Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

The “Modern” Concept of Erga Omnes to Establish the Obligation of Impunity Eradication: Towards the Primacy Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court Diajeng Wulan Christianti
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 5, No 2 (2018): 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 (389.975 KB)

AbstractDespite the fact that there is no universally accepted definition, international crimes are related closely to civilian casualties and mass destruction, armed conflict, patriotism, and involvement of state. Consequently, domestic jurisdictions often fail to prosecute perpetrators, leaving international law enforcement as the only option for accountability. However, international law remains incarcerated within state-centric image. In the absence of their consent, states do not perceive that they have a duty to prosecute perpetrators of international crimes. This situation triggers impunity. On the other hand, there is a long-standing recognition of jus cogens as a universal and superior norm and the concept of erga omnes obligation for violation on important rights. These two concepts are based on the interest of ‘the whole international community’. All states are required to comply the concepts despite of their willingness to be bound by these concepts. This study was conducted to identify the characters of erga omnes obligation and to examine the possibilities of their application to prosecute international crimes. It also discusses the difficulties of the current erga omnes concept to enforce obligation of impunity eradication, especially for International Criminal Court (ICC). As the one and only permanent international criminal court, ICC received accusations and criticisms for being ‘a selective justice’. Hence, this study puts forward a ‘modern’ erga omnes concept as shift of paradigm from ‘state sovereignty’ to ‘humanity-based approach’. This modern concept is a significant theoretical foundation for the primacy jurisdiction of the ICC because this primacy is the only option that the ICC can apply universally to achieve global justice.AbstrakMeskipun tidak ada definisi yang disepakati secara internasional, kejahatan internasional seringkali dikaitkan dengan korban sipil, kehancuran luar biasa, konflik bersenjata dan semangat patriotisme serta keterlibatan negara. Akibatnya, hukum nasional seringkali gagal dalam menuntut pelaku sehingga mekanisme internasional menjadi satu-satunya cara untuk menuntut pertanggungjawaban pidana pelaku. Namun, hukum internasional masih terpenjara dalam sistem yang terpusat pada negara, sehingga tanpa adanya kesepakatan, negara tidak merasa harus patuh pada kewajiban untuk menuntut pelaku. Hal ini melahirkan iklim impunitas. Sementara itu, hukum internasional sejak lama telah mengakui keberadaan sebuah norma yang universal dan superior yakni jus cogens serta konsep kewajiban erga omnes sebagai sebuah konsekuensi pelanggaran dari suatu “hak-hak yang penting”. Kedua konsep hukum tersebut mendasarkan pada kepentingan masyarakat internasional secara keseluruhan sehingga mengharuskan semua negara untuk patuh terlepas dari keinginan mereka untuk terikat atau tidak dengan norma tersebut. Artikel ini mengidentifikasi karakter dari kewajiban erga omnes dan menelaah apakah karakter tersebut terpenuhi dalam sifat dari kewajiban untuk menghapuskan impunitas. Artikel ini kemudian memaparkan kesulitan-kesulitan yang dihadapi bagi konsep erga omnes saat ini dalam perannya menegakkan kewajiban untuk menghapuskan impunitas khususnya bagi International Criminal Court (ICC) untuk berlaku universal. Sebagai satu-satunya mahkamah pidana internasional permanen, ICC telah mendapat banyak kritikan karena dianggap masih “pilih-pilih” dalam menerapkan keadilan. Artikel ini menawarkan konsep erga omnes ‘modern’ sebagai dasar untuk merubah paradigma dari pendekatan berbasis kedaulatan negara menjadi berbasis umat manusia. Konsep modern ini dapat menjadi landasan teori bagi ICC untuk memberlakukan primacy jurisdiction kepada seluruh negara dan mewujudkan keadilan global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v5n2.a1

Balancing the Interests of Justice: The Case of Afghanistan in The International Criminal Court (ICC) Siti Rochmah Aga Desyana; Diajeng Wulan Christianti; Chloryne Trie Isana Dewi
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 8, No 1 (2021): PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

