scholarly journals Scope of State Responsibility Against Terrorism in International Law Perspective; Indonesian Cases

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dian Purwaningrum Soemitro ◽  
Indra Wahyu Pratama
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Global Terrorism ◽  
International Conventions

Abstract: Scope of State Responsibility Against Terrorism in International Law Perspective; Indonesian Cases. The emergence of global terrorism cases within more than a decade, marked by the tragedy of 9/11, making the issue of it being a big problem. The State as one of the subjects of International Law, into the spotlight. One of the problems that developed was the extent of the responsibility of the State towards acts of terrorism that occurred in the region of his sovereignty, which caused casualties both its own citizens or foreign nationals. In the case of terrorism that happened in Indonesia, the State's responsibility to the International Conventions implementation are very insufficient and the efforts from the country by creating a system of criminal justice to the criminal offence of terrorism has not been a maximum. There should be an obligation of the internationally imposed on it. The problem is if the terrorism was occurred will be submitted to the International Law are likely to be open to foreigners intervention. This is of course contrary to the principles of International Law. However, in the development of International Law as it has evolved in the Principle of the Responsibility to Protect and that should be accepted by any countries in order to attract the embodiment of the country against the security and Human Rights Abstrak: Lingkup Pertanggungjawaban Negara Terhadap Terorisme dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional pada Kasus Indonesia. Munculnya kasus terorisme global dalam satu dekade, ditandai dengan tragedi 9/11 yang menjadi masalah besar. Salah satu masalah yang berkembang adalah sejauh mana tanggung jawab negara terhadap aksi terorisme yang terjadi di wilayah kedaulatannya, yang menyebabkan timbulnya korban, baik warga negaranya sendiri atau warga negara asing. Dalam kasus terorisme yang terjadi di Indonesia, pertanggungjawaban negara terlihat dalam pelaksanaan Konvensi Internasional dan upaya menciptakan sistem peradilan pidana bagi pelaku tindak pidana terorisme. Jika permasalahan terorisme diserahkan kepada Hukum Internasional, maka cenderung akan membuka intervensi asing. Hal ini tentu saja bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Hukum Internasional. Namun, dalam perkembangan Hukum Internasional telah berevolusi dalam Prinsip Tanggung Jawab untuk melindungi, selain adanya keharusan setiap negara untuk menjaga keamanan dan Hak Asasi Manusia  DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i1.1841

scholarly journals Tinjauan Yuridis Cyber Espionage Berdasarkan Hukum Internasional

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 2141
Author(s):  
Aldo Rahmandana
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Economic Threat ◽  
Cyber Espionage ◽  
Per Se ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Rapid Transformation

AbstractDue to the rapid transformation of technology causing a subliminal changes on how states spy upon each other. With the help of technology and cyber infrastructure, states tend to use cyber technology as its main facility to conduct an espionage towards other states. Cyber espionage has come to represent national security and economic threat, due to all the classified information that already been massively stolen by another country. The aim of this research paper is to analyze and clarify pertaining the role of International law specifically towards this kind of act of espionage, and perceive the state responsibility of perpetrator which is states. It can be concluded that cyber espionage does not per se regulated under international law, but its lawfulness depends on the way in which it operation carried out may violate specific international conventions or any other international law principles.Keywords: Cyberlaw; Cyber Espionage; International Law.AbstrakPesatnya perkembangan teknologi dan digitalisasi mengakibatkan terjadinya perubahan metode dan cara dalam pelaksanaan tindakan spionase oleh negara terhadap negara lain guna mengumpulkan fakta dan informasi yang berkaitan dengan perkembangan politik, ekonomi, teknologi, dll melalui kapabilitas teknologi siber atau kerap disebut sebagai cyber espionage. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis terkait peranan hukum internasional dalam mengatur tindakan tersebut dalam tataran internasional dan bagaimana pertanggungjawaban dari negara pelaku tindakan cyber espionage. Hasil dari penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa belum ada konvensi international khusus yang mengatur mengenai cyber espionage sehingga tindakan cyber espionage itu sendiri merupakan tindakan yang masih belum diatur secara international.Kata Kunci: Hukum Siber; Cyber Espionage; Hukum Internasional.

scholarly journals Геноцид как Тяжкое Преступление (Genocide As Extraordinary Crime)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-962
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution ◽  
Siti Nurhalimah ◽  
Siti Romlah
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
State Obligations

