Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"European Community (EC) saat ini merupakan salah satu organisasi regional yang mempunyai peran penting dalam perdagangan internasional. World Trade Organization (WTO) di lain pihak merupakan forum perdagangan internasional terbesar. Hubungan hukum keduanya menimbulkan banyak diskusi dan kontroversi. Permasalahan yang paling sering muncul adalah permasalahan common commercial policy (CCP) dan direct effect. Permasalahan pertama adalah masalah CCP eksternal EC pada forum WTO. EC bersama dengan negara-negara anggotanya menjadi anggota dalam Perjanjian WTO atau disebut juga sebagai mixed agreement yang disebabkan oleh fragmentasi kompetensi internal EC. Sebagian sektor dalam Perjanjian WTO merupakan kompetensi EC, sebagian merupakan kompetensi negara-negara anggota, dan sebagian merupakan shared competence. Keadaan ini kemudian mengakibatkan terdapat dua tahap negosiasi perdagangan yaitu internal EC dan pada saat negosiasi pada forum WTO yang menjadikan proses negosiasi dengan EC menjadi lamban. Selain itu pihak ketiga sukar dalam memutuskan pihak mana yang bertanggungjawab pada saat terjadinya pelanggaran terhadap Perjanjian WTO, terutama apabila akan mengajukan perkara pada Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) WTO. Permasalahan kedua adalah direct effect; ECJ pada tahun 1963 mengembangkan suatu doktin baru yang disebut dengan doktrin direct effect. Doktrin ini memberikan hak kepada individu hukum negara anggota untuk dapat menjadikan regulasi ataupun norma rezim hukum EC sebagai dasar hukum dihadapan pengadilan negerinya. Doktrin ini kemudian juga mencakup perjanjian internasional sehingga individu hukum dapat menjadikan pengaturan dalam suatu perjanjian internasional sebagai dasar hukum gugatannya di pengadilan negerinya sendiri. Pertanyaan yang muncul adalah apakah terdapat direct effect WTO dalam rezim hukum EC? Dalam analisis kasus-kasus ECJ jawabannya jauh dari afirmatif."

"Keikutsertaan Indonesia sebagai anggota World Trade Organization (WTO) membawa konsekuensi hukum tersendiri, berupa kewajiban untuk menyesuaikan peraturan perundang-undangan nasionalnya dengan kesepakatan-kesepakatan WTO, termasuk didalamnya yaitu Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) dan General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Pembentukan peraturan nasional di bidang penanaman modal, serta pertambangan bidang batubara, selain tidak dibenarkan bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip perdagangan internasional yang terkait dengan penanaman modal yaitu National Treatment dan Most Favour Nations, juga tidak boleh bertentangan dengan prinsip demokrasi ekonomi dalam Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Oleh karena itu, untuk keperluan penyesuaian ini, perlu diteliti bagaimanakah kesesuaian prinsip-prinsip perdagangan internasional dengan prinsip perlakuan sama dalam ketentuan penanaman modal asing (PMA) di bidang pertambangan batubara, serta bagaimanakah pengaturan kebijakan dan hukum PMA bidang batubara diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif, yang bersifat deskriptifanalisis, analisa data dengan pendekatan bersifat kualitatif yaitu menguraikan dan menganalisa mengenai pengaturan hukum nasional penanaman modal asing di bidang batubara. Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder dengan alat pengumpulan data berupa studi dokumen atau bahan pustaka, yang didukung dengan wawancara kepada narasumber pada Dirjen Pertambangan Batubara, BKPM dan PT. KPC Kutai Timur. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa di satu sisi Indonesia telah menyesuaikan pengaturan PMA dalam bidang batubara, yakni UU No. 25 Tahun 2007 tentang Penanaman Modal dan UU No. 4 Tahun 2009 tentang Mineral dan Batubara dengan prinsip-prinsip GATT/WTO mengenai national treatment dan most favour nations. Demikian pula penerapan demokrasi ekonomi dalam UU No. 4 Tahun 2009, ini telah diterapkan cukup baik melalui pengaturan kewajiban menjaga kedaulatan negara atas pengelolaan dan pengusahaan sumber daya alam. Pemerintah sebagai badan publik sudah tidak lagi bersanding sejajar secara perdata dengan pelaku usaha di dalam kontrak pertambangan. Namun di lain sisi, sesungguhnya UU tersebut telah bertentangan dengan prinsip demokrasi ekonomi, karena demokrasi ekonomi menghendaki terpenuhinya hak-hak dasar setiap individu tanpa kecuali, sedangkan ketentuan liberalisasi perdagangan WTO dilandasi oleh pemikiran kapitalisme membatasi hak-hak dasar individu dan hanya mereka yang mampu bersaing dapat menikmati keuntungan dari perdagangan internasional tersebut.