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

The interests of justice are criteria of the requirements under Article 53 of the Rome Statute to open a formal investigation of a case. However, it can be misinterpreted due to its lack of clear scopes and standards. The Afghanistan case highlighted this obscurity when The Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC) decided that the case should not proceed due to the interests of justice despite lacking negative determination from the Prosecutor, and the Appeals Chamber (AC) overturned this decision by excluding the interests of justice from proprio motu cases. This article verifies the limitations of the criteria in international criminal law (ICL) through the interpretation of the Rome Statute. In addition, it includes the other ICC’s supporting documents and the application to previous cases. This study is of the position that, in the Afghanistan decision, the PTC had overstepped their authority and made an arbitrary decision. The AC had misinterpreted the conjunction between Article 53(3) and Article 15(4) by excluding requirements under Article 53 from proprio motu cases. Based on the opinion, the interpretation on the interests of justice to ensure the criteria still valid as a balancing mechanism under the Rome Statute is very urgent. Menyeimbangkan Kepentingan Keadilan: Studi Putusan Pra-Peradilan dan Banding Mahkamah Pidana Internasional untuk Kasus Afghanistan AbstrakKepentingan keadilan adalah salah satu kriteria dalam Pasal 53 Statuta Roma tentang pembukaan penyidikan kasus. Akan tetapi, kriteria ini sangat mungkin untuk disalahgunakan karena kurangnya kejelasan akan cakupan dan standarnya. Kasus Afghanistan adalah contoh hasil produk dari ketidakjelasan ini. Kamar pra-Peradilan (KPP) memutuskan untuk tidak melanjutkan kasus ini karena melawan kepentingan keadilan meskipun Jaksa menyatakan bahwa kepentingan keadilan telah terpenuhi. Kemudian, Kamar Banding (KB) membatalkan putusan tersebut dengan menyatakan bahwa kepentingan keadilan dalam Pasal 53 tidak seharusnya dipertimbangkan dalam kasus proprio motu. Tulisan ini menganalisis batasan dari kepentingan keadilan dalam hukum pidana internasional dengan mengkaji keberadaannya di hukum domestik dan perspektif Mahkamah Pidana Internasional dalam memaknainya. Melalui kajian ini, ditemukan bahwa KPP telah melangkahi kewenangan mereka dan membuat keputusan tak berdasar pada kasus Afghanistan, dan KB salah memaknai hubungan antara Pasal 53(1) dan Pasal 15(4) Statuta Roma dalam putusannya. Karena pentingnya kriteria kepentingan keadilan, penting untuk segera memberikan penafsiran yang baku agar kriteria tersebut dapat digunakan tanpa melanggar Statuta Roma.Kata kunci: Afghanistan, kepentingan keadilan, Statuta Roma.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n1.a6

The Binding Force of the Nuclear Disarmament Obligation upon North Korea and Its Legal Implication under International Law Diajeng Wulan Christianti; Jaka Hananta Rizkullah
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 7, No 1 (2020): PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

