Padjadjaran Journal of International Law最新文献

{"title":"THE OCCUPYING POWER ACCORDING TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW: CASE STUDY IN GAZA STRIP","authors":"Mohamad Afdha Lardo","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v4i2.410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.410","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Conflict in Gaza Strip involving Israel and Palestine has continuously attracted international concerns.  Under the strict authority of Israel, humanitarian issues materialize in the strip as Gaza’s inhabitants undergo crises including energy and subsistence while Israel fails to fulfill the basic needs of the people. In 2007, Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed with his associates sought legal remedy to the Supreme Court of Israel to clarify their rights inhabiting the Gaza Strip. The purpose of this article is to explain whether international humanitarian law could be implemented to the occupying power of Israel in Gaza Strip and elucidate the limitation of the occupying power regarded by the law. Achieving this explanation requires a qualitative legal approach. It emphasizes on documents scrutiny using the perspectives of primary, secondary, and tertiary laws. The research result shows that under the regime of international humanitarian law, “alien occupation” is the key to regulate the Gaza Strip against the regime of the occupying power by Israel. The one-year rule in the Case of Gaza Strip indicates that Israel held the occupying power of the territory as not only did Israel act as a controller but also it participated in the physical activities to regulate the lives of Gaza residents in addition to the limitation of the functions of Palestinian Authority posed by Israel. \u0000Keywords: Gaza Strip, International Humanitarian Law, Occupying Power   \u0000  \u0000Abstrak \u0000Konflik di Jalur Gaza yang melibatkan Israel dan Palestina terus menarik perhatian internasional. Di bawah kekuasaan Israel, isu humaniter mencuat di jalur tersebut karena penduduk Gaza mengalami krisis energi dan mata pencaharian, sementara Israel tidak memenuhi kebutuhan dasar hidup penduduk tersebut. Pada tahun 2007, Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed bersama rekan-rekannya mengajukan tinjauan hukum kepada Pengadilan Tinggi Israel untuk mengklarifikasi hak-hak mereka sebagai penduduk di Jalur Gaza. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan apakah hukum humaniter internasional dapat diterapkan dalam kasus penguasa pendudukan di Jalur Gaza oleh Israel dan menjelaskan batasan kekuasaan pendudukan tersebut. Pendekatan kualitatif hukum berbasis studi dokumen dengan perspektif hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Hasil penelitian ini membuktikan bahwa di bawah hukum humaniter internasional, “pendudukan asing” menjadi kunci regulasi yang dapat diterapkan di Jalur Gaza di bawah resim penguasa pendudukan yakni Israel. Aturan “Satu Tahun” di jalur tersebut menunjukan bahwa Israel memegang kendali wilayah tersebut karena Israel tidak hanya bertindak sebagai pengontrol melainkan juga melakukan kegiatan fisik untuk mengatur kehidupan masyarakat Gaza juga membatasi fungsi-fungsi autoritas Palestina. \u0000Kata Kunci: Hukum Humaniter Internasional, Jalur Gaza, Penguasa Pendudukan","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123451646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR WEAPON DEVELOPMENT IN REGARDS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF DEFENCE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW","authors":"Rahmah Kusumayani","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v4i2.411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.411","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Self defence known as an inherent right that is owned by states to protect its sovereignty from attack by other states. The international rules about self defence do not give any limitation about the type of weapon that can be used by states, including the threat or use of nuclear weapons to act self defence. In Practice, many requirements must be fulfilled by states when they claim the act of self defence. Since 2006, North Korea proclaimed its capability to develop nuclear weapons based on self defence argument. The Security Council concluded that North Korea’s development of nuclear weapon program is a threat to international peace and security and condemned such acts with sanctions based on act 41 UN Charter. The purposes of this study are to examine whether the North Korea’s nuclear program as an act of self defence and the UN Security Council’s sanctions to North Korea are in line with the principle of self defence in international law. The result of this research concludes that North Korea’s nuclear program does not meet the requirements as stated in article 51 UN Charter and customary international law regarding self defence. North Korea can not prove that the United States’ threat is jeopardy, and has a wide and dangerous effect for North Korea. Regarding the Security Council’s primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security, states must report his act of self defence to the Security Council immediately. As therefore, sanctions given by the Security Council are in line with the principle of self defence since North Korea can not fulfil the requested requirements of self defence. \u0000Keywords: Act 51 UN Charter, Korean Nuclear Development, Principle of self defence \u0000  \u0000Abstrak \u0000Hak untuk menerapkan self defence dimiliki oleh tiap negara untuk melindungi kedaulatannya dari serangan negara lain. Peraturan internasional mengenai self defence tidak membatasi jenis senjata yang dapat digunakan oleh negara, termasuk ancaman dan penggunaan senjata nuklir dalam melakukan tindakan self defence. Dalam prakteknya banyak syarat yang harus dipenuhi oleh negara-negara ketika akan mengklaim tindakan self defence. Sejak tahun 2006, Korea Utara mendeklarasikan kesiapannya dalam mengembangkan senjata nuklir dengan alasan self defence. Dewan Keamanan menganggap bahwa program pengembangan senjata nuklir Korea Utara mengancam perdamaian dan keamanan internasional dan berdasarkan Pasal 41 Piagam PBB, Dewan Keamanan memberikan sanksi kepada Korea Utara. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengkaji legalitas pengembangan senjata nuklir di Korea Utara atas tindakan yang diklaim negaranya sebagai self defence serta kesesuaian penerapan sanksi Dewan Keamanan PBB dengan prinsip self defence. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa program senjata nuklir Korea Utara tidak memenuhi syarat yang terdapat dalam Pasal 51 Piagam PBB maupun hukum kebiasaan internasional terkait self defence. Korea Utara tidak bisa membuktikan bahwa ancaman Amerika Seri","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127817973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"IMPACT OF PHILIPPINES’ WITHDRAWAL FROM INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ON CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY INVESTIGATION IN PHILIPPINES","authors":"Aisyah Jasmine Yogaswara","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v4i2.413","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.413","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Rodrigo Roa Duterte is the incumbent president of the Philippines who was inaugurated on June 30th 2016 and initiated the War on Drugs Operation to eradicate drug abuse in the Philippines one day after his inauguration. The operation gave authorization to the members of Philippines National Police to ‘neutralize’ or kill suspects of illegal drugs dealers and users. The operation also related to other crime such as rape, imprisonment, and torture. The crimes are committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population as therefore it can be qualified as crimes against humanity. Philippines’ status as a state party to Rome Statute gives ICC the chance to prosecute Philippines’ nationals if they committed crimes against humanity. However, after the ICC Prosecutor initiated preliminary examination on the related case, Philippines deposited its instrument of withdrawal from the Rome Statute. The purpose of this research is to find out the legal effect of Philippines withdrawal toward ICC’s process of preliminary examination, investigation, and trial, and whether ICC have any jurisdiction over crimes against humanity that is committed after Philippines’ withdrawal becomes effective. \u0000Keywords: Crimes Against Humanity, International Criminal Court, Rome Statute \u0000 Abstrak \u0000Rodrigo Roa Duterte menjabat menjadi Presiden Filipina pada tanggal 30 Juni 2016 dan memulai operasi pemberantasan narkotika yang disebut War on Drugs Operation sehari setelahnya. Operasi tersebut memberikan izin bagi Polisi Nasional Filipina untuk melakukan penembakan di tempat atas tersangka pengguna dan pengedar narkotika. Selain itu, terdapat kejahatan lain terkait operasi tersebut di antaranya pemerkosaan, penyiksaan dan penahanan tanpa proses hukum. Kejahatan-kejahatan tersebut dilakukan secara meluas, sistematis dan ditujukan pada populasi sipil yang menjadikannya dapat dikualifikasikan sebagai kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Status Filipina sebagai negara pihak dalam Statuta Roma menjadikan ICC memiliki kewenangan untuk mengadili warga negara Filipina yang melakukan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Namun, setelah Jaksa Penuntut ICC memulai pemeriksaan pendahuluan atas War on Drugs Operation, Filipina melakukan penarikan diri dari Statuta Roma. Tujuan dari penulisan tugas akhir ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana pengaruh penarikan diri Filipina dari Statuta Roma terhadap pemeriksaan pendahuluan yang sedang dilakukan dan apakah ICC memiliki yurisdiksi atas kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan yang masih terjadi di Filipina pasca penarikan dirinya berlaku efektif. \u0000Kata kunci: Kejahatan Terhadap Kemanusiaan, Mahkamah Pidana Internasional, Statuta Roma","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129911633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STATE AND AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER ON LION AIR JT610 AND ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES ET302 ACCIDENTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW","authors":"Khansa Aminatuzzahra, Atip Latipulhayat","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v4i2.409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.409","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000Lion Air JT610 and Ethiopian Airlines ET302 crashes occurred on October 2018 and March 2019 respectively. The main cause of the accident on both flights, which used Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft, is the defect on the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a new anti-stall system of this aircraft model. Boeing 737 MAX 8 is produced by Boeing Company which resides in the United States. However, passengers on both accidents could