Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai konsep pertanggungjawaban pidana dalam hukum pidana internasional dan secara spesifik membahas konsep pertanggungjawaban individual yang diatur dalam Statuta Roma. Konsep pertanggungjawaban individual mulai dikenal dalam hukum internasional moderen pada masa Perang Dunia II tepatnya dalam Peradilan Nuremberg, dengan menghukum individu atas kejahatan internasional. Konsep ini selanjutnya diterapkan di berbagai peradilan pidana internasional. dan mengalami perkembangan dengan munculnya konsep pertanggungjawaban pimpinan dalam Peradilan Tokyo dan konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise dalam International Court for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Konsep pertanggungjawaban individual mengalami perubahan ketika diterapkan dalam International Criminal Court (ICC) yang terlihat didalam putusan Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Dalam putusan tersebut, majelis hakim menyatakan bahwa Thomas Lubanga Dyilo bersalah atas kejahatan perang dalam perekrutan tentara anak dan bertanggung jawab secara individu atas dasar turut melakukan (co-perpetration).

---

This thesis analyzes the concept of criminal responsibility under international criminal law, specifically discusses the individual criminal responsibility under Rome Statute. Individual criminal responsibility was first applied during the Second World War, which was in the Nuremberg Trials. The concept punishes individual for International crimes. The concept of individual criminal responsibility was then applied in various international criminal tribunals, and has developed with the introduction of the concept of superior responsibility in International Military Tribunal for The Far East and the concept of joint criminal enterprise in International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. The concept of criminal responsibility has evolved in the International Criminal Court, as it can be seen in Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Case. The trial chamber punished Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for the warcrime of recruiting child soldier under co-perpetration."

"Perkawinan paksa sebagai suatu bagian dari kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan belum diatur dalam Statuta Roma. Dalam praktiknya, Mahkamah Pidana Internasional telah memutus perkawinan paksa sebagai kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan berupa other inhumane acts dan menerapkan ketentuan-ketentuan yang terdapat dalam Statuta Roma untuk menuntut perkawinan paksa sebagai bagian dari kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Berdasarkan hasil yurisprudensi di berbagai pengadilan internasional yang telah menangani terkait perkawinan paksa, penuntutan atas tindakan perkawinan paksa telah dilakukan dengan menerapkan ketentuan terkait tindakan-tindakan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan yang berbeda. Beberapa hasil putusan beranggapan bahwa perkawinan paksa lebih tepat untuk dituntut sebagai perbudakan seksual. Namun, dalam perkembangan terkini terkait penuntutan perkawinan paksa dalam kasus Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Mahkamah Pidana Internasional menyatakan bahwa perkawinan paksa dapat dituntut secara tersendiri di bawah Pasal 7(1)(k) terkait other inhumane acts. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat perlindungan hukum yang terdapat dalam Statuta Roma untuk menghukum tindakan perkawinan paksa dan meneliti terkait alasan hukum yang mendasari penentuan elements of crime dari perkawinan paksa sebagai suatu bagian dari kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan, lalu bagaimana kasus Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen dapat menuntut perkawinan paksa secara tersendiri sebagai other inhumane acts. Hasil penelitian ini menemukan bahwa tindakan perkawinan paksa dan perbudakan seksual seringkali bersinggungan. Sebagaimana telah dinyatakan oleh majelis hakim dalam kasus Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, perkawinan paksa pada umumnya terjadi dalam situasi yang juga mencakup perbudakan seksual. Namun, ketika pemaksaan status perkawinan mengakibatkan penderitaan yang melebihi dan berbeda dari perbudakan seksual, maka perkawinan paksa patut untuk dituntut secara tersendiri agar dapat mencakup keseluruhan tindakan, dampak yang diakibatkan, serta kepentingan yang dilindungi dari tindakan kejahatan yang dilakukan.

