Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kedudukan Kontrak Karya pasca disahkannya UU Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara, dimana dengan berlakunya UU Minerba tersebut, sistem Kontrak Karya sudah tidak diberlakukan lagi karena sistem perizinan yang diberlakukan untuk berinvestasi pada bidang pertambangan di Indonesia. Dalam UU tersebut terdapat ketentuan bahwa Kontrak karya yang telah disetujui akan tetap berlaku, tetapi perlu penyesuaian. Ketentuan tersebut dinilai kontradiktif oleh beberapa kalangan. Hasil penelitian menyarankan bahwa sebaiknya dibuat peraturan pelaksana agar ketentuan yang menimbulkan pertanyaan dapat dijawab.

---

This thesis discusses about legal standing of Work of Contract after Law Number 4 Year 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining is being authorized, where Work of Contract is no longer applicable for mining investment in Indonesia according to the new regulation which applies license system. It is mentioned later in the regulation that the Work of Contract that have been approved will remain valid, but with necessary adjustment. Thus, the provision is considered contradictory. This research suggests that it is better to make implementation regulation so that provisions which may raise questions can be answered."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral menurut UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 dan peraturan pelaksananya serta sinkronisasinya dengan hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia. Setelah melewati proses renegosiasi, pada akhirnya tercapai kesepakatan antara Pemerintah Republik Indonesia dan PT. Freeport Indonesia yang menentukan bahwa kewajiban divestasi saham PT. Freeport Indonesia adalah sebesar 30%. Dengan menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif, hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport tidak sinkron dengan peraturan yang berlaku pada saat itu yaitu PP No. 24 Tahun 2012, yang mengatur perusahaan asing di bidang pertambangan mineral untuk mendivestasikan sahamnya paling sedikit sebesar 51%. Setelah PP No. 24 Tahun 2012 diubah dengan PP No. 77 Tahun 2014, maka ketentuan kewajiban divestasi saham hasil renegosiasi kontrak karya PT. Freeport Indonesia dengan peraturan perundang-undangan telah sinkron.

---

This thesis examines the provisions regarding share divestment obligation for foreign mineral mining company according to Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations, and the synchronisation with the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia. After going through the process of renegotiation, the Government of Republic of Indonesia and PT. Freeport Indonesia eventually reached an understanding that PT. Freeport Indonesia is obliged to divest 30% of its share.

By using normative juridical research, this study shows that the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia is not in sync with the applicabe regulation i.e. Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 which requires foreign mineral mining company to divest at least 51% of its share. After Government Regulation No. 24 of 2012 is amended by Governement Regulation No. 77 of 2014, the provisions regarding share divestment obligation between the result of contract of work renegotiation of PT. Freeport Indonesia and Law No. 4 of 2009 and its implementing regulations has synchronised."

"Dengan terbitnya Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara (UU No. 4 Tahun 2009) maka Kontrak Karya (KK) dan Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B) dihapuskan dan perlu penyesuaian melalui renegosiasi kontrak. Renegosiasi kontrak tidak mudah dilaksanakan karena banyak perusahaan yang belum sepakat mengenai hal-hal yang harus disesuaikan dengan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. Yang menjadi pertanyaan adalah bagaimanakah sebenarnya status hukum KK? Serta bagaimana upaya hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh Pemerintah apabila pemegang KK tidak melakukan renegosiasi kontrak? Bentuk penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif, jenis Data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini merupakan data sekunder, dapat merupakan bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder, dan bahan hukum tertier. Kesimpulannya adalah bahwa status hukum KK merupakan suatu konsesi, dan bukan perjanjian perdata murni pada umumnya. Perjanjian yang ada pada KK merupakan pelaksanaan hak dan kewajiban. Karena status hukum KK merupakan konsesi, maka pemerintah dapat menempuh beberapa upaya dalam renegosiasi kontrak apabila kontraktor tidak mau melaksanakan renegosiasi. Pertama, dengan jalan melanjutkan renegosiasi kontrak karya. Kedua, penghentian sepihak kontrak yang sudah ada dan kemudian memberikan kompensasi. Ketiga, menasionalisasi secara langsung tanpa adanya renegosiasi kontrak ataupun kompensasi. Keempat, jika renegosiasi tidak dapat berjalan maka Pemerintah Indonesia dapat menggugat ke arbitrase.

