Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Veritas et Justitia Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan
M. Manullang, E. Fernando
Unknown Affiliation
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

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

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
KRITIK TERHADAP STRUKTUR ILMU HUKUM MENURUT PAUL SCHOLTEN M. Manullang, E. Fernando
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan Vol. 49, No. 1
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Paul Scholten, a prominent Dutch legal scholar, explains some thoughts in one of his chief article: De Structuur der recthwetenshcap. Essentially it describes some accounts on how legal relations may exist, which he thinks such relations can be both logic and illogical. Scholten even furthermore reiterates such paradigm, the dualism of logic and illogical, also underlies the scientific nature of legal science (jurisprudence). Finally, he also explores on the relations between language and jurisprudence. His all accounts leave some critical notes, as it has some internal contradictions in connection of, as what critical legal theory says, the presence of reifications in legal doctrine.
PENAFSIRAN TELEOLOGIS/SOSIOLOGIS, PENAFSIRAN PURPOSIVE DAN AHARON BARAK: SUATU REFLEKSI KRITIS M. Manullang, E. Fernando
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 5 No. 2 (2019): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v5i2.3495

Abstract

Teleological interpretation is construed the same as sociological interpretatio, because it cores on the intention and purpose in making a rule. Such interpretation is also known as purposive interpretation. However, unlike the teleological and purposive interpretations known in the continental and common law legal traditions, Aharon Barak proposed his version of purposive interpretation. This article seeks to explain as simple as possible what teleological interpretation, sociological interpretation, purposive interpretation within the common law tradition and purposive interpretation according to Aharon Barak.
SUBJEK HUKUM MENURUT HANS KELSEN DAN TEORI TRADISIONAL: ANTARA MANIPULASI DAN FIKSI M. Manullang, E. Fernando
Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan Vol 10 No 1 (2021)
Publisher : Pusat Strategi Kebijakan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25216/jhp.10.1.2021.139-154

Abstract

AbstrakKonsep subjek hukum adalah salahkonsep inti dalam hukum. Dalam teori tradisional, konsep ini hanya dimaknai hanya berkaitan dengan hak dan kewajiban belaka. Sementara Hans Kelsen melihat bahwa ada persoalan kuasa dalam hak dan kewajiban. Namun, kuasa ini bukanlah kuasa terutama dalam konsep subjek hukum, karena menurut teori tradisional, ada kuasa di baliknya yang menentukan sesuatu itu adalah subjek hukum yang memiliki kuasa hak atau tidak. Relasi antarkuasa ini berpotensi tidak adil, dan bahkan berpotensi menjadi jahat, karena secara potensial ada manipulasi berbaur fiksi atas nama keyakinan agama atau pandangan sosial tertentu, sehingga si penguasa ini dapat menentukan sesuatu itu adalah subjek hukum yang memiliki kuasa atau tidak. Jikalau tidak memiliki kuasa, maka sanksi akan disiapkan untuk menghukum perilaku yang dianggap menyimpang. AbstractThe concept of legal subject is one of the core concepts in law. In traditional theory, this concept is only interpreted in its relation to the rights and obligations. While Hans Kelsen sees that such concept is related to power in rights and obligations. However, this power is not the supreme power in the concept of legal subjects, because according to traditional theory, there is another power behind it which determines the existence of a legal subject whether it has power or not. This power relation is potentially unfair, and even vicious, because there is plausible manipulation mixed with fiction in the name of a religious belief or a social view, hence such power can determine whether a legal subject has power or not. If it has no power, then sanctions will be defined to punish certain behavior that is considered socially improper.
PENAFSIRAN TELEOLOGIS/SOSIOLOGIS, PENAFSIRAN PURPOSIVE DAN AHARON BARAK: SUATU REFLEKSI KRITIS M. Manullang, E. Fernando
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 5 No. 2 (2019): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v5i2.3495

Abstract

Teleological interpretation is construed the same as sociological interpretatio, because it cores on the intention and purpose in making a rule. Such interpretation is also known as purposive interpretation. However, unlike the teleological and purposive interpretations known in the continental and common law legal traditions, Aharon Barak proposed his version of purposive interpretation. This article seeks to explain as simple as possible what teleological interpretation, sociological interpretation, purposive interpretation within the common law tradition and purposive interpretation according to Aharon Barak.
Co-Authors