---

Indonesia's participation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) legal consequences of its own, such as the obligation to adjust its national legislation with WTO agreements, including the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Establishment of national regulations in the field of investment, as well as coal mining areas, besides not justified contrary to the principles of international trade-related investment that National Treatment and Most Favour Nations, also must not conflict with the principles of economic democracy in Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, for the purposes of this adjustment, need to be investigated how the suitability of the principles of international trade with the principle of equal treatment in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the mining of coal, and how policies and legal arrangements FDI coal fields stipulated in legislation Indonesia.

This study uses normative research, descriptive analysis, data analysis with a qualitative approach that describes and analyzes the law setting national foreign investment in the coal fields. The data used are secondary data by means of data collection in the form of study or reference documents, supported by interviews with speakers at the Directorate General of Coal Mining, the Investment Coordinating Agency (BKPM) and PT. KPC East Kutai.

Based on the results of this study concluded that on the one hand have to adjust the settings Indonesia FDI in the coal fields, namely Law No. 25 of 2007 on Investment and Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal with the principles of GATT / WTO on national treatment and most favor nations. Similarly, the application of economic democracy in Law No. 4 of 2009, it has been applied quite well through setting an obligation to maintain the sovereignty of the state over the management and utilization of natural resources. Government as a public entity is no longer a civil biting parallel with businesses in the mining contract.

But on the other hand, the Act actually been contrary to the principles of economic democracy, because democracy requires the fulfillment of the economic fundamental rights of every individual without exception, while the provisions of the WTO trade liberalization based on the ideas of capitalism restrict the basic rights of individuals and only those who are able to compete can enjoy the benefits of international trade provisions contained in the WTO."

"This article attempts to identify and asses the weaknesses of the CFSP that have been inherently implicated in substantive and institutional limitations. Critical analysis on this particular issue becomes increasingly important, since the discourse on the CFSP in Indonesia is not well developed in the way that the very nature of the CFSP and its complexities are not properly understood. Having said that this article is particularly aimed at contributing to the development of the discourse on the CFSP in Indonesia. In analyzing this issue,it confines itself to the theoretical views assumed by realists because they would appropriately divulge and address the weaknesses of the CFSP. It also argues that the EU member states, despite their apparent enthusiasm for developing a truly CFSP, are reluctant to fully give up their national sovereignty over foreign and security policy. Since the CFSP can be only seen as reflection of the interests or EU Member States,it is very difficult to put any limits on the foreign policy initiatives of the member states, to shape their interests or bring them to stick to the common framework .In conclusion,this article suggests that all of these weaknesses are the underlying causes of the incapability of the EU to match today's global challenge."

"ABSTRAKIn the Treaty of Rome 1957, agriculture sector has been recognized as an important feature regarding its strategic values, such as the natural factor with its major role, food endurance and its susceptibility toward competitive pressures although its contributions on economics declined.On 30 July 1962, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was introduced after three years of negotiations in line with the mechanism settlement and its organizations as a whole. Various agricultural problems in member states were the causes of the difficulties in achieving agreements on CAP mechanism.Protectionism through market mechanism (price intervention and subsidies) which tried improving the welfare of farmers was the central focus of CAP. But as time goes, this mechanism burdens the European Union's budget. The EU's budget allocation to CAP in 1990 was almost 60% which lead to debates between France and United Kingdom on Budgeting 2007-2013. The EU's enlargement in 2004 was also a cause that burdens the budget. Other factors are the demand from the international trade regulations in GATT, then WTO which tried to establish international trade liberalization through reducing protectionism such as reducing tariffs and subsidies. Various requests on environment conservations, rural development and biotechnology improvement were backgrounds of Mac Sharry Reformations, Agenda 2000 and Reformation 2003.Pros and Cons on CAP within the European Unions didn't affect the EU's integration because of the common perspectives on uniting Europe as a whole. Less debates within the CAP would shift the focus on external issues therefore strengthen the international positions of EU. But even though EU is powerful enough, deadlock against United States would still remain.These days international trade is already relative free where barriers in trade are declined. Therefore CAP is no longer a relevant issue. It can block the international trade liberalization because the protectionism still exists. It will be a difficult task for the European Union to completely remove CAP because of its importance for the member states. Currently the European Union is only able to reduce its protection value in phase."