---

Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining removed Contract of Work and Work Agreement for Coal Mining Enterprises, but the conditions specified in the contract should be adapt to Law No. 4 of 2009. Adjustment provisions contained in article Contract of Work with the Law No. 4 of 2009 was conducted through contract renegotiation. Contract renegotiation is not easy to do because many contractors are not agree on provisions that should be adapted to Law No. 4 of 2009. The question is how exactly the legal status of Contract of Work? And how the action which can be done by the Government when the contractors will not perform contract renegotiations to adapt to Law No. 4 of 2009? Design of this study is a normative juridical. Data types used in this study is a secondary data, it can be a primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The conclusion is that the status of the Contract of Work is a concession and not purely civil agreement in general. Agreement in contract work is the implementation of rights and obligations. Because the status of the Contract of Work is a concession, the government could lead some action in contract renegotiations when the contractor did not perform renegotiations in order to adapt Law No. 4 of 2009. First, by way of extending the work contract renegotiations. Second, the unilateral termination of the existing contract and then give compensation. Third, direct nationalize without compensation or contract renegotiations. Fourth, if renegotiation can not run the Government of Indonesia can sue contractor to arbitration."

"Di Indonesia, peraturan perundang-undangan dalam bidang pertambangan mineral dan batu bara diawali dengan diberlakukannya Undang-undang 11 tahun 1967 tentang Ketentuan Pokok Pertambangan dengan peraturan pelaksananya yang kemudian telah diubah seluruhnya dengan diberlakukannya Undang-undang No 40 tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara (?UU Minerba?) beserta dengan peraturan pelaksananya sebagai hukum positif dalam melaksanakan kegiatan pertambangan dewasa ini. Dengan adanya suatu peralihan dasar hukum dalam melaksanakan kegiatan pertambangan, kemudian muncullah beberapa permasalahan yang terjadi antara lain mengenai permasalahan bagaimana kedudukan hukum PKP2B setelah diberlakukannya UU Minerba, dan bagaimana keberlakuan UU Minerba tersebut mempengaruhi hubungan kontraktual pemegang PKP2B dengan pihak ketiganya yang mayoritas merupakan pihak investor asing. Dengan menggunakan metode analisis normative untuk menganalisa dan menjawab identifikasi masalah dalam penulisan hukum ini kemudian akan dipaparkan, dan dianalisa secara rinci bahwa UU Minerba pada dasarnya tetap mengakui keberlakuan PKP2B dengan memberikan kewajiban terkait dengan masa peralihan untuk melakukan penyesuaian terhadap seluruh ketentuan di dalam PKP2B maupun isi dan ketentuan kontraktual pemegang PKP2B dan pihak ketiganya yang ingin tetap melakukan kegiatan pertambangan di Indonesia.

---

In Indonesia, the legislation in the field of mineral and coal mining began with the enactment of Law 11 of 1967 concerning the Basic Provisions of Mining and its implementing regulations, which was changed entirely with the enactment of Law No. 40 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining ("Mining Law") and its implementing regulations as the positive law in carrying out mining activities. With the change of regulation in conducting mining activities, some problems occurred relating to the validity of PKP2B after the enactment of the Mining Law and how the enactment of the Mining Law affects the CCOW holder?s contractual relationship with third parties, the majority of which are foreign investors. By using the normative methodology to analyze and answer the issue in this Thesis, it shall be explained and analyzed in details that the Mining Law still recognizes the validity of CCOW by providing the obligation during the transitional period to make adjustments to all the provisions in the CCOW including the contents and contractual provisions of CCOW holders and third parties who want to keep carrying out mining activities in Indonesia."

