Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.659
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Media Iuris Jurnal Anti Korupsi
Abimanyu, Enditianto
Unknown Affiliation
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Rekonstruksi Perspektif Hak Asasi Manusia terhadap Penjatuhan Pidana Mati Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam 'Keadaan Tertentu' Yudana, Pamus Sukma; Abimanyu, Enditianto
JURNAL ANTI KORUPSI Vol 11 No 1: Mei 2021
Publisher : PUSAT KAJIAN ANTI KORUPSI FAKULTAS HUKUM UNIVERSITAS JEMBER

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.19184/jak.v3i1.27132

Abstract

Tindak pidana korupsi tergolong sebagai extraordinary crime, sehingga untuk memberantasnya dibutuhkan extraordinary instrument. Pidana mati sebagai extraordinary instrument tercantum dalam klausul Pasal 2 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Bahwa pasal 2 ayat 2 tersebut menjelaskan bahwa pidana mati dapat dijatuhkan pada korupsi yang dilakukan dalam ‘keadaan tertentu’. Walaupun belum pernah ada putusan demikian, hal tersebut tentunya menciptakan pertentangan norma, yang menimbulkan berbagai miskonsepsi tafsir dan penerapan hukum atas Pidana Mati dalam UU Tipikor. Tujuan utama daripada penelitian ini adalah untuk memberikan konstruksi yang jelas dan komprehensif terkait tafsir HAM yang tepat untuk penerapan Pasal 2 ayat (2) UU Tipikor. Pisau analisis yang digunakan dalam meneliti rumusan masalah diatas menggunakan metode Penelitian Hukum (legal research). Penulis dalam hal ini menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang- undangan (Statute Approach) dan pendekatan konseptual (Conceptual Approach). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, konstruksi pemikiran HAM yang tepat atas Pidana Mati UU Tipikor adalah; (1) Pidana Mati dalam UU Tipikor adalah upaya negara melalui sarana penal untuk menciptakan keadilan (retributive justice); (2) Pidana Mati Korupsi dalam ‘Keadaan Tertentu’ merupakan perlindungan HAM masyarakat terdampak krisis nasional serta pemenuhan rasa keadilan (sense of justice) bagi warga negara.
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and the Reform of the Arbitration Evidence Process in Indonesia Abimanyu, Enditianto; Sinaga, David Parlinggoman
Media Iuris Vol. 8 No. 2 (2025): MEDIA IURIS
Publisher : Universitas Airlangga

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20473/mi.v8i2.63627

Abstract

Law No. 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution regulates the arbitration process in Indonesia, but it does not yet provide an adequate system regarding the evidentiary mechanism. One of its main weaknesses is the absence of authority for either arbitrators or courts to compel third parties to present evidence or give testimony, which may result in arbitral awards that are incomplete and/or do not reflect justice. Therefore, a mechanism is needed to assist in the collection of evidence during the arbitration process. Based on this legal issue, this research aims to offer a normative solution to this weakness. The research method used in this study is legal research, with the approaches employed being the Statute Approach and the Conceptual Approach. The conclusion drawn from this study is that one of the applicable solutions to address the weaknesses in the evidence collection system in arbitration is to adopt Article 27 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration into the national legal system. This provision allows courts to assist in the collection of evidence within certain limits without interfering with the independence of arbitration. Thus, this adoption is expected to strengthen the legitimacy and effectiveness of arbitration in Indonesia, as well as increase business actors’ confidence in this forum as a fair and efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
Co-Authors Hasiando Sinaga, Samuel Calvin Parlinggoman Sinaga, David Sinaga, David Parlinggoman Tajriyani, Nur Syamsi Yudana, Pamus Sukma