Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

AKIBAT HUKUM PERATIFIKASIAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL DI INDONESIA: STUDI KASUS KONVENSI PALERMO 2000 Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
Veritas et Justitia Vol 1, No 1 (2015)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Chatolic University

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

AbstractRatification in Indonesia does not have any legal consequences for the application of the treaties at national level.Â The reason is that ratification only binds Indonesia as a subject of international law. In comparison, parliamentary approval in the Indonesian context is not the same as the United States Senateâs approval. The Indonesian Government signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and ratified it on April 20, 2009. The issue discussed here regards the legal status of this Convention.Â In the 80âs it was assumed that any treaties ratified or acceded, would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia. I argued that Indonesia should be regarded as a state applying the monist approach, which legal practice seems to reject. Â I stand for the monist approach especially with regard to the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention. In addition I also argue about the importance of differentiating between Indonesiaâs international obligations and the issue of direct applicaton of the Convention by national couts.Â Keywords: Ratification, Integration, Implementation, Treaty, Indonesiaâs legal system

Penerapan Perjanjian Internasional di Pengadilan Nasional: Sebuah Kritik terhadap Laporan Delegasi Republik Indonesia kepada Komite Hak Asasi Manusia Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Implementasi Kovenan Internasional tentang Hak-hak Sipil dan Politik.. Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 1, No 1 (2014): PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Padjadjaran University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (8010.408 KB)

AbstrakLaporan Delri yang disampaikan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia kepada Komite Hak Asasi Manusia PBB menyatakan bahwa ICCPR telah menjadi bagian dari hukum nasional Indonesia sehingga substansi ICCPR dapat diterapkan secara langsung di pengadilan nasional tanpa memerlukan peraturan pelaksana. Selain itu, dikatakan pula bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah merujuk secara langsung pada Pasal 2 ICCPR dalam beberapa putusannya seperti putusan untuk kasus Nomor 101/PUU-VII/2009 tentang Pengujian terhadap UU Advokat Nomor 18/2003 dan putusan untuk kasus Nomor 73/PUU-IX/2011 tentang Pengujian terhadap UU Pemda Nomor 32/2004 sebagaimana yang telah diamandemen oleh UU Nomor 12/2008. Sayangnya, Pasal 2 ICCPR tersebut pada kenyataannya tidak dapat diterapkan sebagai rujukan langsung dalam putusan-putusan pengadilan karena substansi pasal ini tidak mengatur hak dan kewajiban individu, tetapi negara. Pasal 2 ICCPR sebenarnya hanya ingin menjelaskan status hukum dari ICCPR bagi negara-negara pihak. Secara filosofis, Pasal 2 ICCPR menyatakan bahwa ICCPR bukanlah perjanjian internasional yang dapat diterapkan secara langsung di pengadilan nasional negara-negara pihak karena keberlakuannya memerlukan peraturan pelaksana, yaitu berupa undang-undang. Dalam praktiknya, Indonesia menganut model dualisme dengan pendekatan transformasi dalam penerapan perjanjian internasional di level nasional. Semua perjanjian internasional yang telah diratifikasi harus ditransformasikan ke dalam undang-undang agar dapat digunakan oleh hakim karena hakim hanya terikat oleh peraturan hukum yang dibuat oleh DPR dan perjanjian internasional hanya dapat diterapkan melalui metode interpretasi hukum.Kata Kunci: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Komite Hak Asasi Manusia, penerapan, pengadilan nasional, perjanjian self-executing dan non-self-executing.Â The Implementation of International Treaties in Municipal Courts: A Critic to the Initial Report of the Indonesian Delegations to the United Nations Human Rights Commitee regarding the Implementation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in IndonesiaAbstractThe initial report, submitted by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to the UN Human Rights Commitee in 2013, stated that the ICCPRâwhich Indonesia has ratified, is part of theÂ domestic law of Indonesia. It, therefore, can be directly applied in municipal courts withoutÂ previous establishment of an implementing legislation. It has also been stated that theÂ Constitutional Court of Indonesia has made a direct reference to the Article 2 of the ICCPR; forÂ instance in the case Number 101/PUU-VII/2009 regarding judicial review on the Advocate ActÂ Number 18/2003, and the case Number 73/PUU-IX/2011 regarding judicial review on theÂ Regional Government Act Number 32/2004 as amended by the Act Number 12/2008. TheÂ writer argues that the Article 2 of the ICCPR cannot be used as a direct reference as the article isÂ intended only to govern the rights and duties of states, not individuals. In other words, theÂ ICCPR governs the rights and duties of the State Parties. Specifically, this article stipulates thatÂ the ICCPR is a non-self-executing treaty because it needs an implementing legislation for itsÂ implementation at the municipal level. The writer is holds the opinion that Indonesia applies aÂ model of dualism with a transformational approach to implement treaties in municipal courts.Â Consequently, all ratified treaties need to be transformed into Acts of Parliament in order to beÂ implemented by judges because they are only bound by laws enacted by the Parliament (DPR).Â Hence, judges may apply international law through legal interpretation.Keywords: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Commission,Â implementation, municipal courts, self-executing & non-self-executing treaty.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v1n1.a4