"[Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 merupakan undang-undang yang dapat dikatakan cukup kontroversial bagi pertambangan mineral logam, karena merubah alur industri pertambangan logam tanah air menjadi tidak hanya mencakup kegiatan pertambangan semata, akan tetapi juga diwajibkan untuk perusahaan-perusahaan pertambangan melakukan kegiatan pengolahan dan pemurnian di dalam negeri dalam kurun waktu hanya 5 (lima) tahun saja. Keterbatasan infrastruktur di daerah-daerah, ketidaktersediaan listrik, serta kompleksnya birokrasi yang melingkupi perluasan bidang usaha lintas sektor antara pertambangan (hulu) dengan pemurnian (hilir) membuat hal tersebut menjadi terlalu sulit diwujudkan, ditambah lagi dengan inkonsistensi Pemerintah yang menetapkan kewajiban divestasi saham bagi Perusahaan Pertambangan Penanaman Modal Asing, dari 20% (dua puluh persen) di tahun 2010, menjadi 51% (lima puluh satu persen) di tahun 2012. Selain kedua hal tersebut, pada tahun ketiga sejak Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 diberlakukan, Pemerintah telah melarang kegiatan ekspor mineral mentah, akan tetapi mencabutnya kembali dan menetapkan ketentuan ekspor dengan tambahan birokrasi yang semakin panjang, sehingga menyebabkan investor pertambangan penanaman modal asing kehilangan waktu dan sulit dalam merealisasikan amanah Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tersebut. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk menampilkan fakta kesulitan-kesulitan yang dialami oleh PT. X selaku perusahaan penanaman modal asing dalam bidang pertambangan mineral nikel oleh karena kebijakan pertambangan yang tidak cukup berimbang.

---

Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.;Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies., Law Number 4 Year 2009 could be considered as a controversy for the metal mineral mining businesses, since it has changed the scheme of domestic metal mineral mining industry to not only contains mining but also obliged the mining companies to conduct mineral smelting and processing domestically within period of only 5 (five) years. The limitation of infrastructure facilities within the counties, unavailability of electrical source, and the complexity of bureaucracies that facilitates such cross borders industrial sectors between the mining (mainstream industries) , and the smelting and processing (downstream industries) has caused such policy too unreasonable to be accomplished, moreover the inconsistency of the Government whom has stipulated the divestment terms for the foreign investing mining company, from 20% (twenty percent) in 2010, and re-stipulated it to became 51% (fifty one) percent within 2012. Apart from those two main issues herein, by the third year since the enactment of Law Number 4 Year 2009, the Government has banned the raw mineral export activities, however revoked such laws and enacted a new regulation of raw mineral export policies with additional/ longer bureaucracy’s mechanism process, therefore it has put the foreign mining investors within difficult circumstances to actualize the mandate of the laws itself. This Thesis intends to display the problematic facts that experienced by PT. X as a foreign investing mining company in nickel mining by the insufficient fairness of mining policies.]"

"ABSTRAKKegiatan usaha pertambangan mineral dan batubara mempunyai peranan penting dalammemberikan nilai tambah secara nyata kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi nasional danpembangunan daerah secara berkelanjutan. Mengingat hal tersebut, pengaturan danpengawasan pemerintah sangat diperlukan khususnya pengaturan kerjasama usaha jasapertambangan agar ada pembatasan dalam pengelolaan dan pengusahaan sumber dayaalam di Indonesia oleh suatu pelaku usaha sehingga tidak merugikan kepentingannegara dan masyarakat luas. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk melihat bagaimana pengaturanPemerintah dalam membatasi kerjasama dalam pelaksanaan usaha jasa pertambangan.Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridisnormatif yang menginventarisasi, mengkaji dan meneliti peraturan perundang-undangandan data sekunder lainnya yang berkaitan dengan materi penelitian. Sifat Penelitian tesisini, bersifat deskriptif analitis. Analisis data yang digunakan adalah dengan metodeanalisis kualitatif. Pengaturan pemerintah dalam pembatasan kerjasama kegiatan usahajasa pertambangan khususnya dalam pengaturan pelaksanaan kegiatan penambangandan keikutsertaan anak perusahaan dan/atau afiliasinya sangat penting dilakukan untukmenghindari adanya transfer of profit, akan tetapi pemerintah sebaiknya perlumemperhatikan adanya perbedaan penjabaran ketentuan dalam UU Minerba danperaturan pelaksananya, serta peningkatan pengawasan di lapangan, sehingga dapattercapai kemandirian dan efektifitas pengusahaan di bidang pertambangan, sertamemberi nilai tambah bagi perekonomian nasional guna mencapai kemakmuran sertakesejahteraan rakyat