"Sejak 31 Desember 2015, Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN (MEA) telah secara formal didirikan. Melalui MEA, negara anggota ASEAN berkomitmen untuk menjadikan ASEAN sebagai pasar tunggal dan basis produksi yang berlandaskan aturan hukum. Sebagai integrasi ekonomi regional, MEA didirikan dengan dukungan dari berbagai instrumen hukum yang telah disepakati oleh para negara anggota, khususnya ATIGA, AFAS dan ACIA. Mengingat keanggotaan negara anggota ASEAN dalam WTO, mereka juga memiliki komitmen pada sistem perdagangan multilateral WTO untuk memastikan relevansi dan kompatibilitas instrumen-instrumen hukum tersebut dengan aturan dalam WTO. Satu-satunya instrumen hukum pendukung MEA yang telah dinotifikasi kepada WTO adalah ATIGA, berdasarkan Enabling Clause. Penelitian ini meragukan relevansi dari notifikasi ATIGA berdasarkan Enabling Clause sekarang ini, karena terdapat beberapa negara anggota ASEAN yang tidak lagi dapat dikategorikan sebagai negara berkembang. Berdasarkan analisis kompatibilitas, aturan dalam ATIGA dan AFAS cukup sesuai dengan aturan dalam Pasal XXIV GATT 1994 dan Pasal V GATS. Untuk itu penelitian ini mendesak ASEAN untuk menggunakan kewenangannya untuk mengajukan notifikasi kepada WTO atas ATIGA berdasarkan Pasal XXIV GATT 1994, dan atas AFAS berdasarkan Pasal V GATS. Diharapkan dengan diajukannya notifikasi tersebut, negara anggota ASEAN dapat mengambil manfaat dari MEA tanpa mengesampingkan komitmennya pada WTO, dan MEA dapat terealisasikan sebagai pelengkap dalam pencapaian tujuan sistem perdagangan multilateral WTO. Selain itu penelitian ini merekomendasikan ASEAN untuk menjadikan pendekatan yang berlandaskan aturan hukum sebagai karakteristik utama ASEAN dalam merealisasikan MEA. Bila ASEAN terus bergantung pada keinginan politik dari setiap negara anggota atau organ institusional, maka ASEAN akan kehilangan kredibilitasnya sebagai organisasi yang berlandaskan aturan hukum.

---

Since 31 December 2015, the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) has been formally established. Through AEC, the ASEAN member states (AMS) are committed to turn ASEAN into a rules-based single market and production base. As a regional economic integration, AEC is based on legal instruments agreed by the AMS, especially ATIGA, AFAS and ACIA. Considering the position of the AMS as members of the WTO, they are also committed to the multilateral trading system of the WTO to ensure the relevance and compatibility of those legal instruments with the WTO rules. The only legal instrument related to the AEC that has been notified to the WTO is ATIGA, based on the Enabling Clause. The research argues that the relevance of the notification for ATIGA based on the Enabling Clause is questionable, due to the fact that some ASEAN member states no longer fall within the category of developing countries. Based on a compatibility analysis, the provisions in the ATIGA and AFAS are quite compatible with the Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS. With that being said, this research urges ASEAN to utilise its authority to submit notifications to the WTO for ATIGA based on Article XXIV of the GATT 1994, and for AFAS based on Article V of the GATS. The research believes that the submission of the notifications will allow the AMS to gain benefits from the AEC without undermining their commitment to the WTO, and that the AEC will be realised as a complement in achieving the objectives of the multilateral trading system of the WTO. Moreover, ASEAN is recommended to consider the rules-based approach as a primary feature of engagement within ASEAN. If ASEAN keeps relying on the political will of its member states or institutional organs, ASEAN will lose the credibility as a rules-based organisation."

