The Theory and Practice of Mediation: A Reply to Professor Susskind

This article details the theory and practice of mediation. The mediation process can be characterized as follows: it is (1) a noncompulsory procedure in which (2) an impartial, neutral party is invited or accepted by (3) parties to a dispute to help them (4) identify issues of mutual concern and (5) design solutions to these issues, (6) which are acceptable to the parties. The mediator’s role is to convey each party’s proposals in a language that is both faithful to the desired objectives of the party and formulated to ensure the highest degree of receptivity by the listener. The article then looks at the profile of a mediator and explores mediator strategies for building a settlement. It also considers environmental dispute mediation.

The Use of Custom URL for E-Messages, Tweets and Posts against E-Social Platforms Based on Time Complexity Retardation

On the leaning of the widespread adaptation of web services such as social networking sites (like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, WhatsApp, Instagram, Pinterest, etc.) and E-mail have become regular work. We approach these sites to gather or share information worldwide in the form of messages (like tweets, posts, blogs, etc.) and also in other formats such as pictures, audio, and video. In the modern era of Technology where the audience is widely connected with e-platform, these social networking sites are also used to organize e-campaign to favor or counteraction in different contention such as political review, social issue, environmental dispute, worldwide controversy, trolling etc. using the method of Folksonomy [1]. We are participating in such trolling, controversy, and campaign or expedition by using posting a message, tweet, micro-blog, etc. In particular, to join all we are doing is post a tweet or micro-blog that has the precise word or phrase because it appears within the Trends list, like a hashtag. But the trending keywords changed in the short-term and any hashtag gets popularity worldwide shortly. We demonstrate the custom-URL to join e-campaign which is wrapped in shortened-URL for easy to understand and gets excessive results to trend any Tag or Hashtag in a span of time. We improve the results for the community, groups and as well as for the individual audience to gets the best consequence for trending keywords.

Strict Liability in Environmental Dispute Responsibility Before and After the Enabling of Omnibus Law

With the limitation of the principle of fault-based liability, which is not effective in the implementation of the responsibility for activities with high risk, Law No. 23 of 1997 concerning Environmental Management and Law no. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management which adheres to the principle of absolute responsibility or strict liability. The regulation regarding the principle of strict liability is clarified in Article 88 of Law no. 32 of 2009 (UU PLH). However, with the passing of the Omnibus Law, which changed Article 88 of Law no. 32 of 2009 becomes article 88 of the Omnibus Law, which eliminates the principle of strict liability. This writing uses a normative approach, a statutory approach. The data analysis used is a qualitative analysis. The elimination of strict liability in resolving environmental disputes is considered a shift, which in the provisions of Article 88 of the Job Creation Law seems to provide an opportunity for corporations to pollute the environment without firm accountability. The government seems to protect the sustainability of a corporation more than the interests of the community. The type of research used in this study is using normative legal research methods using a statutory approach and literature study.

Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Masyarakat yang Terpapar Limbah B3

This research examines the legal protection of people who are victims of the B3 madical waste. This research is a qualitative research with literature study. The main sources in this research are written sources in the form of books, research results, and laws which related to the issue. The results showed that the law provides protection to people who are exposed to the B3 madical waste, both criminal and civil law. When a dispute happening between the community and the company, the solution can be done in two ways, litigation and non-litigation. Settlement of environmental disputes through channels outside the court according to Article 85 paragraph (3) can only be done by using the services of a mediator and / or arbitrator to help resolve the dispute. Active community participation can be carried out by referring to Article 86 of the PPLH Law by establishing a free and impartial environmental dispute resolution institution facilitated by the government and local governments.

PELAKSANAAN POLLUTER PAYS PRINCIPLE PADA PERUSAHAAN PERTAMBANGAN DALAM PEMULIHAN PENCEMARAN LAUT [The Implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle for Mining Companies in Marine Pollution Recovery]

