scholarly journals Pelanggaran Berat HAM dalam RUU KUHP: Tinjauan dari Hukum Internasional (Gross Violations of Human Rights in the Criminal Code Bill: an Overview from International Law)

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Bernhard Ruben Fritz Sumigar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
International Obligations

The spirit of the drafter of the Criminal Code Bill (CCB) to fully codify all criminal provisions, including those relating to the gross violations of human rights, into a single legally binding instrument is marked with the inconsistency of its formula with the standard provided in numerous instruments under international law. In light of this situation, this article is presence to discuss legal challenges arising from the stipulation of gross violations of human rights under CCB. By using qualitative and descriptive normative methods, this article finds three fundamental problems between the provisions of CCB and the international legal framework. The problems in question are related to (i) the inaccuracy of the use of the term “Serious Crimes against Human Rights” in CCB, as well as misregulation of (ii) crimes of genocide and (iii) crimes against humanity in CCB with international law. On this basis, this article concludes that the provisions of gross human rights violations in CCB are contrary to the provisions of international law which are binding and applicable to Indonesia, and therefore, this article is prepared to provide recommendations for policymakers to reconsider the formulation of the provisions of gross human rights violations in CCB in order to be compatible with Indonesia’s international obligations to comply with the provisions of international law. AbstrakSemangat perumus Rancangan Undang-Undang KUHP (RUU KUHP) untuk melakukan kodifikasi total semua ketentuan pidana, termasuk yang berkaitan dengan pelanggaran berat HAM, ditandai dengan ketidak-konsistenan antara rumusan yang diatur dengan standar dalam sejumlah instrumen hukum internasional. Berdasarkan hal tersebut, artikel ini disusun untuk mendiskusikan tantangan hukum yang akan timbul dari pengaturan tentang pelanggaran berat HAM dalam RUU KUHP. Dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif dan deskriptif normatif, artikel ini menemukan 3 (tiga) permasalahan antara ketentuan RUU KUHP dan kerangka hukum internasional, yaitu (i) istilah “Tindak Pidana Berat terhadap HAM” yang tidak tepat (ii) kejahatan genosida, dan (iii) kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Berdasarkan 6pembahasan, artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa ketentuan pelanggaran berat HAM dalam RUU KUHP bertentangan dengan ketentuan hukum internasional yang mengikat dan berlaku bagi Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, artikel ini memberikan rekomendasi bagi pembuat kebijakan untuk merumuskan kembali ketentuan pelanggaran berat HAM dalam RUU KUHP agar sepadan dengan ketentuan hukum internasional.

Namibia and Blanket Amnesties: Challenging the Namibian Blanket Amnesties on the basis of International Law in the Namibian Courts

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Atilla Kisla
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation Commission ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Truth And Reconciliation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Before And After

Amnesty laws issued by Administrator General Pienaar in 1989 and 1990 still show their effect by preventing prosecutions and investigations of situations that occurred before Namibia’s independence. Unlike South Africa, Namibia did not establish a truth-finding body such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The result is a situation of silence, oblivion and impunity without any kind of accountability. On this basis, crimes such as international crimes or serious human rights violations have never been prosecuted or even investigated. As this article argues, the amnesty laws from 1989 and 1990 qualify as blanket amnesties. Up until today, Namibians as well as the members of the South African Defence Force benefit from those amnesties. Against this backdrop, the question of whether the Namibian blanket amnesties apply in relation to international crimes and grave human rights violations will be addressed. This article argues that based on international law, the application of the Namibian blanket amnesties can be challenged in a potential criminal case that deals with international crimes or grave human rights violations in the Namibian courts. Therefore, this article illustrates how international law applies in the Namibian legal system. In this context, Namibia follows a monist approach which makes it quite receptive of international law and international standards. On this basis, this article points out binding international law at the time before and after Namibia’s independence as well as examining Namibia’s binding treaty obligations which arise under the Geneva Conventions, Torture Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the next section, an examination of domestic and international jurisprudence lays the foundation for the argument that the Namibian blanket amnesties can be challenged in a Namibian court when the crimes in question constitute international crimes, such as crimes against humanity or war crimes.

scholarly journals The Close Relationship Between Serious Human Rights Violations and Crimes Against Humanity: International Criminalization of Serious Abuses

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (17) ◽  
pp. 145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Pablo Pérez-León Acevedo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The Relationship

This article aims to evidence both the existence of a close relationship between the notions of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and how this works in international law. To do so, international legal sources such as the United Nations practice, case-law of international and hybrid criminal courts and tribunals, and case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and other human rights bodies are taken into account. Thus, this article analyses how these and other international sources have examined the above-mentioned relationship, i.e., inter alia the similarities and differences between serious human rights abuses and the legal objective and subjective elements of crimes against humanity. Accordingly, it is found that, although some differences exist, the notion of serious human rights violations underlies the legal concept of crimes against humanity. In turn, this is linked to the relationship between those two categories of international law.