AKIBAT HUKUM PERATIFIKASIAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL DI INDONESIA: STUDI KASUS KONVENSI PALERMO 2000 Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
Veritas et Justitia Vol 1, No 1 (2015)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.1416

AbstractRatification in Indonesia does not have any legal consequences for the application of the treaties at national level.Â The reason is that ratification only binds Indonesia as a subject of international law. In comparison, parliamentary approval in the Indonesian context is not the same as the United States Senateâs approval. The Indonesian Government signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and ratified it on April 20, 2009. The issue discussed here regards the legal status of this Convention.Â In the 80âs it was assumed that any treaties ratified or acceded, would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia. I argued that Indonesia should be regarded as a state applying the monist approach, which legal practice seems to reject. Â I stand for the monist approach especially with regard to the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention. In addition I also argue about the importance of differentiating between Indonesiaâs international obligations and the issue of direct applicaton of the Convention by national couts.Â Keywords: Ratification, Integration, Implementation, Treaty, Indonesiaâs legal system

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP HAK PENCIPTA SOFTWARE YANG NOMOR SERIALNYA DIKOMERSIALKAN TANPA HAK DI CYBER SPACE BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 28 TAHUN 2014 TENTANG HAK CIPTA Handiwiyanto, Billy; Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
DiH: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Volume 16 Nomor 1 Februari 2020
Publisher : Doctor of Law Study Program Faculty of Law, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30996/dih.v16i1.2899

Intellectual Property Rights consist of various types, one of which is Copyright, Copyright is one of the Intellectual Property Rights that has a broad scope of scope of objects, to the Copyright that is owned, the Author and / or the Copyright Holder get an Exclusive Right on the Work , in which this Exclusive Right consists of 2 (two) types, namely the Moral Right to the Work, and also the Economic Right to the Work. The right to exploit the Work rests with the Author and/or the Copyright Holder of the Work, but there are often violations of the Exclusive Rights in this case the Economic Right which is the Right of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to obtain economic benefits from the utilization of the Copyright, in which a Work is commercialized without Rights by other Parties who do not have the Right to Commercialize the Work. This study aims to determine the basis of the Liability of those commercializing a Work without Rights, which violates the Exclusive Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder to utilize the Work in order to obtain economic benefits from the Work. This research was conducted using the Normative Jurisdiction research method which examines a problem on the basis of applicable laws and regulations, as well as from views and doctrines in the science of law. The results of this study state that other parties who without the right to commercialize a Work must be held accountable for violating the Exclusive Rights in this case the Exclusive Rights to the Economic Rights of the Author and/or the Copyright Holder.Hak Kekayaan Intelektual terdiri dari berbagai macam jenis, salah satunya Hak Cipta, Hak Cipta merupakan salah satu Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang memiliki ruang lingkup cakupan obyek yang luas, terhadap Hak Cipta yang dimiliki, Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta mendapatkan Hak Eksklusif atas Ciptaan tersebut, yang mana Hak Eksklusif ini terdiri dari 2 (dua) macam, yaitu Hak Moral atas Ciptaannya, dan juga Hak Ekonomi atas Ciptaan. Hak untuk mengeksploitasi Ciptaan tersebut terletak pada Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta dari Ciptaan tersebut, namun seringkali terjadi pelanggaran terhadap Hak Eksklusif yang dalam hal ini ialah Hak Ekonomi yang merupaan Hak dari si Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari pemanfaatan terhadap Hak Cipta tersebut, yang mana suatu Ciptaan dikomersialkan tanpa Hak oleh Pihak lain yang tidak punya Hak untuk Mengkomersialkan Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dasar Tanggung Gugat dari pihak yang mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan tanpa Hak, yang melanggar Hak Eksklusif Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta untuk memanfaatkan Ciptaan tersebut guna mendapatkan manfaat ekonomi dari Ciptaan tersebut. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode penelitian Yuridis Normatif yang mana meneliti suatu masalah dengan dasar peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, juga dari pandangan-pandangan dan doktrin-doktrin dalam ilmu hukum. Hasil penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa pihak lain yang dengan tanpa hak mengkomersialkan suatu Ciptaan harus bertanggung gugat karena melanggar Hak Eksklusif dalam hal ini Hak Eksklusif terhadap Hak Ekonomi dari Pencipta dan/atau Pemegang Hak Cipta.

