Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"ABSTRAKPerjanjian internasional dianggap sebagai sumber hukum internasional yangtertinggi. Namun, pada prakteknya banyak negara yang mencoba melarikan diridari kewajiban yang timbul dari perjanjian internasional yang telah disepakatidengan alasan salah satunya bertentangan dengan hukum nasionalnya (doktrinatau konstitusinya). Dalam Vienna Convention on The Law Treaties 1969("VCLT") sendiri terdapat dua pasal yang mengatur hubungan antara hukumnasional dengan perjanjian internasional yang telah disepakati. Dengan jelas padapasal 27 VCLT menyatakan bahwa hukum nasional tidak dapat dijadikan alasanpembenar sebuah negara tidak melakukan kewajiban yang timbul dari perjanjianinternasional. Dengan keberadaan pasal 27 VCLT tidak kemudian dapatmengabaikan pasal 46 VCLT. Ketentuan tersebut merupakan pengecualian daripasal 27 VCLT yang diartikan secara negatif bahwa sebuah negara dapatmengajukan hukum nasionalnya sebagai alasan pembenar batalnya keterikatanterhadap perjanjian internasional, jika melanggar hukum nasional suatu negaraterkait dengan kompetensi perwakilan pada saat menyatakan kesepakatannyaterhadap perjanjian internasional, pelanggarannya nyata, dan menyangkut halyang dasar dan penting. Prakteknya memang terdapat negara-negara yangmencoba untuk tidak melaksanakan kewajiban perjanjian internasional, contohkasus La Grand, namun ICJ sudah mencoba untuk tetap menegakkan ketentuandari pasal 27 VCLT, sedangkan pasal 46 VCLT jarang diajukan sebagai alasanpembenar. Skripsi ini berbentuk penelitian hukum yang menggunakan studiyuridis normatif.

---

ABSTRACTTreaty is regarded to be the highest source of international law. However, in

practice there are many countries which try to run away by the obligation that

establishes from treaty, which one of the reasons is inconsistency with the

national law (doctrine or constitution). Based on Vienna Convention on The Law

of Treaties 1969 ("VCLT"), there are two articles that regulate the relation

between national law and a ratified treaty. In accordance with article 27 VCLT, a

state may not invoke their national law as justification not to exercise their treaty

obligation. However, the existence of article 27 VCLT is without prejudice to

article 46 VCLT. That article is the exception of article 27 VCLT which can be

negatively stipulated that a state may invoke their national law as justification to

cancel their consent to a treaty, if it violates their national law regarding the

competency of a state representative, manifest, and fundamental of importance. In

practice, many countries indeed tried to run away from their treaty obligation, for

instance La Grand Case, however ICJ had tried to apply law in accordance with

article 27 VCLT, in contrast article 46 VCLT is seldom invoked by states. This

thesis is concluded as a legal research that uses normative legal method."

"This book offers a comprehensive analysis of the law of treaties based on the interplay between the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law. Written by a team of renowned international lawyers, it offers new insight into the basic concepts and methodology of the law of treaties and its problems."

"The commentary on the Vienna convention on the law of treaties provides an in-depth article-by-article analysis of all provisions of the Vienna convention. The texts are uniformly structured : (I) purpose and function of the article, (II) historical background and negotiating history, and (III) elements of the article. The Vienna convention on treaties between states and IOs and between IOs is taken into account where appropriate. In sum, the present commentary contains a comprehensive legal analysis of all aspects of the international law of treaties. Where the law of treaties reaches into other fields of international law, e.g. the law of state responsibility, the relevant interfaces are discussed and contextualized. "

"The Commentary on the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides an in-depth article-by-article analysis of all provisions of the Vienna Convention. The texts are uniformly structured: (I) Purpose and Function of the Article, (II) Historical Background and Negotiating History, and (III) Elements of the Article. The Vienna Convention on Treaties between States and IOs and between IOs is taken into account where appropriate. In sum, the present Commentary contains a comprehensive legal analysis of all aspects of the international law of treaties. Where the law of treaties reaches into other fields of international law, e.g. the law of state responsibility, the relevant interfaces are discussed and contextualized. With its focus on international practice, the Commentary is addressed to academia, as well as to practitioners of international law."

