Hasibuan, Ade Putra
Unknown Affiliation

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

Found 2 Documents
Search

Justice Versus Certainty: The Antinomy of Law in the New Indonesian Criminal Code from the Perspective of Radbruch's Formula Wijaya, Rahmanu; Hasibuan, Ade Putra
NOVUM : JURNAL HUKUM Vol. 12 No. 03 (2025): Novum : Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Surabaya

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.2674/novum.v12i03.72357

Abstract

The ratification of the new Criminal Code in Indonesia, while aiming to reform criminal law, also presents legal issues, particularly from a legal philosophical perspective. This is as stated in Article 53 paragraph (2) of the New Criminal Code, which accommodates the Radbruch formula, potentially leading to judicial bias and case manipulation due to subjectivity in prioritizing justice over legal certainty. This research is normative legal research that prioritizes philosophical, conceptual, and legislative approaches. The research findings confirm the essence of the Radbruch formula in Indonesian legal and criminal philosophy, which emphasizes the supremacy of the value of justice over legal certainty in conditions of value conflict. Article 53 paragraph (2) of the New Criminal Code, which accommodates the Radbruch formula, needs improvement and legal renewal to avoid judicial arbitrariness in criminal law enforcement. Therefore, it is necessary to renew and perfect Article 53 paragraph (2) of the New Criminal Code through norm revision or judicial review to maintain the constitutionality of the article and achieve a balance between legal certainty and objective justice in the Indonesian criminal justice system.
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.