Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Menurut prinsip necessity, negara dapat dibenarkan melanggar hukum internasional jika ada ancaman terhadap kepentingan esensial negara. Untuk melindungi perekonomian dalam krisis, Argentina mengeluarkan kebijakan yang melanggar perlindungan investor dalam BIT. Argentina digugat ke ICSID dan terjadi variasi putusan, ada putusan yang membenarkan necessity dan ada pula putusan yang menolak. Tulisan ini meninjau penerapan prinsip necessity dikaitan dengan sengketa investasi yang terjadi. Penulis menelusuri perkembangan necessity dan penerapannya dalam sengketa, lalu meninjau pertimbangan Majelis Arbitrase ICSID. Necessity menurut Pasal 25 Draft Articles sulit diterapkan dalam sengketa investasi karena perumusan yang limitatif. Necessity lebih mudah diterapkan dalam BIT yang bersifat lex specialis, yaitu Pasal XI BIT AS - Argentina.

---

According to necessity principle, state can be excused for breach of international law if there are threats to the essential interest of the State. To protect its economy during crisis, Argentine enacted policies that violate investor protection in BIT. Argentine was sued to ICSID, and awards are varied. Some Tribunals accept Argentine's necessity defense, and some others don?t. This thesis revisits the application of necessity principle in the context of investment disputes. Author will trace the development of necessity and its application in various disputes, then analyze related ICSID Tribunal awards. Necessity according Article 25 Draft Articles is considered inapplicable in the context of investment dispute because of its strict formulation. Invocation of necessity is considered less difficult if stipulated in BIT as lex specialis, in this particular case is Article XI of US - Argentina BIT."

"Pada peristiwa di mana terdapat lebih dari satu forum tersedia untuk menyelesaikan sengketa, pengadilan perlu menentukan forum yang paling layak untuk mengadili sengketa. Layak atau tidaknya suatu forum merupakan persoalan lebih lanjut daripada kompetensi suatu pengadilan. Persoalan kelayakan forum diselesaikan dengan cara menerapkan prinsip forum non conveniens. Prinsip ini dibenarkan oleh peradilan Indonesia. Penerapan prinsip forum non conveniens dalam sengketa hukum perdata internasional di Indonesia berkaitan erat dengan hukum acara perdata Indonesia. Dengan menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, maka penerapan prinsip forum non conveniens di Indonesia akan dikaji dalam Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 3253/K/PDT/1990 dan dalam putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta No. 578/PDT/2009/PT. DKI.

---

In cases where there is more than one available forum for a dispute settlement, the court must determine the most appropriate forum out of all the available forums. The issue on the appropriateness of a forum goes beyond the question of jurisdiction. The issue is solved by applying the forum non conveniens principle. Such principle is justified by Indonesian courts. The application of the forum non conveniens principle in private international law disputes in Indonesia has a great link with Indonesian civil procedure. In this thesis, the application of the forum non conveniens principle will be observed through the analysis of the decision by Mahkamah Agung No. 3253/K/PDT/1990 and the decision of Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta No. 578/PDT/2009/PT. DKI."

"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."

"The principle of military necessity, in its role as a fundamental legal princnnle underlining international humanitarian law, has been firmly rooted in international law. That is not necessarily the case, however, with its rote as circumstance precluding wrongfulness for violations of humanitarian law norms, much disparity exist among authors and states about the elements, scope, and limitations to its role as preclusion. This article intends to clarify as to what extent the principle of military necessity can operate in the sphere of positive IHL norms."

"ABSTRAKSkripsi ini membahas ketentuan State of Necessity dalam Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo sebagai dasar bagi para pihak dalam BIT untuk mengesampingkan pelaksanaan tanggung jawab negara atas tindakan pelanggaran kewajiban internasional dalam BIT Analisis dilakukan dengan menggunakan studi kasus atas sengketa LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo melawan Republik Argentina melalui pendekatan metode yuridis normatif Permasalahan utama dari penerapan State of Necessity dalam kasus tersebut antara lain sifat self judging klausul State of Necessity dalam BIT serta akibat penerapan State of Necessity terhadap keberlakuan BIT dan kewajiban pemberian ganti rugi Hasil pembahasan skripsi ini menyarankan perlunya pengaturan State of Necessity dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh setiap negara termasuk dalam BIT yang disepakati oleh Indonesia untuk menyeimbangkan kewajiban perlindungan investasi dan kepentingan esensial negara.

