menjelaskan adanya stabilization
clause dalam kontrak investasi untuk melindungi investor asing dari tindakantindakan
sepihak negara yang dapat merugikan investasi asing. Selain itu, terdapat
dampak negatif yang dapat ditimbulkan oleh stabilization clause dalam kontrak
investasi terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia. Kasus BTC Pipeline dan Kasus Mittal
Steel menunjukkan bahwa stabilization clause yang menghambat hak legislatif
negara mengenai HAM akan berdampak negatif terhadap perkembangan HAM
serta berpotensi memunculkan pelanggaran-pelanggaran HAM di negara tersebut.
ABSTRACTThis thesis is motivated by the problematique usage of stabilization clauses in
foreign investment contracts which may have possible negative impacts to the
development of Human Rights. This occurs as stabilization clauses aim to limit a
state?s capability to enact new laws and regulation to the investment. Stabilization
clauses are tools for a state to create legal certainty to the investment. The
situation became more complex when a stabilization clause also limits the state?s
rights to enact new laws and regulations regarding Human Rights. As a
consequence, a conflict arises between a state?s contractual duty and its
international human rights obligation. This thesis uses normative legal research
and juridical-normative analysis to address the issue. The outcome of this study is
to point out that the existance of stabilization clauses were to protect foreign
investors from a state?s unilateral action which may harm the investment.
Additionally, there is a possible negative impact which stabilization clauses may
cause to Human Rights. Both the BTC Pipeline case and Mitall Steel case indicate
that stabilization clauses which limit the state?s legislative rights regarding Human
Rights will cause negative impacts to the state?s Human Rights development and
would potentially result in Human Rights violations.;This thesis is motivated by the problematique usage of stabilization clauses in
foreign investment contracts which may have possible negative impacts to the
development of Human Rights. This occurs as stabilization clauses aim to limit a
state?s capability to enact new laws and regulation to the investment. Stabilization
clauses are tools for a state to create legal certainty to the investment. The
situation became more complex when a stabilization clause also limits the state?s
rights to enact new laws and regulations regarding Human Rights. As a
consequence, a conflict arises between a state?s contractual duty and its
international human rights obligation. This thesis uses normative legal research
and juridical-normative analysis to address the issue. The outcome of this study is
to point out that the existance of stabilization clauses were to protect foreign
investors from a state?s unilateral action which may harm the investment.
Additionally, there is a possible negative impact which stabilization clauses may
cause to Human Rights. Both the BTC Pipeline case and Mitall Steel case indicate
that stabilization clauses which limit the state?s legislative rights regarding Human
Rights will cause negative impacts to the state?s Human Rights development and
would potentially result in Human Rights violations.;This thesis is motivated by the problematique usage of stabilization clauses in
foreign investment contracts which may have possible negative impacts to the
development of Human Rights. This occurs as stabilization clauses aim to limit a
state?s capability to enact new laws and regulation to the investment. Stabilization
clauses are tools for a state to create legal certainty to the investment. The
situation became more complex when a stabilization clause also limits the state?s
rights to enact new laws and regulations regarding Human Rights. As a
consequence, a conflict arises between a state?s contractual duty and its
international human rights obligation. This thesis uses normative legal research
and juridical-normative analysis to address the issue. The outcome of this study is
to point out that the existance of stabilization clauses were to protect foreign
investors from a state?s unilateral action which may harm the investment.
Additionally, there is a possible negative impact which stabilization clauses may
cause to Human Rights. Both the BTC Pipeline case and Mitall Steel case indicate
that stabilization clauses which limit the state?s legislative rights regarding Human
Rights will cause negative impacts to the state?s Human Rights development and
would potentially result in Human Rights violations., This thesis is motivated by the problematique usage of stabilization clauses in
foreign investment contracts which may have possible negative impacts to the
development of Human Rights. This occurs as stabilization clauses aim to limit a
state?s capability to enact new laws and regulation to the investment. Stabilization
clauses are tools for a state to create legal certainty to the investment. The
situation became more complex when a stabilization clause also limits the state?s
rights to enact new laws and regulations regarding Human Rights. As a
consequence, a conflict arises between a state?s contractual duty and its
international human rights obligation. This thesis uses normative legal research
and juridical-normative analysis to address the issue. The outcome of this study is
to point out that the existance of stabilization clauses were to protect foreign
investors from a state?s unilateral action which may harm the investment.
Additionally, there is a possible negative impact which stabilization clauses may
cause to Human Rights. Both the BTC Pipeline case and Mitall Steel case indicate
that stabilization clauses which limit the state?s legislative rights regarding Human
Rights will cause negative impacts to the state?s Human Rights development and
would potentially result in Human Rights violations.]