---

ABSTRACTBusiness activities of mineral and coal mining significantly has an important role inproviding value-added to national economic growth and development in a sustainabledistrict. Given this, government regulation and supervision is indispensable especiallyfor mining services business partnership arrangements that exist in the organization andundertaking limitation of natural resources in Indonesia by business actor effort to notharm the national interest and the wider community. The purpose of this research is tosee how the arrangement limits the government in the implementation of jointcooperation in mining services business. Research methods used in this study isnormative juridical research, study and analyze the legislation and other secondary datarelated to study materials. The nature of this thesis research is descriptive analytics. Themethod used to analize data in this research is qualitative analysis. Limitation ofgovernment regulation in mining services business activities of cooperation in particularin the implementation of regulation of mining activities and participation subsidiariesand/or affiliates is very important to avoid any such transfer of profit, but thegovernment should have notice a discrepancy explanation of the provisions in the ActMinerba and its implementing regulations, and increased supervision on the field, so asto achieve independence and effectiveness of the undertaking in the field of mining, aswell as added value to national economy and achieve prosperity and welfare of thepeople"

"Tesis ini membahas penyelesaian sengketa pemutusan Kontrak Karya (KK) dan Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara (PKP2B) yang tidak menyesuaikan dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara. Terbitnya UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 ini menghapuskan sistem KK dan PKP2B serta menggantinya dengan sistem Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). Berdasarkan Pasal 169 huruf b UU No. 4 Tahun 2009, para pemegang KK dan PKP2B diwajibkan untuk menyesuaikan seluruh pasal-pasal yang tercantum dalam KK dan PKP2B tersebut dengan ketentuan baru yang ada pada UU No. 4 Tahun 2009. KK dan PKP2B adalah suatu bentuk perjanjian antara Pemerintah dengan investor / kontraktor, berbeda dengan IUP yang merupakan bentuk perizinan yang diterbitkan pemerintah bagi investor yang hendak mengusahakan penambangan mineral dan batubara. Kewajiban penyesuaian KK dan PKP2B, serta perbedaan mendasar antara KK / PKP2B dengan IUP memberikan dampak yang signifikan terhadap mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa jika terjadi pemutusan KK dan PKP2B tersebut. Penelitian ini bersifat yuridis normatif yang menitikberatkan pada studi dokumen kepustakaan yang juga didukung dengan pendekatan kasus.

---

This thesis discusses the dispute settlement on termination of Contract of Work (KK) and Work Agreement for Coal Mining Enterprises (PKP2B) which are not adjusted with the provisions of Law of The Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining. The issuance of Law No. 4 of 2009 has abolished Contract of Work (KK) and Work Agreement for Coal Mining Enterprises (PKP2B), and replaced it with a system of Mining Permit (IUP). According to Article 169 letter b of Law No. 4 of 2009, the KK and PKP2B holders required to adjust the articles stated in the KK and PKP2B with existing new provisions to the Law No. 4 of 2009. KK and PKP2B is a form of agreement between the Government and the investor / contractor, in contrast to the IUP which is a form of government permits that is granted for investors to conduct mining business. Adjustment liability of KK and PKP2B, as well as the fundamental differences between KK / PKP2B with IUP giving a significant impact on the dispute resolution mechanism in the event of termination of the KK and PKP2B. This research uses a juridical normative approach that focuses on the study of literature, which is also supported by cases."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai kepastian hukum terhadap penyesuaian perjanjian kerjasama pengusahaan pertambangan batubara (PKP2B) berdasarkan Undang- Undang Nomor 4 tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara (UU Minerba). PKP2B adalah perjanjian yang dibuat dan disepakati antara pihak kontraktor baik dari dalam negeri ataupun asing dengan pihak pemerintah Republik Indonesia dalam rangka kerjasama pengusahaan pertambangan batubara. PKP2B diatur pertama kali melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 11 tahun 1967 tentang Ketentuan Umum Pokok Pertambangan. Kelahiran UU Minerba mengharuskan agar ketentuan yang terdapat dalam PKP2B disesuaikan paling lambat 1 tahun sejak UU Minerba diundangkan. Sebelum UU Minerba lahir sistem pengelolaan pertambangan batubara dilakukan melalui perjanjian antara pemerintah dengan kontraktor, UU Minerba tidak mengenal perjanjian dalam pengelolaan pertambangan batubara. Penyesuaian PKP2B dilakukan pemerintah melalui renegosiasi dengan rancangan amandemennya, hingga saat ini proses renegosiasi telah berjalan hampir 4 tahun sejak UU Minerba diundangkan, namun belum mempunyai titik temu. Kepastian hukum atas UU Minerba menjadi dipertanyakan. Pertanyaan yang muncul adalah apa yang harus dilakukan oleh salah satu pihak (dalam hal renegosiasi disini tentunya pemerintah) yang berinisiatif mengubah suatu ketentuan dalam PKP2B sebagai suatu perjanjian yang telah disepakati apabila di lain pihak menolak. Bagaimana dengan ketentuan yang mengatur bahwa suatu sebab adalah terlarang dalam perjanjian apabila sebab tersebut bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang. Penelitian tesis ini menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian yang didapat adalah meskipun renegosiasi PKP2B saat ini tidak menemui kata sepakat, sebenarnya PKP2B telah dilakukan beberapa kali perubahan sebelum UU Minerba diundangkan. Salah satu alasan renegosiasi PKP2B tidak menemui kata sepakat karena posisi para pihak dalam renegosiasi dibatasi ketentuan UU Minerba yang merupakan produk dari pemerintah sebagai penguasa, dan di satu sisi pemerintah sebagai pihak dalam perjanjian PKP2B itu sendiri. Sehingga hal-hal yang dibahas dalam renegosiasi tersebut cenderung mengunci dan menutup kesempatan pihak lainnya untuk merundingkan hak dan kewajibannya. Bahwa perjanjian mengikat kedua belah pihak sebagai Undang-Undang diantara mereka yang menyepakatinya dan para pihak harus menghormati perjanjian yang telah disepakati (asas kepastian hukum dalam perjanjian yang dikenal dengan istilah Pacta Sunt Servanda).

