cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Akbar Kurnia
Contact Email
akbarkurnia@unja.ac.id
Phone
+6282111131311
Journal Mail Official
uti_possidetis@unja.ac.id
Editorial Address
Universitas Jambi, Faculty of Law Jl. Lintas Jambi - Ma. Bulian KM. 15, Mendalo Darat, Jambi Luar Kota, Muaro Jambi, Jambi, Indonesia 36122
Location
Kota jambi,
Jambi
INDONESIA
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law
Published by Universitas Jambi
ISSN : 27218031     EISSN : 27218333     DOI : https://doi.org/10.36565/up
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Faculty of Law Universitas Jambi. It aims primarily to compile innovative research in the studies of International Law, facilitates professional discussion of the current developmnetas on international legal issues and is intended to build the interest of Indonesian scholars and decision makers on the important roles of International Law
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 93 Documents
 6   7   8   9   10 
Kehendak Negara dalam Perjanjian Internasional Hetharie, Brandon Tanner; Wattimena, Josina Agusthina Yvonne; Daties, Dyah Ridhul Airin
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law Vol 6 No 3 (2025): Oktober
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22437/up.v6i3.47155

Abstract

Background: International cooperation through treaties establishes legally binding obligations for states that have expressed their consent to be bound under international law. In practice, however, the exercise of state will as an expression of sovereignty often comes into tension with these binding legal norms. In this context, what is often perceived as a disregard for treaty compliance does not indicate the absence of binding legal force, but rather reflects juridical tensions between treaty obligations and the exercise of state will.This study examines how state will operates within the framework of treaty compliance and influences the binding legal force of international treaties. Methodology: This research uses a normative juridical method with statutory, case-based, and conceptual approaches. Data were collected from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through literature review and analyzed qualitatively and descriptively. Objectives: The study aims to analyze the binding legal force of international treaties and to examine the juridical tensions that arise when state will conflicts with treaty compliance and implementation. Findings: The binding force of international treaties constitutes a complex legal construction that cannot be fully understood through a purely legalistic approach. A multidimensional analysis incorporating juridical, philosophical, sociological, and theoretical perspectives demonstrates that state compliance with international treaties is shaped not only by legal obligation, but also by domestic political dynamics and strategic national interests. In practice, these factors generate an asymmetry of state will in treaty compliance, whereby disparities in political power and legal capacity allow stronger states greater flexibility than developing states.Originality/Novelty: By situating state will within the juridical framework of treaty compliance, this study offers a contemporary legal analysis of how binding treaty obligations interact with political realities in modern international law.
Learning from the Armed Conflict Between India and Pakistan: Is Nuclear Weapons Necessary? Siraj, Adnan; Khan, Shah Rukh; Jabbi, Yusupha
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law Vol 6 No 3 (2025): Oktober
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22437/up.v6i3.48601

Abstract

Background: The nuclearization of South Asia poses a long-term threat to the regional and global security. The long-standing rivalry between India and Pakistan is dangerously compounded by their opposing nuclear doctrines, and hence an analysis of their strategic stability is an imperative. Methodology: This study uses the methodology of comparative analysis and analysis of the nuclear postures of India and Pakistan in the context of modern deterrence theory and international law. The analysis rests on empirical evidence from past crises up to the time of the 2025 escalation to gain real world credibility of the doctrines. Objectives:The purpose of this paper is to dissect India's 'No First Use' policy vis-a-vis Pakistan's 'Full-Spectrum Deterrence' and first use ambiguity. It aims to examine how these contrary doctrines contribute to escalation and whether they comply with international legal norms. Findings: The analysis illuminates a critical "stability-instability paradox," in which nuclear weapons prevent total war but lower the threshold for limited conflict. Inconsistencies such as India's massive retaliation vow against Pakistan's tactical nuclear weapons add dangerous pressures to escalation. This asymmetry and poor communication with crisis lead to a very volatile security environment. Originality/Novelty: The novelty of the paper is the integration of the deterrence theory with international law and its application to contemporary empirical data such as the 2025 crisis. It contends that current nuclear postures, far from being stabilizing, have opened new avenues to war, calling conventional wisdom on deterrence into question.
The Limitations of the Principle of State Responsibility in the Global Climate Change Regime Fajrin, Fera Wulandari; Larasati, Kandi Kirana; Tombi, Johan Tri Noval Hendrian; Luthfan, Gusti Fadhil Fithrian
Uti Possidetis: Journal of International Law Vol 6 No 3 (2025): Oktober
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Jambi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.22437/up.v6i3.48698

Abstract

Background: The global climate crisis, driven by increasing carbon emissions, has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges in international law. Despite significant milestones such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, enforcement remains weak due to their reliance on soft law mechanisms. This issue deserves scholarly attention because it raises fundamental questions about state responsibility and the effectiveness of international environmental law in addressing climate change. Methodology: This research employs a doctrinal legal approach combined with a conceptual analysis. This method was selected to critically examine the normative gaps within the texts of international agreements, specifically how "soft law" language undermines enforcement. The study relies on primary legal sources, including the text of the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and relevant international jurisprudence such as the ICJ Advisory Opinions. Secondary data is drawn from legal literature, journal articles, and reports on global compliance. The analysis proceeds by interpreting these instruments to determine whether existing frameworks are sufficient to uphold the principle of state responsibility.Objectives: The study aims to evaluate whether existing international legal frameworks adequately enforce the principle of state responsibility in carbon emission reduction. It seeks to identify the limitations of soft law mechanisms, assess their impact on state compliance, and explore potential avenues for strengthening accountability in the global climate regime. Findings: The research reveals that current international agreements lack binding enforcement mechanisms, enabling states to disregard commitments or withdraw without significant legal consequences. While mechanisms such as “naming and shaming” have emerged as alternatives, they primarily exert reputational pressure and remain insufficient to ensure compliance. This gap undermines the principle of state responsibility in practice. Originality/Novelty: The study highlights the urgency of transitioning from soft law to hard enforcement in climate governance. It proposes the establishment of independent enforcement authorities, binding obligations, and strengthened judicial roles, offering innovative insights into how international law can more effectively uphold state responsibility in combating climate change.

Page 10 of 10 | Total Record : 93

 6   7   8   9   10 

Filter by Year

2020 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 6 No 3 (2025): Oktober Vol 6 No 2 (2025): Juni Vol 6 No 1 (2025): Februari Vol 5 No 3 (2024): Oktober Vol 5 No 2 (2024): Juni Vol 5 No 1 (2024): Februari Vol 4 No 3 (2023): Oktober Vol 4 No 2 (2023): Juni Vol 4 No 1 (2023) Vol 3 No 3 (2022) Vol 3 No 2 (2022) Vol 3 No 1 (2022) Vol 2 No 3 (2021) Vol 2 No 2 (2021) Vol 2 No 1 (2021) Vol 1 No 3 (2020) Vol 1 No 2 (2020) Vol 1 No 1 (2020) More Issue