not claim compensation from Boeing Company because there is no international law that regulates aircraft manufacturer responsibilities. This research tries to analyze whether passengers can request for compensation to the United States and whether national court rulings or judgments can fill the gap in international law regarding aircraftmanufacturer. The research uses the normative juridical approach with analytical descriptive method. The research uses the library research method, focusing mainly on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal resources. This research found that the current international law could not accommodate the interests of plaintiffs to hold the United States accountable. The usage of forum non conveniens principle at the national courts made it difficult for the plaintiffs to obtain the compensation they are entitled to. Subsequently, the national law applied in each case is different which created a distinction on the compensation received by each plaintiff for the loss they suffered. Author comes into the conclusion that there is a need for the establishment of regulations in international law concerning the responsibilities of aircraft manufacturer. \u0000Keywords: Aircraft Manufacturer, Forum Non Conveniens, State Responsibility  \u0000  \u0000Abstrak \u0000Kecelakaan pesawat terbang Lion Air JT610 dan Ethiopian Airlines ET302 terjadi pada bulan Oktober 2018 dan Maret 2019 secara berturut-turut. Penyebab utama kecelakaan kedua penerbangan yang menggunakan pesawat terbang Boeing 737 MAX 8 ialah kerusakan sistem Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), sebuah sistem anti-stall terbaru untuk model pesawat terbang ini. Boeing 737 MAX 8 diproduksi oleh Boeing Company yang berkedudukan di Amerika Serikat. Penumpang pada kedua kecelakaan tidak dapat meminta ganti rugi pada Boeing Company karena belum adanya hukum yang dapat mewadahi penggantian rugi serta tanggung jawab manufaktur pesawat terbang dalam hukum internasional. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis apakah penumpang dapat memintakan ganti rugi kepada Amerika Serikat sebagai negara dan apakah putusan pengadilan nasional dapat mengisi kekosongan hukum internasional terkait manufaktur pesawat terbang. Penelitian dilakukan menggunakan metode pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan spesifikasi penulisan deskriptif analitis. Tahap penulisan dalam penelitian ini dilakukan menggunakan metode studi kepustakaan bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa hukum internasional yang ada saat ini pun belum dapat mewa","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"12 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133651381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"THE UNITED STATES UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IN JCPOA 2015 UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW","authors":"Christopher Valerio Jovan","doi":"10.23920/pjil.v4i2.414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23920/pjil.v4i2.414","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \u0000In 2015, Iran with the P5 + 1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain and the United States, as well as the European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) agreed on a JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) which deals with Iran's nuclear program. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) is a controversial agreement. First, the JCPOA's status in international law is debated and is not considered as an international treaty. In the midst of the uncertainty over the status of the JCPOA, on May 8 2018, the United States unilaterally declared that it was withdrawing from the JCPOA. Even though the JCPOA has been endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015). Thus, other JCPOA participating countries view the withdrawal of the United States as an act that is against international law. This article aims to determine whether the JCPOA is an international treaty and whether the withdrawal of the United States from the JCPOA is justified under international law. \u0000Keywords: JCPOA, UN Security Council Resolution, Withdrawal \u0000  \u0000Abstrak \u0000Pada tahun 2015, Iran dengan negara-negara P5+1 (China, Prancis, Jerman, Rusia, Inggris dan Amerika Serikat, serta Perwakilan Tinggi Uni Eropa untuk Urusan Luar Negeri dan Kebijakan Keamanan) menyepakati JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) mengenai pembatasan program nuklir Iran. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015 (JCPOA) merupakan perjanjian yang mengundang kontroversi. Pertama, status JCPOA mendapat perdebatan karena dianggap bukan perjanjian internasional. Kemudian pada 8 Mei 2018, Amerika Serikat secara sepihak menyatakan menarik diri dari JCPOA. Padahal JCPOA telah dimasukkan ke dalam Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB 2231 (2015). Sehingga peserta JCPOA lainnya menganggap tindakan Amerika Serikat sebagai perbuatan yang bertentangan dengan hukum internasional. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah JCPOA merupakan suatu perjanjian internasional dan apakah penarikan diri Amerika Serikat dari JCPOA dapat dibenarkan berdasarkan hukum internasional. \u0000Kata kunci: JCPOA, Penarikan Diri, Resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB","PeriodicalId":177191,"journal":{"name":"Padjadjaran Journal of International Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124185436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}