---

This thesis discusses the legal certainty against the adjustment of coal contract of work (PKP2B) based on Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining (Mining Law). PKP2B are agreements made and agreed between the contracting parties either domestic or foreign by the government of the Republic of Indonesia in the coal mining business cooperation. PKP2B first regulated through Law No. 11 of 1967 on General Provisions of Mining. The birth of the Mining Law requires that the provision contained in PKP2B adjusted at least 1 year from the Mining Law was enacted. Before the Mining Law was born coal mining management system given through an agreement between the government and the contractor, the Mining Law does not recognize an agreement in the management of coal mining. PKP2B adjustments made by the government through the draft amendments to the renegotiation, the renegotiation process to date has been running almost 4 years since the promulgation of the Mining Law, however, does not have any common ground. Legal certainty of the Mining Law to be questionable. The question that arises is what should be done by one of the parties (in terms of renegotiation of the government here of course) who took the initiative to change a provision in an agreement PKP2B as agreed when on the other hand refused. What about the provision which provides that a cause is forbidden in the agreement if the cause is contrary to the Act. This thesis research using normative legal research approach legislation.

The results were obtained despite the renegotiation PKP2B currently not met an agreement, actually PKP2B been done several times before the Mining Law was enacted. One reason renegotiation PKP2B not meet an agreement because the position of the parties to renegotiate, under the provisions of the Mining Law is limited which is a product of government as rulers, and on one side of the government as a party to the treaty itself (PKP2B). So things are discussed in the renegotiation tends to lock and close the other parties an opportunity to negotiate their rights and obligations. That the agreement binds both parties as the Act among those who agree and the parties must honor the agreements that have been agreed upon (the principle of legal certainty in the agreement known as pacta Sunt servanda)."

"Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Pertambangan Mineral dan Batubara ("UU Pertambangan 2009") membawa perubahan bagi kegiatan pertambangan Indonesia dimana sebelumnya pelaku usaha tambang menggunakan Kontrak Karya untuk melaksanakan usahanya, maka saat ini telah berubah menjadi konsepsi izin berupa Izin Usaha Pertambangan (IUP). Dalam keberlakuannya, UU Pertambangan 2009 tetap memberikan penghormatan terhadap Kontrak Karya yang masih berlaku pada saat UU Pertambangan 2009 disahkan, walaupun penghormatan tersebut diiringi pula dengan adanya "paksaan" agar dilakukan penyesuaian ketentuan dalam Kontrak Karya dengan ketentuan dalam UU Pertambangan 2009. Skripsi ini dibuat dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif melalui studi dokumen serta tinjauan terhadap norma hukum tertulis yang mencakup penelitian mengenai apakah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya telah memberikan kepastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah renegosiasi Kontrak Karya ternyata membawa ketidakpastian hukum bagi para pelaku usaha tambang dikarenakan proses renegosiasi yang berlarut-larut serta adanya berbagai kepentingan di dalamnya.