BATASAN TERHADAP IMUNITAS ADVOKAT YANG DIPERLUAS BERDASARKAN PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 26/PUU-XI/2013 Winata, Oey Valentino; Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
DiH: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Volume 16 Nomor 1 Februari 2020
Publisher : Doctor of Law Study Program Faculty of Law, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30996/dih.v16i1.2974

The basis for granting immunity to advocates is in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003, that advocates cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in carrying out their professional duties in good faith in the interests of the Client's defense in court proceedings. The immunity obtained by advocates is not only within the scope of the court, but also protects it outside the court. The immunity has been expanded based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 26 / PUU-XI / 2013. The granting of immunity to such advocates is considered as an act that violates the provisions of Article 28 D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. However, the right to immunity from lawsuits (immunity) to advocates does not conflict with Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution if given with limitations to advocates who are one of law enforcers in Indonesia, these restrictions apply both outside and in court proceedings. The limitation is in the form of a professional code of ethics and legislation, as well as good faith. Any action that goes beyond or beyond these three limits cannot be protected by immunity, so that if one of the three limits is exceeded, advocates can be legally processed and sentenced based on applicable regulations.Dasar pemberian imunitas kepada advokat ada pada Pasal 16 UU No. 18 Tahun 2003, bahwa advokat tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya dengan iktikad baik untuk kepentingan pembelaan Klien dalam sidang pengadilan. Imunitas yang didapatkan advokat ternyata tidak hanya dalam lingkup pengadilan, tetapi juga melindunginya diluar pengadilan. Imunitas tersebut telah diperluas berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUU-XI/2013. Pemberian imunitas kepada advokat tersebut dianggap sebagai suatu perbuatan yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 28D Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang adil serta perlakuan yang sama dihadapan hukum. Tetapi hak atas kekebalan dari tuntutan hukum (imunitas) kepada advokat tersebut menjadi tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D UUD 1945 apabila diberikan dengan batasan-batasan kepada advokat yang merupakan salah satu penegak hukum di Indonesia, batasan tersebut berlaku baik di luar maupun di dalam sidang pengadilan. Batasan tersebut berupa kode etik profesi dan peraturan perundang-undangan, serta iktikad baik. Setiap tindakan yang melampaui atau diluar ketiga batasan tersebut, tidak bisa dilindungi oleh imunitas, sehingga atas dilampauinya salah satu dari ketiga batasan tersebut maka advokat dapat diproses secara hukum dan dijatuhi hukuman berdasarkan peraturan yang berlaku.

