Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.751
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Mataram Journal of International Law
Muh Risnain
University of Mataram
Humanities Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
A STUDY OF UNILATERAL RETALIATION IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNITED STATES VS CHINA DISPUTE Kahfi Rasman; Muh Risnain
Mataram Journal of International Law Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): Mataram Journal of International Law
Publisher : Department of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/fde5p795

Abstract

This research analyzes the conformity of unilateral retaliation measures in the trade dispute between the United States (US) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), particularly through the imposition of additional tariffs during section 301 the 2017–2020 period and the development of reciprocal tariffs in 2025. The study is based on three core principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework: the Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) principle under Article I:1 of GATT 1994, the commitment to bound tariffs under Article II of GATT 1994, and the rules governing retaliation and the prohibition of unilateral action under Articles 22–23 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). The US–China dispute is used as a doctrinal reference to identify elements of violations of MFN and bound tariff obligations, as well as to explain enforcement challenges arising from the inability to finalize panel reports following the Appellate Body crisis since 2019. Employing normative legal research methods with statutory and conceptual approaches, this study argues that tariffs imposed under Section 301 and reciprocal tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) are generally inconsistent with WTO commitments. This is because such measures are discriminatory based on country of origin, may exceed agreed tariff limits, and undermine the DSU framework, which permits retaliation only through multilateral procedures. Furthermore, this research evaluates the effectiveness of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) and highlights Article 25 DSU arbitration and the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) as practical alternatives for restoring legal certainty and finality in dispute resolution.
Pembatasan Pembatasan Penggunaan Hak Veto Dewan Keamanan Melalui Mekanisme Uniting for Peace Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa: Restrictions on the Use of Security Council Veto Rights Through the United Nations General Assembly's Uniting for Peace Mechanism Lailatil Maya; Muh Risnain; Lalu Guna Nugraha
Mataram Journal of International Law Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025): Mataram Journal of International Law
Publisher : Department of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/majil.v3i1.6175

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk; pertama, menganalisis pengaturan hak veto dalam Piagam, dan kedua, menganalisis akibat hukum resolusi Majelis Umum bagi pembatasan penggunaan hak veto Dewan Keamanan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perjanjian internasional, konseptual dan sejarah. Pengumpulan bahan hukum dilakukan dengan studi pustaka dengan memanfaatkan bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier yang kemudian dilanjutkan dengan menggunakan analisis kualitatif preskptif untuk memberikan penilaian terhadap masalah yang sedang diteliti. Simpulan, mekanisme Uniting for Peace mampu mengatasi ketidakmampuan Dewan Keamanan dalam menjalankan tugasnya akibat dari pemberian veto oleh anggota tetap dan memungkinkan tindakan cepat dalam situasi darurat. Namun, resolusi yang dihasilkan bersifat rekomendasi dan tidak mengikat secara hukum, sesuai dengan Article 14 UN Charter dan berakibat pada pelaksanaannya yang tergantung pada negara anggota. Akibat hukum ini membuat kekuatan resolusi Majelis Umum terbatas dan tidak sekuat resolusi Dewan Keamanan, sehingga efektivitasnya dalam membatasi hak veto Dewan Keamanan menjadi lebih terbatas. Di lain sisi, meskipun mampu membatasi kekuasaan hak veto Dewan Keamanan namun dalam pelaksanaannya mekanisme Uniting for Peace memiliki tantangan dalam implementasinya seperti, tidak dilaksanakannya resolusi oleh semua negara karena tidak memiliki kekuatan mengikat, tingginya kepentingan politik diantara negara-negara, munculnya anggapan keberadaan mekanisme Uniting for Peace mengambil kekuasaan Dewan Keamanan yang terdapat dalam ketentuan Article 24 Paragraph one UN Charter untuk menjaga perdamaian dan keamanan dunia, dan yang terakhir adalah karena tidak ada aturan yuridis yang mengadopsi mekanisme ini dalam Piagam.
IMPLIKASI ADVISORY OPINION MAHKAMAH INTERNASIONAL TENTANG KONSEKUENSI HUKUM PENDUDUKAN ISRAEL ATAS WILAYAH PALESTINA Azmi Nasyath Nabila; Muh Risnain; Ayu Riska Amalia
Mataram Journal of International Law Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): Mataram Journal of International Law
Publisher : Department of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/r3qjkf40

Abstract

On July 19th 2024, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion affirming that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal under international law. The opinion states that Israel has violated the principle of prohibition of acquisition of territory by force and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Although non-binding, the advisory opinion has high normative power and provides a legal and moral basis for states and international organizations to act. This research aims to analyze the legal consequences and obligations of UN member states arising from the opinion, as well as to evaluate its effectiveness in promoting the resolution of international disputes. The method used is normative legal research with an international treaty, case, conceptual, and historical approach. Legal materials were collected through literature review and analyzed qualitatively. The results of theresearch indicate that although this opinion is not legally binding, it remains an important instrument in clarifying the legal status of an action, strengthening the legitimacy of the Palestinian diplomatic struggle, and encouraging global collective action. However, its substantial implementation is still hindered by international political factors, such as the fragmentation of member states' positions. Therefore, collective efforts are needed to strengthen the influence of advisory opinions in the enforcement of international law.
ANALISIS PROVISIONAL MEASURES ICJ ATAS KASUS DUGAAN GENOSIDA DI GAZA: STUDI KASUS SENGKETA AFRIKA SELATAN V. ISRAEL Sirtufillaeli; Muh Risnain; Diva Pitaloka
Mataram Journal of International Law Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): Mataram Journal of International Law
Publisher : Department of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/jd03ef37

Abstract

This study aims to examine the legal considerations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in issuing provisional measures and their impact on the situation in Gaza. The research employs a normative legal method with a case study approach, focusing on the South Africa v. Israel dispute and relevant international treaties. The legal materials used in this research include both primary and secondary sources, collected through library research. The ICJ established that it had prima facie jurisdiction and issued an order for provisional measures on 26 January 2024, which was subsequently reinforced by additional orders on 28 March and 24 May 2024. These measures were grounded in the need to protect certain rights that were plausibly at risk, the link between those rights and the requested measures, and the potential for irreparable harm if urgent action was not taken. In these orders, Israel was instructed to prevent acts that could be classified as genocide and to preserve evidence. Provisional measures issued by the ICJ are binding in nature, as affirmed in paragraph 109 of the Court's 2001 LaGrand case judgment. However, while binding, such measures are not enforceable in the sense that the ICJ lacks coercive authority to compel state compliance. Moreover, the presence or absence of specific intent (dolus specialis) is crucial in determining whether acts constitute genocide. Even if acts meet the threshold of international crimes, without this specific intent, they may not be classified as genocide.
Co-Authors Ayu Riska Amalia Azmi Nasyath Nabila Diva Pitaloka Kahfi Rasman Lailatil Maya Lalu Guna Nugraha Sirtufillaeli