---

Law No. 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining ("Mining Law 2009") made changes to the Indonesian mining activities where previously mining businessmen using Contract of Work ("CoW") for doing their business then it has now been turned into a permit concept in form of Mining Permit (IUP). In its enforcement, Mining Law 2009 still respects the enforceability of the CoW that is still effective upon the Mining Law 2009 was passed, despite of the fact that such respect is also accompanied by the "coercion" in order to adjust the provisions of Contract of Work in line with the provisions in Mining Law 2009.

This thesis is made by using the normative juridical method through study of documents and review of the written legal norms which included research on whether the renegotiation of CoW has provided legal certainty for mining businessmen. Result of this research is that the CoW renegotiation evidently brings legal uncertainty for mining businessmen due to protracted renegotiation process and there are various interests in it."

"Dalam pembentukan suatu perjanjian, kesepakatan para pihak merupakan unsur yang mutlak untuk terjadinya suatu perjanjian. Kesepakatan ini dapat terjadi dengan berbagai cara, namun yang paling penting adalaha danya penawaran dan penerimaan atas penawaran tersebut. Perkembangan ekonomi menuntut masyarakat untuk bersaing sehingga perjanjian yang terjadi dalam masyarakat juga semakin meningkat dan kompleks. Mengenai hal ini, KUH Perdata memfasilitasinya dengan Pasal 1338 KUH Perdata yang dikenal dengan asas kebebasan berkontrak, dimana setiap orang diberikan kebebasan untuk membuat perjanjian. Dengan adanya asas kebebasan berkontrak serta perkembangan dunia bisnis, maka diperlukan suatu upaya pelayanan yang praktis, efisien dan juga efektif. Untuk merealisasikan hal ini dibuatlah suatu perjanjian yang sifatnya standar kontrak baku . Namun dengan penggunaan kontrak baku ini menyebabkan salah satu pihak dalam perjanjian tersebut memiliki kedudukan yang lebih lemah daripada pihak lainnya. Hal ini menimbulkan permasalahan hukum karena keadaan yang tidak seimbang diantara para pihak menyebabkan pihak yang kedudukannya lebih lemah menjadi tidak bebas cacat kehendak. Dalam perkembangannya, cacat kehendak juga dapat terjadi karena adanya penyalahgunaan keadaan yang menyangkut dengan keadaan yang berperan pada saat terjadinya kontrak yang menyebabkan kehendak yang disalahgunakan menjadi tidak bebas. Berdasarkan kondisi diatas, penulis melakukan penelitian dengan menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan, yang datanya bersumber dari bahan kepustakaan. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa suatu kontrak baku dapat dikatakan sebagai suatu penyalahgunaan keadaan apabila memenuhi unsur-unsur dari penyalahgunaan keadaan itu sendiri, akibatnya kontrak baku tersebut dapat dimintakan pembatalannya.

---

In the formation of a treaty, the parties 39 agreement is an essential element of an agreement. This deal can happen in many ways, but the most important is the offer and acceptance of the offer. Economic development requires people to compete so that agreements that occur in society are also increasing and becoming more complex. Regarding this matter, the Civil Code facilitates it with Article 1338 which is known as the principle of freedom of contract, in which everyone is given the freedom to make agreements. With the principle of freedom of contract and the development of the business world, it is necessary a to have a form of agreement that is practical, efficient and also effective. To make this happen, a standard contract is made. However, with the use of this standard contract, one party in the agreement has a weaker position than the other. This creates a legal problem because the unbalanced state among the parties causes the weaker party to become non free defective will . In its development, defects of the will can also occur because of the abuse of circumstances that pertain to the circumstances that play a role at the time of the contract that causes the will to be abused becomes not free. Based on the above conditions, the authors conducted research using literature research methods, the data derived from literature materials. The results of this study indicate that a standard contract can be said as a abuse of circumstances if it meets the elements of the abuse of the condition itself, consequently the standard contract can be requested for cancellation."