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

Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires all state parties to disarm nuclear weapon. Following its official withdrawal from NPT in 2003, North Korea maintains to develop its nuclear weapon and conducts several nuclear tests. Moreover, it even proudly declared as a nuclear state in its Constitution's preamble. It also argues that the nuclear weapon developments and tests were conducted within their territory and, currently, North Korea is not bound by any treaty prohibiting such developments and tests. The statement is strongly opposed by the international community, particularly their neighboring states: Japan and South Korea. This article argues that the obligation to disarm nuclear weapon deriving from the NPT still binds North Korea since such obligation has reached the status of customary international law and consequently binds every state unless such state persistently objects the rule from the beginning of its formation. In this case, North Korea has failed to prove itself as a persistent objector due to the fact it used to be a party to the NPT. This article also argues that, according to 2001 ILC Articles, Japan and South Korea still have a proper legal basis to claim for reparation against North Korea despite the fact that they are not specifically affected by North Korea’s conducts.Kekuatan Mengikat dari Kewajiban untuk Melucuti Senjata Nuklir bagi Korea Utara dan Implikasi Hukumnya berdasarkan Hukum Internasional AbstrakPasal VI Perjanjian Non-Proliferasi Nuklir (NPT) 1968 mewajibkan semua negara peserta untuk melucuti senjata nuklir. Setelah secara resmi menarik diri dari NPT pada tahun 2003, Korea Utara tetap mengembangkan senjata nuklirnya dan melakukan beberapa uji coba nuklir, bahkan mendeklarasikan dirinya sebagai negara nuklir yang juga termaktub dalam Pembukaan Konstitusinya. Korea Utara juga menyatakan bahwa tindakan pengembangan senjata nuklirnya dilakukan di wilayahnya sendiri dan saat ini Korea Utara berpandangan bahwa dirinya tidak terikat oleh perjanjian internasional manapun yang melarang tindakan tersebut. Hal tersebut tentunya sangat ditentang oleh masyarakat internasional termasuk Jepang dan Korea Selatan sebagai negara tetangga Korea Utara. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa kewajiban untuk melucuti senjata nuklir masih mengikat Korea Utara karena kewajiban tersebut telah berstatus hukum kebiasaan internasional. Akibatnya, kewajiban ini mengikat semua negara kecuali bagi negara yang terus-menerus menolak aturan tersebut sejak awal pembentukannya. Korea Utara gagal memenuhi unsur sebagai sebuah negara yang dikecualikan dari kewajiban ini karena pernah menjadi negara pihak dari NPT tersebut. Selanjutnya, artikel ini menyatakan bahwa, berdasarkan ICL Articles 2001, Jepang dan Korea Selatan, memiliki dasar hukum yang memadai untuk menuntut pertanggungjawaban Korea Utara atas perbuatan salah yang dilakukannya sekalipun kedua negara tersebut bukan merupakan pihak yang secara langsung dirugikan oleh tindakan Korea Utara. Kata Kunci: hukum kebiasaan internasional, Korea Utara, perlucutan senjata nuklirDOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v7n1.a7

Why We Need Erga Omnes Character for Obligations to Combat Impunity for International Crimes? Diajeng Wulan Christianti
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 4, No 2 (2017): 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 (609.696 KB)

International law has recognized certain crimes as international crimes or the most serious crimes. However, it is arguable whether the prohibitions of international crimes that have reached the status of jus cogens carry with it the duty to combat impunity that has same legal consequences as jus cogens namely non-derogable and universal. In Barcelona Traction Case Judgment, ICJ purported the concept of erga omnes obligations that are obligations toward international community as whole and enables all states to establish their rights of protection in the case of the breach of obligations. Although the Court exemplified four examples of erga omnes obligations that generally reflect the prohibitions of certain international crimes, the relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes remains unclear. This article thus examines this relationship since it conceives as necessary element to determine the superior status of erga omnes obligations to combat impunity in international law. This status is significant for enforcing international criminal law and promoting global justice. The article aims to determine theoretically the added values of having erga omnes character. Mengapa Kita Membutuhkan Karakter Erga Omnes sebagai Kewajiban dalam Memerangi Impunitas untuk Kejahatan Internasional? AbstrakHukum internasional telah mengakui kejahatan tertentu sebagai kejahatan internasional atau kejahatan paling serius. Namun, terdapat perdebatan terkait larangan kejahatan internasional yang telah mencapai status jus cogens membawa serta tugas untuk memerangi impunitas yang memiliki konsekuensi hukum yang sama dengan jus cogens yang tidak dapat dikurangi dan universal. Mahkamah Internasional melalui Putusan Kasus Barcelona Traction mengakui konsep kewajiban erga omnes yang merupakan kewajiban terhadap masyarakat internasional secara keseluruhan dan memungkinkan semua negara untuk menetapkan hak perlindungan mereka dalam kasus pelanggaran kewajiban. Meskipun Mahkamah menyertakan empat contoh kewajiban erga omnes yang umumnya mencerminkan larangan kejahatan internasional tertentu, hubungan antara jus cogens dan erga omnes tetap tidak jelas. Dengan demikian, artikel ini akan menguji keterkaitan tersebut karena mengandung unsur yang diperlukan untuk menentukan status superior kewajiban erga omnes untuk memerangi impunitas dalam hukum internasional. Status ini penting untuk menegakkan hukum pidana internasional dan mempromosikan keadilan global. Selain itu, artikel ini pun bertujuan untuk mengetahui secara teoritis nilai tambah karakter erga omnes. Kata kunci: erga omnes, hak asasi manusia, impunitas, kejahatan internasional, jus cogens. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v4n2.a8