The state is a subject of international law who has power or power, so that the state is required not to abuse its authority. State obligations have been regulated in various international legal instruments. The protection of human rights has implications for the emergence of the fulfillment of human rights as a form of state responsibility. The state in this case must ensure to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Therefore, all acts of the state that discriminate against citizens of a certain ethnicity by committing genocide are serious human rights crimes that must be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice. This study uses qualitative research with a sociological and juridical approach. The results of the study state that the State of Indonesia has also regulated the behavior of preventing the crime of genocide in order to protect human rights.Keywords: Genocide; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Abstrak:Negara merupakan subjek hukum internasional yang memiliki kekuasaan atau power, sehingga negara dituntut tidak melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang. Kewajiban negara telah diatur dalam berbagai instrumen hukum internasional. Perlindungan terhadap HAM berimplikasi terhadap munculnya pemenuhan HAM sebagai wujud tanggungjawab negara. Negara dalam hal ini harus memastikan to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Oleh karenanya, segala tindakan negara yang melakukan diskriminasi kepada warga negara dari etnis tertentu dengan melakukan genosida merupakan kejahatan HAM berat yang harus dituntut oleh Mahkamah Internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan sosiologis dan yuridis. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa Negara Indonesia juga telah mengatur perilaku pencegahan tindak kejahatan Genosida guna menjaga HAM.Kata Kunci: Genosida; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Абстрактный:Государство является субъектом международного права, обладающим властью или властью, поэтому от государства требуется не злоупотреблять своей властью. Обязательства государства регулируются различными международно-правовыми документами. Защита прав человека имеет значение для возникновения реализации прав человека как формы ответственности государства. Государство в этом случае должно гарантировать защиту, обеспечение и соблюдение прав человека. Следовательно, все действия государства, дискриминирующие граждан определенной этнической принадлежности путем совершения геноцида, являются серьезными преступлениями в области прав человека, которые должны преследоваться Международным Судом. В данном исследовании используются качественные исследования с социологическим и юридическим подходом. Результаты исследования показывают, что государство Индонезия также регулирует действия по предотвращению преступления геноцида в целях защиты прав человека.Ключевые слова: Геноцид; Ветчина; Чрезвычайное Преступление

A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice under International Law

1977 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 73-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. O. Adede
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Droit International

About four decades ago, an eminent jurist described the doctrine of denial of justice as “l'une des plus anciennes et “l'une des plus mal elucidees du droit international.” Another writer, also noting the persistent confusion over the meaning of the doctrine, suggested that the term denial of justice could as well be removed from the language of international law. Despite such suggestions, the doctrine of denial of justice, whose origin has been traced back to antiquity, has been retained, and international lawyers have constantly attempted to elucidate its meaning. In doing so, however, international lawyers, such as Alwyn Freeman in his classic book on the subject, have, for reasons explained elsewhere, eschewed the attempt to define the term justice as such. They have concentrated mainly upon the conduct that has most frequently been regarded as constituting a denial of justice. Thus, from its origin and development, the term denial of justice may be said to have been used in the following three senses:In its broadest sense, this term [denial of justice] seems to embrace the whole field of State responsibility, and has been applied to all types of wrongful conduct on the part of the State towards aliens. In its narrowest sense, this term has been limited to refusal of a State to grant an alien access to its courts or a failure of a court to pronounce a judgment. In an intermediate sense, the expression “denial of justice” is employed in connection with the improper administration of civil and criminal justice as regards an alien, including denial of access to courts, inadequate procedures, and unjust decisions.

scholarly journals FORSAKING EQUALITY: EXAMINE INDONESIA’S STATE RESPONSIBILITY ON POLYGAMY TO THE MARRIAGE RIGHTS IN CEDAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 182 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Nurhidayatuloh ◽  
F Febrian ◽  
Achmad Romsan ◽  
Annalisa Yahanan ◽  
Martinus Sardi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Woman's Rights ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Research Analysis

Human rights violation (HRV) occurs when a state including its organs commits HRV to individual within its jurisdiction. International Law has formulated a wide range of human rights law, especially the CEDAW which has been ratified through Law No. 7 of 1984. However, the law has not been applied properly. This article aims to examine HRV committed by a state which caused inability or unwilling to amend polygamy Law. Based on normative research, analysis to Article 2(f) of the Convention applies a viewpoint equality and state responsibility theories. Through this method, international conventions will be opposed to national provisions, Polygamy regulation. It is found that Indonesia through Polygamy regulation performs discrimination against woman’s rights. It can be stated that Marriage Law treats men and women unequal. It concludes that, as a state, Indonesia should responsible for HRV because the main problem of inequality is discrimination rooted from Polygamy regulation.Keywords: equality, human rights violation, non-discrimination, polygamy, state responsibility

Diplomatic Assurances Against Torture – An Effective Strategy? A Review of Jurisprudence and Examination of the Arguments

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Skoglund
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Threats ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Actual Risk ◽  
Substantial Risk ◽  
International Human ◽  
Controversial Area

