Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"This book explores the genesis and structure of the coup-installed regimes in Iran, Turkey, and Egypt, with particular emphasis on the interactions between the three ruling institutions across several decades: military, security, and politics. It analyzes the revolutions from above in these three countries and the trajectories of their respective regimes: Iran became an absolutist monarchy that was overthrown from below; Turkey developed a limited democracy; and Egypt evolved into a police state. This divergence, the book argues, was determined by the power struggle within the ruling bloc between the military, security, and political institutions-what it calls the power triangle. The discussion is organized in three parts. Part I examines how the Iranian regime was transformed into an absolutist monarchy, Part II highlights the limits of military guardianship in Turkey, and Part III considers the politics of repression in Egypt and especially how power relations between the country's military, security, and political institutions influenced the way they direct the regime one way or another."

"Foreign-Imposed Regime Change (FIRC) atau intervensi perubahan rezim merupakan salah satu instrumen kebijakan keamanan Amerika Serikat (AS) dalam mengejar kepentingannya. Dalam Perang Sipil Suriah, AS menjadi salah satu negara pengintervensi dan dengan tujuan untuk mengganti pemerintahan Suriah. AS menggunakan intervensi perubahan rezim tertutup di Suriah. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk menjawab pertanyaan “mengapa AS menggunakan intervensi perubahan rezim tertutup alih-alih terbuka di Suriah?” Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data studi dokumen. Kerangka analisis yang digunakan adalah Logika Strategi Perubahan Rezim oleh Lindsey O’Rourke (2018) yang terdiri dari pertimbangan taktis dan keuntungan strategis intervensi. Peneliti berargumen bahwa AS menggunakan intervensi perubahan rezim tertutup karena pertimbangan taktis AS di Suriah dan rekam jejak di negara-negara target sebelumnya dan pertimbangan keuntungan strategis akan hasil yang didapat di Suriah serta posisi negara-negara rival membuat AS enggan menggunakan operasi terbuka dan memilih operasi tertutup.

---

Foreign-Imposed Regime Change is one of the United States’ (US) security policy instruments to pursue their national security interests. During the Syrian Civil War, the US intervenes with a purpose of overthrowing the incumbent Syrian government. The US uses a covert regime change for that purpose. This research is aiming at answering the question of “why does the US use a covert regime change instead of an overt regime change in Syria?” This research relies on qualitative approach to answer the research question and uses primary and secondary data collected from official documents and open-source information. This research employs the concept of the strategic logic of regime change developed by Lindsey O’Rourke (2018; 2019) to analyze the case. This research focuses on the tactical considerations and strategic benefits of an intervention and argues that US uses covert regime change operation because of the heavy cost of their previous overt regime change polices in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya as well as the fear of rival states’ intervention, especially from Russia, in Syria that might endanger their current geopolical standing."