The German Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law

2003 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 995-1009
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Handl
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Core ◽  
Legal Situation

On June 26,2002 the German Federal Parliament passed an Act to Introduce the Code of Crimes Against International Law (“the Act”), which subsequently entered into force on June 30,2002, the day after its promulgation in the German Federal Law Gazette. Article 1 of the Act contains the Code of Crimes Against International Law (“CCAIL”), which provides the legal framework for German courts to prosecute crimes for which the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) is competent, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (“the core crimes”). The remaining Articles of the Act contain, inter alia, amendments to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, the primary purpose of which is to harmonize the general criminal law with the CCAIL.For a better understanding of the significance of the CCAIL on the national and international plane, it is important to recall briefly the legal situation in Germany regarding the prosecution of the core crimes prior to the entry into force of the Act

scholarly journals Grave human rights violations and crimes against humanity under public international law: The case of Mexico

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (15) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Dorothy Estrada-Tanck
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos

El marco jurídico internacional de las Naciones Unidas sobre violaciones graves de los derechos humanos y crímenes de lesa humanidad se ha desarrollado en los últimos años al grado de una iniciativa para un tratado autónomo sobre crímenes de lesa humanidad. México ha sufrido varias reformas constitucionales y legales que aceptan la prioridad y la supremacía de los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos, pero al mismo tiempo enfrenta una de las peores crisis humanitarias de su historia. Se revisa la relación entre el derecho internacional en esta área y los problemas y esfuerzos fácticos, jurídicos y metodológicos específicos realizados por diferentes actores en México y se proponen formas de acercarse a mecanismos más adecuados para realizar los derechos internacionalmente reconocidos de las víctimas a la verdad, la justicia y las reparaciones.

scholarly journals SECURING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE FACE OF INTERNATIONAL INTEGRATION

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel de Jesús Butler
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Face ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Increasing Risk

AbstractThe continuous transfer of authority from the national sphere to inter-governmental organizations gives rise to an increasing risk that States may be mandated by their obligations under these organizations to take measures that are inconsistent with their obligations under International Human Rights Law. Drawing on the approaches of various international, regional and national jurisdictions, this article explores two possible models for restructuring International Law that could ensure that human rights obligations remain effective. The ‘international constitutional’ approach would ensure that human rights are enshrined within the ‘constitutional’ instruments of IGOs, preventing incompatible rules from emerging. The ‘parochial’ approach would ensure that human rights as protected at the national or regional level would take precedence over conflicting international obligations.

Moving towards Complicity as a Criterion of Attribution of Private Conducts: Imputation to States of Corporate Abuses in the US Case Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 989-1007
Author(s):  
DANIELE AMOROSO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Traditional Paradigm ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Private Wrongs

AbstractAccording to the agency paradigm enshrined by the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, private conducts are attributed to a state when they are carried out on the state's behalf or under its tight control. On closer look, this legal framework proves to be unable to deal with state involvement in human-rights violations perpetrated by powerful non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or transnational corporations. These wrongs, indeed, are often put in place with the fundamental contribution of – but not on behalf of (or under the control of) – a state, with the consequence that, under the traditional paradigm, they could not be attributed to the latter. Against this backdrop, the present paper argues that a new secondary norm has been developing that provides that private wrongs are to be imputed to a state if the latter knowingly facilitated (or otherwise co-operated in) their commission. Although international practice will be duly taken into account, the analysis will be focused mainly on US case law concerning corporate liability for international human-rights violations.

The Security Council on women in war: between peacebuilding and humanitarian protection

2010 ◽  
Vol 92 (877) ◽  
pp. 197-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain-Guy Tachou-Sipowo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Active Participation ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Women In War

AbstractHaving established that massive human rights violations in armed conflict constitute a threat to peace and that women are the most severely affected by the scourge of war, the Security Council has since 1999 adopted a number of resolutions intended specifically for this group. These instruments contribute to the development of humanitarian law applicable to women and acknowledge the value of active participation by women in peace efforts. The following article first analyses the foundations on which the Council has been able to assume responsibility for protecting women in situations of armed conflict, and then considers the actual protection it provides. It concludes that the Council has had varying success in this role, pointing out that the thematic and declaratory resolutions on which it is largely based are not binding and therefore, they are relatively effective only as regards their provisions committing United Nations bodies. The author proposes that the Council's role could be better accomplished through situational resolutions than through resolutions declaratory of 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document