---

ABSTRACTThis thesis explores the provision of State of Necessity in Bilateral Investment Treaty ldquo ("BIT") rdquo as a basis for the Parties to preclude the implementation of state responsibility against its wrongful act violating international obligations of BIT. The analysis will be conducted with regard to the case of LG&E Energy Corp, LG&E Capital Corp, LG&E International Inc ldquo ("LG&E") rdquo against Argentine Republic by using normative legal method The main problems of the implementation of state of necessity in the case are the self judging characteristic of State of Necessity provision in BIT and the consequences of its implementation on the enforceability of BIT and the obligation of reparation The result of this thesis suggest the importance of the regulation of State of Necessity in the BIT including the BIT agreed by Indonesia in order to balance investment protection and the safeguarding of essential interests of the State."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis prinsip dan standard fair and equitable treatment FET dalam kerangka hukum investasi internasional dan menganalisis interpretasi prinsip FET pada sengketa investasi internasional terutama dalam sengketa yang melibatkan Indonesia untuk kemudian dijadikan suatu pembelajaran dan materi evaluasi bagi kebijakan hukum Indonesia mengenai investasi asing di masa yang akan datang. Prinsip FET sebagai prinsip fundamental dalam hukum investasi internasional sudah dipraktekkan secara global. Tetapi, prinsip yang bertujuan untuk menjaga dan memberikan perlakuan sama rata dan non-diskriminatif terhadap investor dan investasi asing ini tidak luput dari permasalahan hukum. Ragam klausula FET di tiap perjanjian investasi internasional menimbulkan multiinterpretasi mengenai standard keberlakuan FET terutama dalam sengketa investasi internasional. Dalam kerangka hukum investasi internasional terdapat beberapa klasifikasi standard FET: FET sebagai ldquo;FET unqualified rdquo;/FET sebagai autonomous/ independent standard, FET sebagai customary international law minimum standard dan FET mencakup standard lainnya seperti salah satu contohnya full protection and security FPS . Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode doktrinal melalui studi kepustakaan. Melalui penelitian ini, kesimpulan yang diraih adalah klasifikasi FET sebagai customary international law minimum standard merupakan standard yang menjadi preferensi investor dan juga host States dan pengaturan hukum Indonesia mengenai investasi asing masih lemah dan belum berhasil mengakomodir perkembangan hukum investasi internasional. Langkah strategis untuk memperbaiki dan memperkuat pengaturan hukum investasi asing di Indonesia diperlukan agar posisi dan kepentingan Indonesia sebagai host States lebih solid tanpa melanggar hak-hak investor asing terutama hak asasi yang mendasar.

---

This research aims to scrutinize and to provide answers to three matters the workings of principle of fair and equitable treatment FET within the framework of international investment law, the rationale and approach of FET interpretation in investment disputes, especially those involving Indonesia, and also possible update s or reform s for Indonesia rsquo s future investment policies. Without a doubt, FET has become and is a fundamental principle in international investment law hence its global practice. Contemporary international investment law recognises some FET classifications ldquo FET unqualified rdquo FET as autonomous independent standard, FET as customary international law minimum standard and FET that embraces other standards of treatment such as full protection and security FPS among others. However, FET existence to guard and guarantee equitable and non discriminative measures toward foreign investor and investment is inevitably exposed to legal problem s . Due to different wordings and classifications of FET, different arbitral tribunals subsequently produced multiple interpretations of FET. In essential, the research employs doctrinal method and library based research method. As reflected in the research, one may see that FET as customary international law minimum standard is a much favoured standard by host States and foreign investors alike. One may also see that there are weaknesses in Indonesia foreign investment policies thus strategic moves are necessary to be made in order to update and strengthen Indonesia rsquo s interests and position as host States without putting basic rights of foreign investor in jeopardy."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan prinsip utmost good faith sebagai salah satu prinsip yang mendasar dan penting dalam perjanjian asuransi, khususnya dengan objek Produk Asuransi yang Dikaitkan Dengan Investasi. Prinsip utmost good faith mengatur bahwa tertanggung dan penanggung harus memberikan informasi yang benar saat membuat perjanjian asuransi. Pada skripsi ini pembahasan dibagi menjadi tiga. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai pengertian asuransi ditinjau dari hukum positif Indonesia. Kedua, pengertian prinsip utmost good faith dalam asuransi ditinjau dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Dagang, penerapan prinsip tersebut secara umum, serta dikaitkan dengan PAYDI yang mengkombinasikan antara kebutuhan proteksi serta investasi. Ketiga, pembahasan mengenai pelanggaran prinsip utmost good faith yang dilakukan oleh PT AXA Mandiri Financial Services selaku penanggung dalam perjanjian asuransinya dengan Rais Torodji dan Rachmawaty selaku tertanggung. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis-normatif, dimana data penelitian berasal dari studi kepustakaan dan undang-undang terkait. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa prinsip utmost good faith merupakan sebuah prinsip yang harus dilaksanakan dalam setiap perjanjian asuransi. Penanggung bertanggung jawab untuk menyediakan informasi yang jelas dan lengkap bagi Tertanggung mengenai produk asuransi yang dijualnya, khususnya pada PAYDI yaitu informasi mengenai ilustrasi investasi dan risiko investasi. Dalam hal ini, Perjanjian asuransi antara PT AXA Mandiri Financial Service dengan Rais Torodji dan Rachmawaty adalah perjanjian yang batal demi hukum karena penanggung tidak melaksanakan kewajiban penerapan prinsip utmost good faith. Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jambi No 7/PDT.G.S/2020/PN JMB merupakan putusan yang benar meskipun Majelis Hakim tidak memberikan pertimbangan pada pelanggaran prinsip utmost good faith yang diatur dalam Pasal 251 KUHD sebagai salah satu prinsip asuransi dalam pertimbangan hukumnya.