"Penelitian tesis ini membahas tentang legitimasi unilateral humanitarian intervention yang merupakan sebuah intervensi atau penggunaan kekuatan bersenjata oleh suatu negara (atau sejumlah negara) kepada negara lain dengan tujuan untuk menghentikan pelanggaran HAM berat di negara tersebut, yang dilakukan tanpa otorisasi DK PBB. Praktek tersebut menimbulkan perdebatan berdasarkan fakta bahwa apabila DK PBB gagal (baik karena unwilling dan atau unable), komunitas internasional tidak dapat merespon terhadap pelanggaran HAM berat, seperti genosida, kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan, ethnic cleansing, yang terjadi di suatu negara apabila intervensi ini dianggap menentang kedaulatan negara. Memang, prinsip non intervensi dan perlindungan terhadap HAM, samasama merupakan norma jus cogens dalam hukum internasional. Namun, saat ini kedaulatan negara tidak lagi bersifat absolut, dimana negara (pemerintah) memiliki kewajiban untuk melindungi rakyatnya dan tidak dapat melakukan pelanggaran HAM berat atau kejahatan internasional dan berlindung di balik kedaulatannya tersebut, atau dengan kata lain sovereignty implies responsibility. Atas dasar itulah, komunitas internasional menghadapi dilema terkait tindakan yang harus dilakukan oleh sebuah negara ketika terjadi pertentangan antara apa yang diperbolehkan oleh hukum dengan apa yang seharusnya dilakukan secara moral, karena terdapat jurang yang memisahkan legalitas atau hukum (law) dengan legitimasi atau keadilan (justice). Seperti kasus unilateral humanitarian intervention yang dilakukan oleh NATO di Kosovo yang memunculkan dilemma akan apa yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh Negara-negara ketika ada pertentangan antara hukum internasional dan aspek moral. Dalam kasus tersebut, intervensi NATO dianggap "illegal but legitimate", sehingga menimbulkan suatu pergeseran dalam hukum internasional dari konsep legal menjadi legitimasi. Pendekatan ini terlihat masuk akal untuk mendamaikan pertentangan antara legalitas dan moralitas, tetapi kurang memiliki posisi dalam hukum internasional. Namun, bukan tidak mungkin bahwa bila dikemudian hari ada lagi kasus serupa dimana negara melakukan unilateral humanitarian intervention, dan negara lain tidak menentangnya, maka praktek ini dapat berkembang menjadi sebuah kebiasaan baru yang memiliki posisi dalam hukum internasional. Tetapi perlu diingat bahwa tugas kita adalah bukan untuk mencari sumber otoritas lain sebagai alternatif dari DK PBB, namun untuk membuat DK PBB bekerja lebih baik dari sebelumnya.

---

The focus of this thesis is to analyze the legitimacy of unilateral humanitarian intervention in international law. Unilateral humanitarian intervention is a threat or a use of force by a state (or a group of states) aiming to prevent or end widespread of grave human rights violations or international crimes, without the permission or the target state and without the Security Council authorization. This practice has created a debate based on the fact that if the United Nations Security Council fails to act (unable and or unwilling), the international community may not respond to stop international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing that occur in other states because the intervention is considered to violate the sovereignty of that state. The tension is between the principle of non-intervention (use of force) which is related to the primacy of state sovereignty and the protection of fundamental human rights, which both are norms of jus cogens in international law. However, sovereignty is no longer an absolute concept. The sovereignty of States can no longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights, or in other words sovereignty implies responsibility. This poses the dilemma of what states should do when there is a great divide between what international law requires and what morality dictates, as there is a gap between legality and legitimacy, law and justice. This issue was brought into sharp relief by NATO?s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, which raised the dilemma of what states should do when there is a divide between the demands of international law and morality. In the end, many states concluded that NATO?s use of force was illegal but legitimate. However, while this approach provides an intuitively plausible way of reconciling legality and morality, it ultimately does not have a sustainable position in international law. It could have a position in international law, if in the future, there are other similar cases or state practice where states did act unilaterally to respond to international crimes, and received no condemnation from other states. But let's remember that the task is not to find alternatives to the Security Council as a source of authority, but to make the Security Council work much better than it has."

"A landmark study in the struggle to contain climate change, the greatest challenge of our era. I urge everyone to read it."--Bill Clinton, 42nd President of the United States of America. Climate change differs from any other problem that, as collective humanity, we face today. If it goes unchecked, the consequences are likely to be catastrophic for human life on earth. Yet for most people, and for many policy-makers too, it is a 'back of the mind' issue. We recognise its importance and even its urgency, but for the most part it is swamped by more immediate concerns. Politicians have woken up to the dangers, but at the moment their responses are mainly on the level of gesture rather than being, as they have to be, both concrete and radical. Political action and intervention, on local, national and international levels, is going to have a decisive effect on whether or not we can limit global warming, as well as how we adapt to that already occurring. At the moment, however, Anthony Giddens argues controversially, we do not have a systematic politics of climate change. Politics-as-usual won't allow us to deal with the problems we face, while the recipes of the main challenger to orthodox politics, the green movement, are flawed at source. Giddens introduces a range of new concepts and proposals to fill in the gap, and examines in depth the connections between climate change and energy security. This book is likely to become a classic in the field. It will appeal to everyone concerned about how we can cope with what amounts to a crisis for our civilisation. Read less"