PALERMO CONVENTION IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM: PART OF OUR NATIONAL LAW OR MERELY A SOURCE OF LAW Dewanto, Wisnu Aryo
Indonesian Journal of International Law
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (323.105 KB)

Article 38 of the 2000 Palermo Convention sets out that the Convention will enter into force after a minimum requirement of ratifying or acceding States are fulfilled that is 40 countries. The Indonesian Government had signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and had continued to ratify on April 20, 2009. Here the debate begins in regard with the legal status of the Convention that has been ratified by the Indonesia Government, whether the Convention applies for Indonesia or in Indonesia. In the era of Professor Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, treaties that had been ratified or acceded by the Indonesian Government would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia, therefore academics and practitioners convinced that Indonesia was a monist State even though in practice it never showed it. That Indonesia has been running the monism concept, I have repeatedly argued through my writings. It is because the constitutional law experts have defined and described some terms in a wrong way, such as the meaning of ratification of the Vienna Convention 1969, of approval of Parliament under Article 11 of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, of ratification act set out by Law Nr. 24 of 2000 in regard with International Treaties as well as the meaning of self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. This paper would like to propose a different point of view on the practice of the Indonesian legal system in regard with treaties, especially the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention in our legal system. In addition to it, this paper also would like to identify the difference between the international obligations burdened by Indonesia as a State party, with the direct application of the Convention in our national courts, which unfortunately those two concepts are often associated with each other

Penerapan Perjanjian Internasional di Pengadilan Nasional: Sebuah Kritik terhadap Laporan Delegasi Republik Indonesia kepada Komite Hak Asasi Manusia Perserikatan Bangsa Bangsa tentang Implementasi Kovenan Internasional tentang Hak-hak Sipil dan Politik.. Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 1, No 1 (2014): PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (8010.408 KB)

AbstrakLaporan Delri yang disampaikan oleh Pemerintah Indonesia kepada Komite Hak Asasi Manusia PBB menyatakan bahwa ICCPR telah menjadi bagian dari hukum nasional Indonesia sehingga substansi ICCPR dapat diterapkan secara langsung di pengadilan nasional tanpa memerlukan peraturan pelaksana. Selain itu, dikatakan pula bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi telah merujuk secara langsung pada Pasal 2 ICCPR dalam beberapa putusannya seperti putusan untuk kasus Nomor 101/PUU-VII/2009 tentang Pengujian terhadap UU Advokat Nomor 18/2003 dan putusan untuk kasus Nomor 73/PUU-IX/2011 tentang Pengujian terhadap UU Pemda Nomor 32/2004 sebagaimana yang telah diamandemen oleh UU Nomor 12/2008. Sayangnya, Pasal 2 ICCPR tersebut pada kenyataannya tidak dapat diterapkan sebagai rujukan langsung dalam putusan-putusan pengadilan karena substansi pasal ini tidak mengatur hak dan kewajiban individu, tetapi negara. Pasal 2 ICCPR sebenarnya hanya ingin menjelaskan status hukum dari ICCPR bagi negara-negara pihak. Secara filosofis, Pasal 2 ICCPR menyatakan bahwa ICCPR bukanlah perjanjian internasional yang dapat diterapkan secara langsung di pengadilan nasional negara-negara pihak karena keberlakuannya memerlukan peraturan pelaksana, yaitu berupa undang-undang. Dalam praktiknya, Indonesia menganut model dualisme dengan pendekatan transformasi dalam penerapan perjanjian internasional di level nasional. Semua perjanjian internasional yang telah diratifikasi harus ditransformasikan ke dalam undang-undang agar dapat digunakan oleh hakim karena hakim hanya terikat oleh peraturan hukum yang dibuat oleh DPR dan perjanjian internasional hanya dapat diterapkan melalui metode interpretasi hukum.Kata Kunci: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Komite Hak Asasi Manusia, penerapan, pengadilan nasional, perjanjian self-executing dan non-self-executing. The Implementation of International Treaties in Municipal Courts: A Critic to the Initial Report of the Indonesian Delegations to the United Nations Human Rights Commitee regarding the Implementation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in IndonesiaAbstractThe initial report, submitted by the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to the UN Human Rights Commitee in 2013, stated that the ICCPR—which Indonesia has ratified, is part of the domestic law of Indonesia. It, therefore, can be directly applied in municipal courts without previous establishment of an implementing legislation. It has also been stated that the Constitutional Court of Indonesia has made a direct reference to the Article 2 of the ICCPR; for instance in the case Number 101/PUU-VII/2009 regarding judicial review on the Advocate Act Number 18/2003, and the case Number 73/PUU-IX/2011 regarding judicial review on the Regional Government Act Number 32/2004 as amended by the Act Number 12/2008. The writer argues that the Article 2 of the ICCPR cannot be used as a direct reference as the article is intended only to govern the rights and duties of states, not individuals. In other words, the ICCPR governs the rights and duties of the State Parties. Specifically, this article stipulates that the ICCPR is a non-self-executing treaty because it needs an implementing legislation for its implementation at the municipal level. The writer is holds the opinion that Indonesia applies a model of dualism with a transformational approach to implement treaties in municipal courts. Consequently, all ratified treaties need to be transformed into Acts of Parliament in order to be implemented by judges because they are only bound by laws enacted by the Parliament (DPR). Hence, judges may apply international law through legal interpretation.Keywords: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Commission, implementation, municipal courts, self-executing & non-self-executing treaty.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v1n1.a4

CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE NON-IMMEDIACY OF RATIFICATION OF THE 1990 MIGRANT WORKERS CONVENTION Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Vol 25, No 2 (2013)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada

Ratification of treaties in Indonesia can be regarded as mere political acts, as ratification itself does not yet rule for its enforcement in Indonesia’s jurisdiction. As stipulated in Article 11 of the 1945Indonesian Constitution, these ratifications are still subject to consent from the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) as they are the appointed institution in Indonesia with treaty-making powers. The act of ratification by the Indonesian Government is regarded as a ratification only in the international sense, where such action would only make the treaty enter into force internationally, but not internally within Indonesia. This paper seeks to analyze the legal implications which signatureand ratification of international treaties may hold in the Indonesian government. Such is done by studying the class action lawsuit for Indonesia being signatories the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Member of Their Families and its failure continue to further ratify the Convention. Ratifikasi perjanjian internasional merupakan tindakan politik yang memerlukan persetujuan dari Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) sebagai lembaga dengan treaty-making power sebagaimana yangdiatur oleh Pasal 11 UUD 1945. Tindakan ratifikasi oleh Pemerintah Indonesia hanya bermakna sebagairatification hanya dalam the international sense, yakni membuat perjanjian tersebut berlaku di levelinternasional, bukan berlaku di wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia. Artikel ini menganalisis proses andimplikasi hukum diratifikasinya dan ditandatanganinya suatu perjanjian internasional oleh PemerintahIndonesia dengan menelaah gugatan class action yang dilakukan terhadap Pemerintah Indonesia mengenaibelum diratifikasinya Konvensi Buruh Migran.

IMPLEMENTING TREATIES IN MUNICIPAL COURTS Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Vol 23, No 1 (2011)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada

In regard to the implementation of treaties in municipal courts, treaty is divided into self-executing and non-self-executing. A self-executing treaty is defined as a treaty that its implementation does not need an implementing legislation. However, a nonself- executing treaty needs an implementing legislation to have it enforced in national courts.Terkait dengan implementasinya di pengadilan nasional suatu negara, perjanjian internasional digolongkan menjadi perjanjian internasional self-executing dan non-self-executing. Perjanjian internasional self-executing adalah perjanjian internasional yang dapat diimplementasikan secara langsung di pengadilan tanpa implementing legislation, dan perjanjian non-self-executing adalah perjanjian internasional yang tidak dapat langsung dimplementasikan di pengadilan tanpa adanya implementing legislation.

Status Hukum Internasional dalam Sistem Hukum di Indonesia Wisnu Aryo Dewanto
Mimbar Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Vol 21, No 2 (2009)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada

A rule of international law is regarded as non-self-executing in the Indonesian legal system. It means the international legal norm does not have legal binding force in the domestic courts of Indonesia without an implementing legislation. Indonesia is a dualist country vis-à-vis the relation of international law and national law. In regard with the implementation of rules of international law into the Indonesian courts, Indonesia follows the transformation theory where the rules of international law must be transposed into national laws to have them enforced. Therefore, it is the supremacy of national law over international law before the domestic courts.

Title

Found 23 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 23 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 23 Documents
Search