Vikas Kumar Chaudhary
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

Legal Review of Umpire's Decision in England vs New Zealand Cricket Final Ade Putra Hasibuan; Vikas Kumar Chaudhary
Indonesian Journal of Sports Law Vol. 2 No. 01 (2025): INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS LAW
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26740/ijsl.v2i01.40942

Abstract

Abstract Cricket is a game played by 2 (two) antagonistic teams that can be played by anyone, both young and old. Cricket means a game that is almost similar to softball and baseball. Cricket does not mean an individual game but a team game. Each team consists of 11 people so that there is cooperation between players to produce victory. Cricket is a sport that originated in England, cricket has been very popular in British colonies such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Malaysia and others. For those who are new to cricket, this sport uses a bat, stump, ball and field. However for matches such as the final, there must be an additional match so that the rules of international matches need to be changed. What are the Cricket rules that should be changed and considered to neutralize the laws, which currently tend towards batsman? The ICC should do something about the bails. During IPL as well as the World Cup, so many times we have seen that bails are not falling despite ball hit the stumps. It should not be like that. In an event like the world cup, it happened 5 times so far in the first ten days. Nothing can be more frustrating for a bowler than this. There are a few things that I think can resolve this issue. Keywords: Cricket, Umpire’s Decision, International Cricket Council
Travel Ban AS: Konflik antara Keamanan Nasional dan Perlindungan Hak Asasi Herlambang, Margareta Mulya; Hasibuan, Ade Putra; Vikas Kumar Chaudhary
Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Vol. 7 No. 2 (2025)
Publisher : ILIN Institute

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31960/ijocl.v7i2.3267

Abstract

Abstract. This article discusses the United States Travel Ban policy, which has caused tension between national sovereignty in maintaining national security and international legal obligations to protect human rights. Based on Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the President has broad authority to suspend the entry of foreign nationals for national security reasons. However, this policy is considered to indirectly discriminate against Muslim-majority countries and violates the principle of non-discrimination in the ICCPR and ICERD. Through normative analysis using conceptual, case, and legislative approaches, this study reviews the considerations of the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and compares them with Russia's diplomatically motivated entry ban. The results of the study show that although both countries base their policies on national security reasons, the United States still has a more transparent judicial mechanism than Russia, which is administratively closed. This article emphasizes the importance of balancing state sovereignty and international obligations to guarantee the protection of human rights based on the principles of legality, proportionality, and non-discrimination. Abstrak. Artikel ini membahas kebijakan Travel Ban Amerika Serikat yang memicu perdebatan tentang batas antara kedaulatan negara dalam menjaga keamanan nasional dan kewajiban internasional untuk menghormati hak asasi manusia. Berdasarkan Pasal 212(f) Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Presiden diberi kewenangan luas untuk membatasi atau menangguhkan masuknya warga negara asing jika dianggap mengancam keamanan. Namun, penerapan kebijakan tersebut dinilai memunculkan pola diskriminasi tidak langsung terhadap negara-negara dengan penduduk mayoritas Muslim, sehingga menimbulkan persoalan terkait prinsip non-diskriminasi dalam ICCPR dan ICERD. Dengan menggunakan analisis normatif melalui pendekatan konseptual, studi kasus, dan tinjauan peraturan, penelitian ini membedah pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung AS dalam perkara Trump v. Hawaii (2018) serta membandingkannya dengan kebijakan entry ban yang diterapkan Rusia sebagai bagian dari strategi diplomatiknya. Temuan penelitian mengungkap bahwa meskipun kedua negara membenarkan kebijakan mereka atas dasar keamanan nasional, Amerika Serikat masih menyediakan mekanisme pengawasan yudisial yang lebih terbuka, sementara proses di Rusia cenderung tertutup dan sepenuhnya administratif. Artikel ini menegaskan perlunya keseimbangan antara kedaulatan negara dan kewajiban internasional, dengan menempatkan prinsip legalitas, proporsionalitas, serta non-diskriminasi sebagai landasan utama dalam penerapan setiap kebijakan pembatasan imigrasi.