<p><em>The Panel of Judges examining case No. 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI issued a verdict which stated that the action of PT Cahaya Bintan Abadi (Defendant I), PT S&amp;B Investama (Defendant II) and PT Perjuangan (Defendant III) carried out bauxite mining and construction of ports for wharves that have stockpiled at the edge of the wharf resulting sea pollution and death of fishes and marine habitats pier the place of Plaintiff’s livelihood is a tort. And stated that the construction of ports carried out by Defendant II and Defendant III did not carry out the function of environmental supervision and cause the sea pollution was an act of tort. According to civil law, in environmental dispute, plaintiff have the rights to make claims for compensation which is stated in Article 1365 Indonesia Civil Code. Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) is a principle of justice which regulates that the costs of pollution prevention and control should be borne by the polluter. The method used is qualitative research method. This study focuses on Case Number: 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI (inkracht), an environmental dispute between mining companies and fishermen in Tanjung Pinang City, where the mining companies polluted the sea, inflict a financial loss for fishermen and harmed the marine life. The result of this study shows that Case No. 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI has sentenced the Defendants to pay compensation to the Plaintiffs, yet it is not optimal enough in applying the Polluter Pays Principles.</em></p><p><strong>Bahasa Indonesia Abstrak: </strong>Majelis Hakim pemeriksa perkara Putusan No. 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI telah menjatuhkan putusan yang pada pokoknya menyatakan bahwa perbuatan PT Cahaya Bintan Abadi (Tergugat I), PT S&amp;B Investama (Tergugat II) dan PT Perjuangan (Tergugat III) yang melakukan penambangan bauksit dan pembuatan pelabuhan untuk dermaga yang telah menimbun atau stok piil di pinggir dermaga berakibat tercemarnya air laut dan kematian ikan dan habitat laut tempat mata pencaharian Para Penggugat adalah perbuatan melawan hukum. Dan menyatakan bahwa pembangunan dermaga dan/atau pelabuhan yang dilakukan oleh Tergugat II dan Tergugat III tidak menjalankan fungsi pengawasan lingkungan sehingga tercemarnya laut adalah perbuatan melawan hukum. Berdasarkan hukum perdata, dalam sengketa lingkungan hidup, penggugat yang merasa dirugikan mempunya hak untuk menuntut ganti rugi sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata. <em>Polluter Pays Principle </em>(PPP) merupakan prinsip keadilan yang mengatur bahwa biaya pencegahan dan pengendalian pencemaran wajib ditanggung oleh pencemar. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Studi ini berfokus pada Putusan Nomor 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap, merupakan sengketa lingkungan hidup antara perusahaan pertambangan dengan masyarakat nelayan Kota Tanjung Pinang, dimana perusahaan pertambangan telah mencemari laut dan menimbulkan kerugian finansial bagi masyarakat nelayan dan juga membahayakan kehidupan laut. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Putusan Nomor 26/Pdt.G/2009/PN.TPI telah menghukum Para Tergugat untuk membayar ganti rugi kepada Para Penggugat, namun belum optimal dalam menerapkan <em>Polluter Pays Principle</em>.</p>

MEKANISME PENENTUAN GANTI RUGI ATAS KERUSAKAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP OLEH PERUSAHAAN: PENDEKATAN PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA KEPERDATAAN

Penulisan artikel jurnal ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana model penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup melalui jalur keperdataan dan untuk mengetahui mekanisme dan pengaturan mengenai penentuan ganti rugi atas kerugian yang dialami dalam sengketa lingkungan hidup. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian hukum ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif, dengan menerapkan teknik deskripsi analisis yang menjawab permasalahan berdasarkan analisis bahan hukum serta perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa, terdapat 2 model penyelesaian sengketa lingkungan hidup melalui jalur keperdataan yang dapat ditempuh, yaitu jalur litigasi dan jalur non-litigasi. Pada penyelesaian sengketa melalui jalur litigasi, dalam mengajukan gugatan dapat dilakukan melalui beberapa model gugatan, yaitu Gugatan Perorangan, Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, dan Gugatan Organisasi Lingkungan Hidup. Sedangkan, pada jalur non-litigasi dapat dilakukan dengan cara negosiasi, mediasi, konsiliasi, dan arbitrase. Mengenai mekanisme dan pengaturan penentuan ganti rugi atas kerugian yang dialami dalam sengketa lingkungan hidup diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 32 Tahun 2009, dimana pertanggung jawaban terhadap kerusakan lingkungan hidup dipertanggung jawabkan melalui tanggung jawab mutlak terhadap kerugian yang telah terjadi. Tanggung jawab mutlak ini, pihak penggugat tidak perlu membuktikan unsur kesalahan serta dapat dibarengi dengan ketentuan beban pembuktian terbalik. Mengenai pedoman penghitungan kerugian lingkungan hidup akibat kerusakan lingkungan hidup diatur dalam Peraturan Menteri Lingkungan Hidup RI No. 7 Tahun 2014. Writing this journal article aims to find out how to model environmental dispute resolution through civil channels and to find out the mechanisms and arrangements regarding the determination of compensation for losses experienced in environmental disputes. The method used in this legal research is the method of normative legal research, by applying the analysis description technique that answers problems based on the analysis of legal and statutory materials. The results showed that, there are 2 models of environmental dispute resolution through civil channels that can be taken, namely the litigation route and the non-litigation route. In dispute resolution through litigation, filing a lawsuit can be done through several lawsuit models, namely Individual Lawsuit, Class Representative Lawsuit, and Environmental Organization Lawsuit. Meanwhile, the non-litigation route can be carried out by means of negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Regarding the mechanism and arrangement for determining compensation for losses suffered in environmental disputes is regulated in Law Number 32 of 2009, where responsibility for environmental damage is accounted for through absolute responsibility for the losses that have occurred. This absolute responsibility, the plaintiff does not need to prove the element of error and can be accompanied by the provision of a reverse burden of proof. Regarding the guidelines for calculating environmental losses due to environmental damage, it is regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia No. 7 of 2014.