"Summary: Présentation de l'éditeur : "The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations has for over 50 years been central to diplomacy and applied to all forms of relations among sovereign States. Participation is almost universal. The rules giving special protection to ambassadors are the oldest established in international law and the Convention is respected almost everywhere. But understanding it as a living instrument requires knowledge of its background in customary international law, of the negotiating history which clarifies many of its terms and the subsequent practice of states and decisions of national courts which have resolved other ambiguities. Diplomatic Law provides this in-depth Commentary. The book is an essential guide to changing methods of modern diplomacy and shows how challenges to its regime of special protection for embassies and diplomats have been met and resolved. It is used by ministries of foreign affairs and cited by domestic courts world-wide. The book analyzes the reasons for the widespread observance of the Convention rules and why in the special case of communications - where there is flagrant violation of their special status - these reasons do not apply. It describes how abuse has been controlled and how the immunities in the Convention have survived onslaught by those claiming that they should give way to conflicting entitlements to access to justice and the desire to punish violators of human rights. It describes how the duty of diplomats not to interfere in the internal affairs of the host State is being narrowed in the face of the communal international responsibility to monitor and uphold human rights.""

"Skripsi ini dilatarbelakangi oleh permasalahan adanya inkonsistensi putusan dan perdebatan para ahli terkait pengaturan mengenai hukum yang berlaku dalam Pasal 42 Konvensi ICSID. Hal ini menjadi semakin rumit dengan dipengaruhinya penerapan Pasal 42 Konvensi ICSID dalam sengketa ICSID yang didasarkan pada Investment Treaty. Untuk membahas permasalahan ini, maka akan digunakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan analisa yuridis-normatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, adanya fungsi dari investment treaty untuk memberlakukan hukum internasional ketika digunakan sebagai dasar arbitrase. Selain itu, investment treaty juga dapat menjadi metode pilihan hukum dalam sengketa ICSID sesuai dengan Pasal 42 Konvensi ICSID.

---

This study is motivated by the inconsistency of awards and scholars debate regarding the applicable law in investment disputes under Article 42 of the ICSID Convention. Such situation became more complex when a dispute is initiated under an investment treaty. This affects the application of Article 42 of the Convention. This study uses normative legal research and juridical-normative analysis to address the issue. The outcome of this study is to point out the proper functionality of investment treaties to enforce international law when investment treaty is used as a basis for arbitration. Furthermore, such an investment treaty can also be applied as a choice of law method in ICSID disputes in accordance with Article 42 of the ICSID Convention."

"Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti lebih lanjut bagaimana penerapan ketentuan intersepsi dan pemaksaan mendarat dalam Pasal 3 bis Konvensi Chicago oleh Indonesia, Belarusia, dan Inggris, baik dalam ketentuan hukum nasional masing-masing negara maupun dalam penanganan kasus intersepsi oleh ketiga negara tersebut. Penelitian ini juga bertujuan untuk membandingkan penerapan ketentuan intersepsi pada ketiga negara tersebut, khususnya dari segi alasan intersepsi dan penanganan pesawat setelah pemaksaan mendarat.Pasal 3 bis Konvensi Chicago memperbolehkan setiap negara untuk mengintersepsi dan memaksa mendarat pesawat udara sipil yang melintas wilayahnya tanpa membahayakan keselamatan penerbangan ataupun menggunakan senjata. Selain itu, kedua tindakan tersebut hanya boleh dilakukan atas dua alasan: pelanggaran kedaulatan wilayah udara dan penyalahgunaan penerbangan sipil. Walaupun ICAO melengkapi ketentuan tersebut dengan standar dan rekomendasi tata cara teknis intersepsi dalam Annex 2 dan Manual Intersepsi ICAO, ketentuan hukum internasional belum mengatur penanganan pesawat udara sipil pasca pemaksaan mendarat secara merinci. Selain itu, ketentuan hukum internasional juga belum mendefinisikan maksud penyalahgunaan penerbangan sipil sebagai alasan intersepsi dan pemaksaan mendarat.Indonesia, Belarusia, dan Inggris memiliki ketentuan hukum nasional tersendiri untuk mengatur tindakan intersepsi dan pemaksaan mendarat, mulai dari alasan dan tata cara intersepsi hingga penanganan pesawat udara yang dipaksa mendarat. Mengingat ketentuan hukum internasional belum mendefinisikan maksud penyalahgunaan penerbangan sipil serta belum mengatur penanganan pesawat udara pasca pemaksaan mendarat, setiap negara menetapkan kedua hal tersebut dengan ketentuan yang berbeda antara satu dengan yang lainnya. Selain itu, perbedaan lainnya juga terlihat dari seberapa merinci peraturan tersebut dan seberapa selaras ketentuan tersebut dengan ketentuan Konvensi Chicago.Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia, Belarusia, dan Inggris melaksanakan intersepsi dan pemaksaan mendarat menurut ketentuan hukum nasionalnya masing-masing. Pada akhirnya pula, keselarasan negara dalam menangani tindakan intersepsi dengan ketentuan Pasal 3 bis Konvensi Chicago dipengaruhi keselarasan ketentuan hukum nasional mengenai intersepsi dengan ketentuan Pasal 3 bis itu sendiri.

