Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

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

---

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

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

---

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

"This book addresses a growing problem in international law: overlapping claims before national and international jurisdictions. Its contribution is, first, to revisit two pillars of investment arbitration, i.e., shareholders' standing to claim for harm to the company's assets and the contract/treaty claims distinction. These two ideas advance interrelated (and questionable) notions of independence: firstly, independence of shareholder treaty rights in respect of the local company's national law rights and, secondly, independence of treaty claims in respect of national law claims. By uncritically endorsing shareholder standing in indirect claims and the distinctiveness of treaty claims, investment tribunals have overlooked substantive overlaps between contract and treaty claims. The book also proposes specific admissibility criteria. As opposed to strictly jurisdictional approaches to claim overlap, the admissibility approach allows consideration of a broader range of legal reasons, such as risks of multiple recovery and prejudice to third parties."

"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."

"Tesis ini membahas gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan terkait dengan upaya penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup melalui peradilan administrasi. Rezim hukum lingkungan hidup di Indonesia pada saat ini diatur dengan Undang-undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009 tentang Perlindungan dan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup (UU PPLH) serta peraturan-peraturan pelaksananya. Dalam Pasal 38 UU PPLH disebutkan bahwa izin lingkungan dapat dibatalkan melalui keputusan pengadilan tata usaha negara. Pengujian izin lingkungan tersebut diajukan dengan gugatan melalui pengadilan tata usaha negara dengan mendasarkan pada alasan-alasan pembatalan sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 37 ayat (2) UU PPLH serta mengacu pada alasan-alasan pembatalan yang diatur dalam Undang-undang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara itu sendiri. Selain itu dasar hukum pengajuan gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan diatur khusus dalam Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH. Namun demikian, dalam prakteknya di peradilan tata usaha negara, penerapan Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH tersebut dilaksanakan secara berbeda-beda oleh Majelis Hakim peradilan tata usaha negara. Perbedaan penerapan tersebut diakibatkan oleh rumusan atau anasir Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH yang bersifat multitafsir karena mengandung frasa bersyarat yang berpotensi ditafsirkan sebagai pembatasan/pengecualian kompetensi absolut peradilan tata usaha negara untuk memeriksa, mengadili dan memutuskan izin lingkungan sebagai obyek gugatan. Dalam Tesis ini akan diuraikan analisis mengenai penerapan Pasal 93 ayat (1) UU PPLH tersebut khususnya mengenai gugatan administratif terhadap izin lingkungan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan studi kepustakaan dan wawancara dalam pengumpulan data, kemudian data-data yang diperoleh dianalisis dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif.

---

This thesis discusses administrative claims on environmental permits in relation to efforts to resolve environmental disputes using administrative courts. Indonesia's currently prevailing environmental law regime is regulated by Law Number 32 year 2009 regarding the Protection And Management of the Environment (UU PPLH) with its bylaws. Article 38 of the UUPLH states that environmental permits can be revoked through a decision of the State Administrative Court. The review of said environmental permit is initiated by the submission of a claim through the State Administrative Court using the reasons for revocation as set out in article 37 paragraph (2) of the UU PPLH as well as referring to the reasons for revocation in the State Administrative Court Law itself. In addition to the above, the legal grounds for submitting an administrative claim against an environmental permit is specifically regulated in Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH. However, in practice in the State Administrative Court, the council of judges applied Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH in a diverse. Said diversity in application is caused by the multi-interpretative nature of the elements of article 93 paragraph (1) of the UUPLH because it contains a conditional phrase that can potentially be interpreted as a limitation/exclusion of the State Administrative Court?s absolute competence to examine, review, and decide on environmental permits as the object of a claim. This thesis will explain the analysis on the application of said Article 93 paragraph (1) of the UU PPLH especially regarding administrative claims on environmental permits. This research is a normative legal research by using a library study and interview technique for its data resources, then the obtained data will be analyzed using a qualitative approach."

"Salah satu fungsi dan tugas bank umum sesuai Undang-Undang tentang Perbankan Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 Tentang Perbankan adalah dapat melakukan penitipan barang dan surat berharga yang disebut dengan Safe Deposit Box (SDB). Pelayanan jasa perbankan Safe Deposit Box (SDB) ini berguna untuk membantu masyarakat dalam mengamankan barang, perhiasan, dokumen surat berharga, logam mulia, dan barang-barang berharga lainnya, yang dilakukan dengan cara melalui perjanjian sewa penyewa antara bank sebagai pelaku usaha dengan nasabah (konsumen). Berdasarkan hal tersebut maka dilakukan pengkajian tentang perlunya perlindungan konsumen atas keamanan jasa Safe Deposit Box (SDB) yang mencantumkan klausula baku dalam perjanjian sewa menyewa pada bank. Pelaksanaan perjanjian sewa menyewa Safe Deposit Box (SDB) dimaksud dilakukan pada PT. Bank Internasional Indonesia, Tbk (BII). Penelitian ini bersifat deskriptif analisis dengan pendekatan juridis normatif tentang pelaksanaan perjanjian sewa menyewa Safe Deposit Box (SDB). Pengumpulan data dilakukan secara penelitian kepustakaan dan penelitian lapangan yang terkait dengan pelaksanaan Safe Deposit Box(SDB) dan nasabah pengguna Safe Deposit Box (SDB). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan Safe Deposit Box (SDB) oleh nasabah yang kehilangan barang simpanannya dan menuntut ganti rugi pada bank perlu mendapat perlindungan sesuai dengan amanah yang tertuang dalam ketentuan Undang Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Perjanjian sewa menyewa Safe Deposit Box (SDB) pada PT. Bank Internasional Indonesia, Tbk (BII) memuat antara lain tentang hak dan kewajiban bagi pelaku usaha dan konsumen (nasabah) yang telah dibuat oleh pihak bank dalam bentuk perjanjian baku (klausula baku). Selain itu kurangnya informasi dan pengetahuan masyarakat tentang keamanan penggunaan Safe Deposit Box (SDB) serta perlindungan hukum bagi nasabah penguna jasa Safe Deposit Box (SDB).