---

This thesis discusses the application of the principle of utmost good faith as one of the fundamental and important principles in insurance agreements, especially with the object of Investment-Linked Products. The principle of utmost good faith stipulates that the insured and the insurer must provide the correct information when making an insurance agreement. In this thesis, the discussion is divided into three. First, the discussion regarding the meaning of insurance in terms of Indonesian positive law. Second, the understanding of the principle of utmost good faith in insurance is reviewed from the Commercial Code, the application of this principle in general, and related to PAYDI which combines the needs of protection and investment. Third, the discussion regarding the violation of the principle of utmost good faith committed by PT AXA Mandiri Financial Services as the insurer in its insurance agreement with Rais Torodji and Rachmawaty as the insured. This research uses a juridical-normative method, where the research data comes from a study of literature and related laws. The results of this study state that the principle of utmost good faith is a principle that must be implemented in every insurance agreement. The Insurer is responsible for providing clear and complete information to the Insured regarding the insurance products it sells, especially on PAYDI, namely information on investment illustrations and investment risks. In this case, the insurance agreement between PT AXA Mandiri Financial Service and Rais Torodji and Rachmawaty is an agreement that is null and void because the insurer does not carry out the obligation to apply the principle of utmost good faith. Jambi District Court's decision No 7/PDT.G.S/2020/PN JMB is the correct decision even though the Panel of Judges did not give consideration to the violation of the principle of utmost good faith as regulated in Article 251 of the Criminal Code as one of the principles of insurance in its legal considerations."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai implementasi prinsip subrogasi pada perkara antara PT Margo Indonesia Servicestama (“PT MIS”) melawan PT Chandra Asri Petrochemical, Tbk. (“PT CAP”). Pada perkara ini PT MIS mengajukan bahwa ia berhak atas pengembalian uang yang dibayarkannya kepada PT CAP karena ia merasa PT CAP telah melanggar prinsip subrogasi dengan tetap menerima pembayaran dari PT MIS sedangkan ia telah mendapatkan pembayaran atas klaim ganti rugi yang ia lakukan ke perusahaan asuransi yakni PT Mandiri Axa General Insurance. Namun PT CAP berpendapat bahwa ia tidak melanggar karena kerugian lebih besar dari yang didapatkan dari keduanya. Subrogasi merupakan salah satu prinsip utama yang memiliki peran penting dalam asuransi terutama dalam hal kerugian terhadap suatu barang yang menjadi objek asuransi disebabkan oleh pihak ketiga diluar perjanjian asuransi. Prinsip subrogasi dalam asuransi memungkinkan perusahaan asuransi untuk menggantikan hak-hak tertentu dari tertanggung setelah mengganti kerugian yang dialami olehnya. Berdasarkan penelitian ditemukan bahwa (1) pengimplementasian prinsip subrogasi pada perkara ini belum diterapkan dengan baik sesuai dengan ketentuan yang mengatur mengenai prinsip subrogasi oleh majelis hakim. (2) terdapat inkonsistensi pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam membuat keputusan dalam perkara ini.

---

This thesis examines the implementation of the principle of subrogation in the case between PT Margo Indonesia Servicestama ("PT MIS") against PT Chandra Asri Petrochemical, Tbk. ("PT CAP"). In this case, PT MIS submitted that it was entitled to a refund of the money it paid to PT CAP because it felt that PT CAP had violated the principle of subrogation by continuing to receive payment from PT MIS while it had received payment for the compensation claim it made to the insurance company, PT Mandiri Axa General Insurance. However, PT CAP argued that it had not violated the subrogation principle because the loss was greater than that obtained from both of them. Subrogation is one of the main principles that has an important role in insurance, especially in the event of a loss to an item that is the object of insurance caused by a third party outside the insurance agreement. The principle of subrogation in insurance allows the insurance company to replace certain rights of the insured after replacing the losses suffered by him. Based on the research, it was found that (1) the implementation of the principle of subrogation in this case has not been applied properly in accordance with the provisions governing the principle of subrogation by the panel of judges. (2) there are inconsistencies in the consideration of the panel of judges in making decisions in this case."

"[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.]"