TERRORISM AS CORE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES : THE CASE OF FOREIGN TERRORIST FIGHTER (FTF) OF ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND SYRIA (ISIS) Angela Jessica Desmonda; Diajeng Wulan Christianti
Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Vol. 6 No. 1 (2022): Padjadjaran Journal of International Law, Volume 6, Number 1, January 2022
Publisher : International Law Department, Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/pjil.v6i1.996

Since it had established a caliphate in 2014, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continued to threaten the international peace and security by attacking and killing civilians. ISIS foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) are ISIS members who have combat functions. Altough it is a serious crime, terrorism has not yet been recognized as a stand-alone core international crimes according to customary international law. The fact that ISIS is referred to as a terrorist groups, not a state-entity, has also raised a question of whether ISIS FTFs can only be prosecuted for committing terrorism related offences. This paper argues that terrorism acts by ISIS FTFs can fit the element of the existing core international crimes such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide To this end, this paper elaborates the most common offences committed by ISIS FTFs and analyses element of each of core international crimes. This paper concludes that ISIS FTFs should be held liable for those core international crimes and prosecuted before national and international criminal court accordingly.

Principle of Neutrality and the Obligation to Prevent International Humanitarian Law Violations: A Case Study of US Military Assistance in Russia-Ukraine War Gregory Joshua Manogar; Diajeng Wulan Christianti
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 10, No 1 (2023): PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

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

Although international law forbids states to use force against each other, every state has an obligation to stop the ongoing violation of international humanitarian law. Consequently, the relevance of the traditional law of neutrality is questionable and often considered obsolete in contemporary armed conflict. The United States of America introduced the doctrine of qualified neutrality. The doctrine allows other states to do something when there is a threat or ongoing violations of the peace and security of humankind. The United States has commonly justified its military assistance to one of the warring parties using the doctrine as in the current Russia-Ukraine War. The United States provides vast military assistance to Ukraine, consisting of weapons and specialized military training to stop Russian aggression. This study aims to assess the qualified neutrality doctrine from an international law perspective and whether the United States can still preserve its neutral status or become a co-belligerent of Ukraine. This study argues that qualified neutrality will not change the status of a neutral state into co-belligerent if it does not involve any use of force measures or, otherwise, these measures shall fall within the framework of the UN Charter and require authorization from the UN.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v10n1.a5

The Reversed Implementation of the ICC’s Principle of Complementarity: Case Study of Argentina Investigation for Rohingyas Christyanti, B. Lora; Diajeng Wulan Christianti; Chloryne Trie Isana Dewi
Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Vol. 7 No. 1 (2023): Padjadjaran Journal of International Law, Volume 7, Number 1, January 2023
Publisher : International Law Department, Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/pjil.v7i1.965

Complementarity is the basic principle of the ICC’s jurisdiction. As a fundamental principle, it harmonizes the relationship between ICC and National Courts. The Rome Statute clearly states that the ICC is complementary to national courts. However, in the case of Rohingya, the Argentine Lower Court applied this principle in reverse by rejecting the investigation, requested by the Burmese Rohingya Organization UK under universal jurisdiction, for the case of Rohingya since the ICC had already investigated a similar case. This paper seeks to answer whether the ICC’s complementarity principle can be applied in reverse, as decided by the Argentine Lower Court, according to international law. A juridical normative research method will be used to address these issues. In addition, the recognized principles of interpretation in international law will be used to enrich the meaning of the ICC’s complementarity. Based on the analysis, it is obvious that, according to international law, the complementarity cannot be applied in reverse, even by states parties to the Rome Statute. According to the Rome Statute's provisions, every State is required to exercise criminal jurisdiction over persons responsible for international crimes. For this reason, this paper strengthens the arguments for the Argentine Appeal Court to overturn the Lower Court’s decision and reopen the investigation into the case.