---

The following research was established to further investigate on how Indonesia, Belarus, and the United Kingdom apply Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention regarding civil aircraft interception and forced landing on their national laws and on how each state handle interception cases in their respective countries. The following research was also aimed to compare the application of civil aircraft interception provisions on the following three countries, especially regarding the reason of interception and handling of aircraft post-forced landing.

Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention allows every state to intercept a civil aircraft flying through the concerned state’s territory and force its landing without endangering aviation safety and by refraining from using weapons. Both of those actions are only permitted under two reasons: violation of airspace sovereignty and misuse of civil aviation. Although ICAO supplement the following provision with their standards and recommendation regarding the technical procedures of aircraft interception on Annex 2 and ICAO’s Interception Manual, international law provisions have yet to regulate the handling of forced landed aircraft in detail. Furthermore, international law provisions have also yet to further define misuse of civil aviation as grounds for aircraft interception and forced landing.

Indonesia, Belarus, and the United Kingdom each have their own perspective national regulations regarding civil aircraft interception and its forced landing, ranging from grounds of interception and its procedures to handling of forced landed aircraft. Considering international law provisions have yet to further define misuse of civil aviation and regulate the handling of forced landed aircraft, each state has different regulations regarding both matters. Other differences of each national regulations are from how detailed its regulations are and how consistent its national regulations with the Chicago Convention.

To conclude, Indonesia, Belarus, and the United Kingdom handles civil aircraft interception and its forced landing in accordance with their respective national regulations. This further shows that how consistent a state’s handling of interception cases with Article 3 bis of the Chicago Convention are influenced by how consistent its national regulations on interception with the provisions of Article 3 bis itself."

"Isu ketentuan mengenai hukum yang berlaku dalam sengketa pelanggaran hak cipta sampai hari ini belum banyak didiskusikan di Indonesia, meskipun isu ini menjadi semakin penting dalam era digital modern. Penelitian ini mengkaji ketentuan-ketentuan tentang hukum yang berlaku dalam pelanggaran hak cipta di Indonesia, dengan memperhatikan semua norma hukum internasional maupun hukum nasional Indonesia yang berhubungan. Pertama, suatu analisa terhadap ketentuan tentang hukum yang berlaku dalam pasal 5 paragraf (2) Berne Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works dilakukan dengan memperhatikan diskusi antara ahli hukum mengenai penafsiran yang tepat dari pasal tersebut, dan juga dengan memperhatikan berbagai praktek nasional mengenai bagaimana pasal tersebut telah diterapkan oleh berbagai negara. Kedua, implikasi-implikasi terhadap ketentuan hukum yang berlaku dalam Pasal 2 Undang-Undang No. 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta di diskusikan, serta bagaimana pandangan-pandangan ahli dan praktisi hukum di Indonesia tentang ketentuan mengenai hukum yang berlaku yang tepat untuk digunakan dalam sengketa pelanggaran hak cipta. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa walaupun ada debat tentang penafsiran yang tepat dari Pasal 5 ayat (2) Konvensi Berne, pendapat yang paling umum secara internasional adalah bahwa ketentuan tersebut mengharuskan penggunaan hukum dari negara untuk mana perlindungan diminta (lex loci protectionis) saat menangani perkara pelanggaran hak cipta. Di sisi lain, para ahli dan praktisi hukum Indonesia cenderung menggunakan lex fori dibandingkan lex loci protectionis.

---

The issue of the applicable law in international copyright infringement disputes has to this day received little discussion in Indonesia, despite the increasing importance of this issue in the modern digital age. This study attempts to research the possible rules regarding the applicable law that may currently apply to copyright infringement in Indonesia, by examining all relevant norms of international law as well as Indonesian national law. First, an analysis of the applicable law rules contained in article 5 paragraph (2) of the Berne Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is conducted by examining the scholarly debate regarding the proper interpretation of the article, as well as by further examining the various national practices regarding how the article has been applied in various countries. Second, the possible applicable law implications of Article 2 of Law No. 28 of 2014 about Copyright is discussed, as well as the prevailing views of Indonesian scholars and law practitioners regarding the proper applicable law rules to be applied in copyright infringement disputes. The study finds that while there is some debate about the interpretation of article 5 paragraph (2) of the Berne Convention, the prevailing view internationally is that it requires the use of the law of the state for which protection is claimed (lex loci protectionis) when dealing with copyright infringement. On the other hand, it appears that Indonesian scholars and legal practitioners tend to apply the lex fori as opposed to the lex loci protectionis."