---

Forced marriage as a crime against humanity has not been regulated in the Rome Statute. In practice, the Court has prosecuted forced marriage as the crime against humanity of an other inhumane act and adopted the existing provisions to prosecute forced marriage as a crime against humanity. The jurisprudence from various international courts dealing with forced marriage has adopted different provisions regarding the crime against humanity to prosecute forced marriage. Some considers that forced marriage is more adequately prosecuted as sexual slavery, but recent developments regarding forced marriage in the case of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen shows that the Court views forced marriage as a crime that needs to be charged separately under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute as an other inhumane act. Therefore, this study aims to determine the legal protections under the Rome Statute to protect victims from forced marriage and examine the judicial reasonings in determining the elements of crime of forced marriage as a crime against humanity, particularly in prosecuting forced marriage as a separate crime against humanity in the case of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen. The results of this study found that the act of forced marriage and sexual slavery often intersect and are not mutually exclusive. As stated by the Trial Chamber in the case of Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, forced marriages generally occur in situations in which women are sexually enslaved. However, when the imposition of marital status results in suffering that goes beyond sexual slavery, forced marriage should be prosecuted separately to warrant full responsibility of the perpetrator and to adequately represent the conduct, ensuing harm, and protected interests from the crime committed."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai yurisdiksi Mahkamah Pidana Internasional, sebagai pengadilan pidana permanen yang memiliki yurisdiksi terhadap tindak pidana internasional, atas konflik antara Palestina dan Israel di Jalur Gaza. Palestina dan Israel kerap terlibat dalam konflik bersenjata dalam wilayah Jalur Gaza, diantaranya pada tahun 2009 serta 2012. Dalam kedua periode konflik tersebut terdapat beberapa indikasi adanya tindak pidana internasional yang dilakukan oleh kedua negara, namun belum terdapat proses pengadilan apaun terkait dengan indikasi tersebut. Pada 1 April 2015, Palestina secara resmi telah menjadi negara anggota dari Mahkamah Pidana Internasional. Hal tersebut menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai yurisdiksi Mahkamah Pidana Internasional terkait dengan konflik di Jalur Gaza yang melibatkan salah satu negara anggotanya tersebut. Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa hingga saat ini, Mahkamah Pidana Internasional belum memiliki yurisdiksi atas konflik antara Palestina dan Israel di Jalur Gaza.

---

This study discusses the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court, as the permanent criminal court whose jurisdiction covers international criminal acts, with regard to the conflict between Palestine and Israel in Gaza Strip. Palestine and Israel are often involved in a conflict in Gaza Strip, most notably in 2009 and 2012. The aftermath of the two conflicts suggested several indications of internatioanl criminal acts conducted by two States, however no measures have been taken thus far in response to such indications. On 1 April 2015, Palestine has officialy become the State Party of International Criminal Court. This raises the question of the possibility of International Criminal Court?s jurisdict ion over the two notable conflicts in Gaza Strip. The author concluded that International Criminal Court does not have jurisdiction over the conflict between Palestine and Israel in Gaza Strip."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai penerapan prinsip komplementaritas sebagai salah satu prinsip esensial dalam Statuta Roma oleh Mahkamah Pidana Internasional dalam dua perkara di Libya yaitu perkara Saif al-Islam Gaddafi dan Abdullah al- Senussi. Kedua perkara ini ditangani oleh negara yang sama yaitu Libya, namun pada putusan akhirnya keduanya mendapatkan putusan yang berbeda. Libya dinyatakan tidak mampu dalam perkara Saif al-Islam Gaddafi sedangkan dalam perkara Abdullah al-Senussi, Libya dinyatakan mampu untuk mengadili perkara sehingga perkara tersebut dinyatakan tidak admissible. Hal ini menimbulkan pertanyaan mengapa sistem hukum yang sama dapat dianalisa menjadi dua kondisi yang berbeda dalam dua perkara tersebut. Untuk menjawab persoalan ini, Penulis menggunakan studi pustaka terhadap berbagai jenis data sekunder, Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa Mahkamah Pidana Internasional tidak konsisten dalam melakukan penilaian terhadap penerapan prinsip komplementaritas dalam dua perkara tersebut. Hal tersebut bersumber dari penilaian mengenai ketidakmampuan Libya berdasarkan Pasal 17 3 Statuta Roma.

---

This study discusses the implementation of the complementarity principle as one of the most essential principle established in the Rome Statute by the International Criminal Court in two cases in Libya, which are the case of Saif al Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah al Senussi. These cases were investigated by the same State which was Libya. However, on the final Decision the Court has rendered two substantially different rulings. Libya was declared unable to investigate the case of Saif al Gaddafi, whereas in the case of Abdullah al Senussi, Libya was declared able to investigate the case, rendering the case inadmissible before the Court. This condition raises the question of why the same national legal system can be analysed and described into two different conditions. The author concluded that the International Criminal Court has been inconsistent in analyzing the implementation of the complementarity principle in these cases. Such inconsistencies can be found in the Court rsquo s analysis regarding the inability of Libya to investigate or carry out a proceeding pursuant to Article 17 3 of the Rome Statute. "

""This guide to the crime of aggression provisions under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) offers an exhaustive and sophisticated legal analysis of the crime's definition, as well as the jurisdictional provisions governing the ICC's exercise of jurisdiction over the crime. A range of practical issues likely to arise in prosecutions of the crime of aggression before the ICC are canvassed, as is the issue of the domestic prosecution of the crime. It also offers an insight into the geopolitical significance of the crime of aggression and the activation of the ICC's ability to exercise its jurisdiction over the crime. The author's intimate involvement in the crime's negotiations, combined with extensive scholarly reflection on the criminalisation of inter-State uses of armed force, makes this highly relevant to all academics and practitioners interested in the crime of aggression"--"

"Konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise pertama kali diperkenalkan oleh Pengadilan Pidana Internasional untuk bekas wilayah Yugoslavia di dalam kasus Tadic pada tahun 1999. Setelah kasus Tadic, konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise diterapkan di berbagai pengadilan pidana internasional dan pengadilan hybrid supranasional untuk kasus kejahatan internasional. Di Indonesia, Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana memuat konsep penyertaan, sebuah konsep yang menyerupai Joint Criminal Enterprise. Tulisan ini membahas pengertian dan perkembangan konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise, penerapan Joint Criminal Enterprise di dalam pengadilan pidana internasional dan pengadilan hybrid supranasional, serta analisis kesamaan konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise dengan konsep penyertaan menurut hukum Indonesia dan apakah konsep Joint Criminal Enterprise dapat diterapkan di dalam Pengadilan HAM di Indonesia.

---

The concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise was first introduced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the 1999 Tadic case. The concept was then applied in various international criminal tribunals and hybrid criminal courts for cases of international crimes. In Indonesia, the criminal code prescribes the concept of joint perpetration, a concept that is similar to the concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise.

This thesis discuses the definition and development of the concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise, the application of Joint Criminal Enterprise in various international criminal tribunals and hybrid criminal courts, as well as the concept of Joint Criminal Enterprise and its association with the concept of joint perpetration under Indonesian law. Finally, this thesis discusses whether Joint Criminal Enterprise can be applied in the Human Rights Court in Indonesia."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai pengaruh dari Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes 2014 terhadap penuntutan kejahatan seksual yang diadili di Mahkamah Pidana Internasional. Dalam penelitian ini juga akan dibahas secara kronologis terkait pengaturan dan penuntutan kejahatan seksual di pengadilan- pengadilan sebelum Mahkamah Pidana Internasional untuk melihat signifikansi dari setiap pengadilan dalam penuntutan kejahatan seksual. Kejahatan seksual pada International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg and Tokyo (IMT dan IMTFE) pada masa Perang Dunia II belum dianggap sebagai kejahatan yang terpisah dan hanya sebagai bagian dari “mass atrocities”. Perkembangan dan pengaturan juga kejahatan seksual dapat dilihat pada pengadilan pidana internasional yang dibentuk oleh Dewan Keamanan PBB yaitu ICTY, ICTR dan SCSL. Dengan berkembangnya pengaturan kejahatan seksual dalam pengadilan-pengadilan ini maka keberhasilan Penuntut Umum dalam membuktikan kejahatan seksual telah menghasilkan landmark cases seperti putusan Prosecutor v. Tadic yang merupakan keberhasilan pertama oleh Penuntut Umum dalam membuktikan kejahatan seksual. Namun, tidak ada kejahatan seksual yang berhasil dituntut di Mahkamah Pidana Internasional sebelum diterbitkannya Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes 2014. Kasus pertama yang berhasil membuktikan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan berupa kejahatan seksual adalah kasus Prosecutor v. Bemba setelah diterbitkan Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes 2014. Maka dari itu, penulis bertujuan untuk menjelaskan faktor- faktor dari ketidakberhasilan penuntutan kejahatan seksual di Mahkamah Pidana Internasional melalui kasus-kasus dan pengaruh Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes 2014 sebagai pedoman Penuntut Umum terhadap penuntutan kejahatan seksual di Mahkamah Pidana Internasional.

---

This thesis discusses the implementation of the Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes 2014 on the prosecution of sexual crimes tried at the International Criminal Court. This study will also discuss chronologically regarding the regulation and prosecution of sexual crimes in courts before the International Criminal Court to see the significance of each court in prosecuting sexual crimes. Sexual crimes at the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg and Tokyo (IMT and IMTFE) during World War II were not considered separate crimes and only as part of "mass atrocities". The development and regulation of sexual crimes can be seen in the international criminal courts established by the UN Security Council, namely ICTY, ICTR and SCSL. With the development of the regulation of sexual crimes in these courts, the success of the Public Prosecutor in proving sexual crimes has resulted in landmark cases such as the decision of Prosecutor v. Tadic which is the first success by the Public Prosecutor in proving a sexual crime. However, no sexual crimes were successfully prosecuted in the International Criminal Court prior to the publication of the 2014 Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes. The first case that succeeded in proving crimes against humanity in the form of sexual crimes was the case of Prosecutor v. Bemba after the publication of the Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes 2014. Therefore, the author aims to explain the factors of the unsuccessful prosecution of sexual crimes at the International Criminal Court through cases and the influence of the 2014 Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender Based Crimes as the Public Prosecutor guide for the prosecution of sexual crimes at the International Criminal Court."