---

One of the functions and duties of commercial banks according to the Law of Banking No. 7 of 1992 as amended by Law No. 10 of 1998 concerning Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1992 concerning Banking is able to care for goods and securities called Safe Deposit Box (SDB). Banking services Safe Deposit Box (SDB) is useful to assist communities in securing goods, jewelry, documents, securities, precious metals and other valuables, which made its way through the tenant lease agreements between banks as businesses with customers (consumers). Under these conditions, conducted an assessment of the need for consumer protection for the security services of Safe Deposit Box (SDB) which includes standard clause in the lease agreement at the bank. Execution of the lease agreement Safe Deposit Box (SDB) is performed on the PT. Bank Internasional Indonesia Tbk (BII).

This study is a descriptive analysis of the normative juridical approach on the implementation of the lease agreement Safe Deposit Box (SDB). The data was collected in the research literature and field research related to the implementation of the Safe Deposit Box (SDB) and client users Safe Deposit Box (SDB).

The results showed that the use of Safe Deposit Box (SDB) by the customers who lost their savings goods and claim damages on the bank needs to be protected in accordance with the mandate set forth in the provisions of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. Lease agreement Safe Deposit Box (SDB) in PT. Bank Internasional Indonesia Tbk (BII) contains, among others, about the rights and obligations for businesses and consumers (customers) have been made by the bank in the form of standard contract (standard agreement). In addition to the lack of information and knowledge about the safe use of the Safe Deposit Box (SDB) as well as legal protection for customer service users Safe Deposit Box (SDB)."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat. Sengketa kewajiban kontraktual tunduk pada hukum nasional negara penerima investasi sehingga diselesaikan melalui pengadilan nasional negara penerima investasi. Sedangkan, sengketa kewajiban traktat tunduk pada hukum internasional, yang di antara lain meliputi prinsip hukum umum maupun hukum kebiasaan internasional sehingga diselesaikan melalui mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa seperti ICSID. Dalam praktik, seringkali terdapat tumpang tindih antara kedua jenis sengketa tersebut karena investor asing dapat mengajukan sengketanya ke ICSID secara langsung meskipun lahir dari pelanggaran kontrak investasi dan bukan perjanjian investasi bilateral (PIB). Hal ini disebabkan karena yurisdiksi ICSID berdasarkan Pasal 25 ayat (1) Konvensi ICSID didasarkan pada kesepakatan para pihak yang dituangkan dalam masing-masing kontrak investasi maupun PIB. Selain itu, majelis arbitrase ICSID memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda-beda untuk menentukan lingkup yurisdiksi ICSID.Skripsi ini menggunakan pendekatan yuridis-normatif untuk meninjau penerapan ketentuan yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual dan sengketa kewajiban traktat dalam kasus Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, dan SGS v. Philippines. Berdasarkan keempat kasus tersebut, diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa ICSID memiliki yurisdiksi terhadap sengketa kewajiban traktat selama persyaratan dalam yurisdiksi ICSID terpenuhi. Akan tetapi, yurisdiksi ICSID terhadap sengketa kewajiban kontraktual bergantung pada konstruksi masing-masing kontrak investasi dan PIB. Skripsi ini menyarankan agar para pihak penyusun kontrak investasi dan PIB memperjelas sengketa yang masuk dalam lingkup kesepakatannya. Selain itu, negara penerima investasi dapat menyisipkan kewajiban untuk menempuh seluruh upaya dalam hukum nasional negara penerima investasi (exhaustion of local remedies) sebelum para pihak dapat bersengketa di ICSID.

---

This thesis provides an overview of ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims. Contract claims are claims based on contract which fall within the purview of the domestic law of the host state, hence subject to the courts of the host state. On the other hand, treaty claims are based on violations of a treaty (in this case a Bilateral Investment Treaty or BIT) and is subject to international law with its own dispute settlement mechanism, such as ICSID. Contract and treaty claims are often conflated in practice because of the direct access that investors have to ICSID. This situation is perpetuated by the fact that ICSID jurisdiction under Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention is based on the consent of both parties, which differs in each investment contract or BIT. Furthermore, tribunals employ different approaches to determine the scope of ICSID jurisdiction.This thesis uses a juridical-normative approach to determine how tribunals apply ICSID jurisdiction over contract and treaty claims based on four cases, namely Churchill Mining v. Indonesia, Vivendi Annulment, SGS v. Pakistan, and SGS v. Philippines. Based on these four cases, ICSID has jurisdiction over treaty claims, so long as its jurisdictional requirements are met. However, ICSIDs jurisdiction over contract claims is highly contingent on the construction of each specific investment contract or BIT. In conlusion, this thesis suggests that drafters of investment contracts and BITs should explicitly provide the disputes that fall within each agreement. Moreover, BIT drafters could include an exhaustion of local remedies requirement."

"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."

"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."