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A VIRTUAL EMBASSY ACCORDING TO THE 1961 VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS: THE CASE OF BARBADOS’ METAVERSE EMBASSY Zhahira, Tsabita; Christianti, Diajeng Wulan
Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum Volume 8 Nomor 1 September 2023
Publisher : Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/jbmh.v8i1.1336

Through years of practice, embassies are considered the pillar of the diplomatic system, which faced developments of methods recently heavily influenced by internet optimization. It is reflected in the growing practices of non-physical embassies that raised the issue of whether or not those practices are consistent with the embassy's function under diplomatic law. By using method of normative legal research, qualitative methodology, and descriptive and comparative methods, This paper argues the difficulties of the performance of diplomatic mission function by non-physical embassies through the dimensions of efficiency laid down under the object and purpose of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. It stands to prove the cumulativeness of the functions prescribed under Article 3 (1) of VCDR, arguing that the functions' performance is inefficient by only operating one or several functions. By this way of interpretation, the sole establishment of non-physical embassies, such as virtual embassies and especially metaverse embassies, is impractical due to their inability to perform several key functions of the diplomatic mission. It then clearly established that States cannot rely solely on establishing non-physical embassies and must seek alternative methods.

Self-Determination v Remedial Secession: The Status of Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) under International Law Wulan Christianti, Diajeng
Padjadjaran Journal of International Law Vol. 8 No. 2 (2024): Vol. 8 No. 2 (2024): Padjadjaran Journal of International Law, Volume 8, Number
Publisher : International Law Department, Faculty of Law Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23920/pjil.v8i2.1786

Nagorno-Karabakh is a region situated between Azerbaijan and Armenia, which has been the subject of a territorial dispute between the two neighbouring countries. The region declared independence as Republic of Artsakh and separated from Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan accused Armenia of unlawfully intervening in the formation of Artsakh, while Artsakh claimed its independence was legal under the Soviet's Law of Secession, asserting its right to self-determination. Artsakh also pointed to human rights abuses and systematic discrimination by Azerbaijan as reasons for its secession. This paper examines the legitimacy of Artsakh's secession and considers the role of alleged human rights violations by Azerbaijan for its legitimacy. International law demonstrated that practices of secession were somewhat accepted provided that a lawful ground has been adequately fulfilled as a mandatory part of divorcing a territory from its mainland. However, Artsakh’s secession from Azerbaijan is not provided by a solid, reasonable measure as a “remedial” for all the casualties that had taken place. Also, on historic ground, Artsakh failed to provide sufficient records and proof to attest to its legitimacy as a separate entity utterly detached from Azerbaijan.

Legitimasi Pencabutan Kewarganegaraan dalam Hukum Hak Asasi Manusia Internasional: Studi Kasus di Nikaragua Simanjuntak, Calvin Paulus Marcelito; Christianti, Diajeng Wulan
Jurnal HAM Vol 16, No 2 (2025): August Edition
Publisher : Badan Strategi Kebijakan Hukum

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30641/ham.2025.16.111-134

The right to nationality is a fundamental prerequisite for accessing other human rights, yet its arbitrary deprivation remains a critical concern under international law. This study examines Nicaragua’s Laws No. 1055 and 1145, which authorize the revocation of citizenship based on an expanded and ambiguous definition of "treason," encompassing peaceful political acts such as supporting international sanctions. This case demonstrates how nationality, often described as the "right to have rights," is weaponized for political purposes, revealing how the misuse of citizenship laws threatens the integrity of international human rights protections against statelessness. Specifically, the study investigates whether this definition justifies nationality deprivation under the standards of the 1961 Statelessness Convention and whether such measures violate the right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 19 of the ICCPR. Utilizing a normative juridical approach, the research analyzes international legal instruments alongside Nicaraguan domestic law and incorporates secondary data from organizations such as UNHCR. The findings reveal that Nicaragua’s practices fail to satisfy the criteria of legality, necessity, and proportionality under international human rights law and instead constitute a form of political repression. Such measures not only undermine the purpose of the 1961 Statelessness Convention but also exemplify how nationality laws can be distorted to silence dissent. Therefore, this study underscores the urgent need for stronger international safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of nationality.

Title

Found 21 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 21 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 21 Documents
Search