TANGGUNG JAWAB HUKUM TERHADAP KERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN DALAM KASUS LUMPUR LAPINDO MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2020 (UU CIPTAKER)

Yuliana Silvy Rosadi Zega
{"title":"TANGGUNG JAWAB HUKUM TERHADAP KERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN DALAM KASUS LUMPUR LAPINDO MENURUT UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2020 (UU CIPTAKER)","authors":"Yuliana Silvy Rosadi Zega","doi":"10.15294/islrev.v3i2.46528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The narrative about the establishment of Law No. 11 of 2020 has been realized through the ratification of The Job Creation Act on November 2, 2020 by President Jokowidodo. The establishment of The Job Creation Act aims to harmonize legislation that has been considered to hinder the investment and development climate. The number of related legislation causes hipper-regulation regulations so it may be ineffective. The existence of The Job Creation Act combines several instruments of law. One of them is the Law of Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH) which was originally regulated in Law No.32 of 2009. As for the substance of environmental issues in The Job Creation Act, some of them have been changed, revoked, and replaced with a new provisions, including provisions on the concept of responsibility in environmental law which known as strict liability. The author takes the description of the case of Lapindo Mud which is the case has not been completed until now as an example of the validity of strict liability principles for businesses whose activities cause environmental damage. This research is a normative juridical research with a statue and case approach. The data used is secondary data. The results showed that the concept of strict liability in The Job of Creation Act experienced a dis-orientation of meaning due to the removal of the phrase \"without proof of the element of error\". Under The Job of Creation Act, in the case of Lapindo Mud, the party subject to have strict liability is Lapindo Brantas Inc. and the government in this case are also responsible for the disaster, but do not assume to the strict liability.","PeriodicalId":156893,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian State Law Review (ISLRev)","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian State Law Review (ISLRev)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/islrev.v3i2.46528","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The narrative about the establishment of Law No. 11 of 2020 has been realized through the ratification of The Job Creation Act on November 2, 2020 by President Jokowidodo. The establishment of The Job Creation Act aims to harmonize legislation that has been considered to hinder the investment and development climate. The number of related legislation causes hipper-regulation regulations so it may be ineffective. The existence of The Job Creation Act combines several instruments of law. One of them is the Law of Environmental Protection and Management (UUPPLH) which was originally regulated in Law No.32 of 2009. As for the substance of environmental issues in The Job Creation Act, some of them have been changed, revoked, and replaced with a new provisions, including provisions on the concept of responsibility in environmental law which known as strict liability. The author takes the description of the case of Lapindo Mud which is the case has not been completed until now as an example of the validity of strict liability principles for businesses whose activities cause environmental damage. This research is a normative juridical research with a statue and case approach. The data used is secondary data. The results showed that the concept of strict liability in The Job of Creation Act experienced a dis-orientation of meaning due to the removal of the phrase "without proof of the element of error". Under The Job of Creation Act, in the case of Lapindo Mud, the party subject to have strict liability is Lapindo Brantas Inc. and the government in this case are also responsible for the disaster, but do not assume to the strict liability.
根据《2020年拉平多泥案法律责任》(CIPTAKER法案)
通过总统佐科维多多于2020年11月2日批准《创造就业法案》,关于制定2020年第11号法律的叙述已经实现。制定《创造就业法案》的目的是协调被认为阻碍投资和发展环境的立法。相关立法的数量过多,导致法规过于繁琐,可能会导致立法效果不佳。《创造就业法案》的存在结合了几项法律文书。其中之一是《环境保护管理法》(UUPPLH),最初由2009年第32号法律规定。对于《创造就业法案》中环境问题的实质内容,其中一些已经被修改、撤销,并被新的条款所取代,其中包括环境法中关于责任概念的条款,即严格责任。作者以迄今尚未完成的Lapindo Mud案的描述为例,说明严格责任原则对其活动造成环境损害的企业的有效性。本研究是一项规范的法律研究,采用判例法。使用的数据为辅助数据。结果表明,《创造工作法》中严格责任的概念由于删除了“无证据证明错误要素”这一短语而经历了意义的迷失。根据The Job of Creation Act,在Lapindo Mud的案例中,严格责任的主体是Lapindo Brantas Inc.,而政府在这个案例中也对灾难负有责任,但不承担严格责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信