AbstractHuman rights organisations have warned repeatedly that basic human rights are being challenged in the so-called 'War on Terror'. One particularly controversial area is the use of diplomatic assurances against torture. According to international human rights instruments, the state shall not return anyone to countries in which they face a substantial risk of being subjected to torture. In the 'War on Terror', an increasing number of non-citizens are being deemed 'security threats', rendering them exempt from protection in many Western states. To be able to deport such 'threats' without compromising their duties under international law, states are increasingly willing to accept a diplomatic assurance against torture – that is, a promise from the state of return that it will not subject the returnee to torture. There is wide disagreement as to whether and/or when diplomatic assurances can render sufficient protection to satisfy the obligations of non-refoulement to risk of torture. Whereas the human rights society label such assurances as 'empty promises', others view them as effective, allowing states to retain their right to remove non-citizens without violating international law. This article reviews international and selected national jurisprudence on the topic of diplomatic assurances against torture and examines if and/or when such assurances might render sufficient protection against torture to enable removals in accordance with international law. The courts and committees that have reviewed the use of diplomatic assurances against torture have identified essential problems of using them, thus rejecting reliance on simple promises not to torture. However, they have often implied that sufficient protection might be rendered by developing the assurances. I argue that this approach risks leading the governments into trying to perfect a system that is inherently flawed – whilst, incidentally, deportations to actual risk of torture continue. Even carefully modelled assurances render only unreliable protection against torture. For this, and reasons connected to undesirable side-effects of their use, I argue that the practice should be rejected.

Remarks by Sean D. Murphy

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Movement ◽  
Interstate System ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Individual

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?

The Hardest Part: Creating a Right of Secession

2020 ◽  
pp. 219-241
Author(s):  
Timothy William Waters
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Rule ◽  
The State ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Legal Right

This chapter explores strategies to achieve acceptance of a right to secede, whether as a legal rule or as a model for individual states. Secession is a hard sell, and the principal battleground is moral and political. A shift in attitudes must precede the legal project; only then will people see doctrinal arguments lining up and making sense. And, after all, the goal is not a new legal right for its own sake, but a change in how societies and states behave. The chapter then considers why a formal right of secession is implausible, and what that implies about the best strategies to adopt—the narrow but real possibilities that exist. The path is indirect: It relies on transnational diffusion of norms, and for this people can draw lessons from once-improbable projects that have become orthodoxies, such as decolonization and human rights; also, recent secession attempts suggest that constitutional projects could serve as models. The path leads through many small changes, rather than a single, quixotic swerve toward a new legal rule. But because the existing global norm limits the ability to create change within states, people cannot abandon the idea of a new rule: Advocates of secession need a point of triangulation outside the state to advance their cause, and that point will be found in international law.

scholarly journals Is the Responsibility to Protect an Accepted Norm of International Law in the post-Libya Era?

2018 ◽  
pp. 11
Author(s):  
Jeremy Sarkin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
One Dimensional

This article explores the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) in the post-Libya era to determinewhether it is now an accepted norm of international law. It examines what RtoP means intoday`s world and whether the norm now means that steps will be taken against states thatare committing serious human rights violations. The building blocks of RtoP are examined tosee how to make the doctrine more relevant and more applicable. It is contended that theresponsibility to react should be viewed through a much wider lens and that it needs to bemore widely interpreted to allow it to gain greater support. It is argued that there is a need tofocus far more on the responsibility to rebuild and that it ought to focus on the transitionallegal architecture as well as transitional justice. It is contended that these processes ought notto be one-dimensional, but ought to have a variety of constituent parts. It is further arguedthat the international and donor community ought to be far more engaged and far moredirective in these projects.

scholarly journals Disparity in Human Rights Violations: A Political and International Law Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 349
Author(s):  
Aidir Amin Daud
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Rational Solution ◽  
Double Series ◽  
Mass Murder ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
International Court ◽  
Political Interests

Right to life is non-derogable rights. A natural right that should not be revoked arbitrarily by anyone, including the state. A mass murder in events 1 October 1965 and Timor-Timor is a double series of states’ failure in protecting the rights of Indonesian peoples. Moreover, these two events get different treatment in its handling. The disparity in treatment between two cases is a big question related to the consistency of human rights enforcement in Indonesia. This study is a descriptive-qualitative research. While, to prove the truth, this study will use a comparative study. The findings show that the attitude of the United Nations that treat serious human rights violations in Timor-Timor and the events of 1965 in Indonesia, cannot be answered differently in the perspective of international law. Since it has a weakness where the political interests of ruling is very strong in influencing the decisions of the UN. The disparity in law enforcement in the event of serious human rights violations in 1965 and Timor-Timor due to the dynamics of international politics when it does not allow for the demands of human rights violations to the UNs’ International Court due to advantage for a certain state after the event. In order to reduce disparities in human rights violations, reconciliation is the most rational solution at this time compared remains demand the state for the violations. Besides, many human rights violations in certain countries that have successfully resolved through reconciliation approach.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State for Serious Violations of International Human Rights Law or the Law of Armed Conflict

2013 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 243-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul David Mora
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The State ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
International Human

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document