"Penetapan sementara adalah suatu mekanisme perlindungan bagi pemilik Merek terdaftar dalam hal terjadinya suatu pelanggaran Merek. Penetapan sementara diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2016 tentang Merek dan Indikasi Geografis. Penetapan sementara merupakan perintah Pengadilan Niaga atas permohonan Pemohon dengan tujuan untuk mencegah masuknya barang yang diduga hasil pelanggaran Hak atas Merek; pengamanan ddan pencegahan hilangnya barang bukti oleh pelanggar; dan/atau penghentian pelanggaran guna mencegah kerugian yang lebih besar. Oleh karena itu, penetapan sementara merupakan suatu mekanisme yang menghindarkan ataupun meminimalisir kerugian yang akan dialami oleh pemilik Merek terdaftar dari adanya pelanggaran Merek. Apabila melihat pengaturan mengenai penetapan sementara di negara lain, ditemukan suatu perbedaan dan juga persamaan mengenai mekanisme penetapan sementara. Persamaan dari implementasi penetapan sementara di Amerika Serikat dan Australia memiliki tujuan yang sama, yaitu mencegah dan meminimalisir dialaminya kerugian bagi pemilik Merek terdaftar. Perbedaan dari implementasi penetapan sementara di Amerika Serikat dan Australia, yaitu dari dapat diajukannya upaya hukum terhadap penetapan sementara, serta ada atau tidak adanya suatu uang jaminan. Selanjutnya, diketahui bahwa masih terdapat beberapa pihak yang belum mengerti mekanisme permohonan penetapan sementara. Hal ini terlihat dari tidak sesuainya permohonan penetapan sementara berdasarkan UU MIG. Terdapat pihak yang masih mengajukan permohonan penetapan sementara dengan mekanisme gugatan penghentian pelanggaran Merek berdasarkan Pasal 84 ayat (1) UU MIG. Selain permasalahan tersebut, penetapan sementara juga memiliki permasalahan dalam pengaturannya itu sendiri. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif, tulisan ini akan menganalisis bagaimana pengaturan penetapan sementara beserta dengan perbandingan pengaturan penetapan sementara di Amerika Serikat dan Australia, bagaimana permasalahan pengaturan penetapan sementara, serta kekeliruan pemohon dalam permohonan penetapan sementara.

---

Injunction is a protection mechanism for registered Mark owners when a Mark infringement occured. Injunction are regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 about Marks and Geographical Indications. The Injunction is an order from the Commercial Court at the Petitioner's request with the aim of preventing the entry of goods suspected of infringing on Trademark Rights; securing and preventing the loss of evidence by violators; and/or cessation of violations to prevent greater losses. Therefore, a temporary determination is a mechanism that avoids or minimizes losses that will be experienced by registered Mark owners from Mark infringements. The arrangements regarding injunction in Indonesia and other countries, have differences as well as similarities. The similarity of the implementation of injunction in the United States and Australia has the same objective, namely to prevent and minimize losses for registered Mark owners. The difference from the implementation of the injunction in the United States and Australia, namely from the possibility of filing legal remedies against the provisional order, and the obligation of a bail. Furthermore, it is known that there are still several parties who do not understand the mechanism for requesting an interim determination. This can be seen from the incompatibility of the request for a injunction based on the MIG Law. There are parties who are still submitting requests for injunctions with a claim mechanism for ending Mark infringement based on Article 84 paragraph (1) of the MIG Law. Apart from these problems, the injunction also has problems in the regulation itself. By using normative juridical research methods, this paper will analyze how the injunction is regulated along with a comparison of the provisional determination arrangements in the United States and Australia, how are the problems of injunction arrangements, and the applicant's confusion in the application for the injunction."

"Tesis ini bertujuan menganalisis mengenai pertanyaan penelitian, mengapa Benelux melakukan kerjasama keamanan untuk memperkuat Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Uni Eropa'Bagaimana Benelux mendukung kebijakan Uni Eropa dalam merespons perang Rusia-Ukraina (2014-2022), serta pendekatan apa yang dilakukan Benelux untuk itu. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan deskriptif analitik dengan menganalisis data-data yang bersumber dari data sekunder. Penelitian ini menggunakan empat level analisis teori Regional Security Complex oleh Barry Buzan dan menggunakan konsep keamanan kooperatif di tiap tingkat analisis tersebut. Temuan penelitian ini, Benelux dalam mendukung CFSP Uni Eropa dalam merespons perang Rusia-Ukraina belum kolektif secara institusional. Faktor kepentingan domestik Benelux tetap menjadi pertimbangan masing-masing negara. Selain itu ketergantungan Benelux terhadap Uni Eropa sebagai suatu kekuatan, sangat penting dalam menjaga stabilitas keamanan Benelux.

---

This thesis aims to analyze the research question, why is the Benelux conducting security cooperation to strengthen the EU CFSP? How the Benelux supported the EU's policy in response to the Russian-Ukrainian war (2014-2022), as well as what approach the Benelux took to it. This research uses a qualitative method with descriptive analytics by analyzing data sourced from secondary data. This study used four levels of analysis of the theory of the Regional Security Complex by Barry Buzan and used the concept of cooperative security at each level of analysis. The findings of this study, the Benelux in supporting the EU CFSP in responding to the Russian-Ukrainian war have not been institutionally collective. The factor of domestic interests of the Benelux remains the consideration of each country. In addition, the Benelux's dependence on the European Union as a power, is very important in maintaining the security stability of the Benelux."