Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS. Volume 17 Januari April 2015

Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS

Volume 17  Januari —April 2015

DIREKTORAT JENDERAL HUKUM DAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL KEMENTERIAN LUAR NEGERI REPUBLIK INDONESIA 2015

i

Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS Volume 17  Januari —April 2015 Diterbitkan oleh Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional Kementerian Luar Negeri Sejak Oktober 2009 Penanggung Jawab Ferry Adamhar, SH, LL.M Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman Redaktur Patrick S. Hasjim, S.H., M.Si; Drs. Sukarsono; Sudarsono, S.H., MM; Rofita, S.H.; Zainul Idris Yunus, S.E.; Fajar Yusuf, S.H., LL.M; Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho, S.H., LL.M; Editor Ahmad Saleh Bawazier, S.H., M.H., M.A.; Nenda Inasa Fadhilah, S.H., LL.M.; Santa Marelda Saragih, S.H., MH.; Vina Novianti, S.Hum.; Rike Wijayanti Octaviany, S.H., LL.M.; M. Ferdien, S.H.; Galuh Indriana Rarasanti, S.H.; Dyan Radin Swastika, S.H. Disain Grafis Asep Hermawan; Andre Bramantya, S.H. Sekretariat Uki Subki, S.Sos, M.Si; Agustian; Sutono, S.Sos; Tasunah; Maisaroh, S.Sos. Anisa Husna, S.Hum. Alamat Redaksi: Sekretariat Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional Kementerian Luar Negeri Jl. Taman Pejambon No. 6 Jakarta Pusat Telp. +62 21 3846633 Fax. +62 21 3858044; Email: [email protected] Jurnal Opinio Juris versi digital dapat diunduh di website http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/

Tulisan yang dimuat dalam Jurnal Opinio Juris adalah pendapat dan analisis pribadi dari para penulis dan tidak mewakili pandangan/posisi Kementerian Luar Negeri dan/atau Pemerintah Republik Indonesia.

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

Vol. 17  Januari – April 2015

DAFTAR ISI Daftar Isi.............................................................................................................. iii Pengantar Redaksi ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 8 REVIEW BUKU Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study

8

Stefan Kadelbach..................................................................................................... 8 Simon Butt ........................................................................................................... 51 Abdulkadir Jaelani ................................................................................................ 44 Haryo Budi Utomo ............................................................................................... 51 Prita Amalia ....................................................................................................... 102 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................... 108 TENTANG PENULIS ...................................................................................... 109

iii

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


PENGANTAR REDAKSI Dalam rangka menjalankan tugas dan fungsi diseminasi informasi terkait isu-isu hukum dan perjanjian internasional, Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional telah menerbitkan Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional yang diberi nama “Jurnal Opinio Juris”. Dalam Volume 17 tahun 2015 ini, redaksi membahas resensi buku Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman berjudul “Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study” oleh lima peresensi buku, yaitu Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach, Prof. Simon Butt, Dr. Haryo Budi Utomo, Prita Amalia S.H. M.H., dan Abdulkadir Jaelani S.H., M.H. M.A. Dalam kesempatan ini, redaksi Opinio Juris juga hendak mengucapkan terima kasih kepada para anggota redaksi terdahulu yang telah mendapat penugasan baru di beberapa Perwakilan RI atas dedikasinya dalam memajukan Opinio Juris. Redaksi juga mengajak para pembaca untuk turut berkontribusi serta memberikan saran dan masukannya demi peningkatan kualitas Opinio Juris di masa mendatang melalui email [email protected]. Untuk memudahkan para pembaca setia Opinio Juris, Redaksi telah memuat Opinio Juris yang pernah terbit terdahulu pada Perpustakaan Hukum Digital (e-library) Kemlu yang dapat di akses melalui http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/. Pada kesempatan ini, Redaksi Opinio Juris secara terus menerus mengajak para pembaca untuk turut menyumbangkan tulisan, memberikan saran dan masukannya demi peningkatan kualitas Opinio Juris di masa mendatang.

iv

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Akhir kata, Redaksi Opinio Juris berharap semoga jurnal ini dapat bermanfaat serta menjadi sarana dalam menyebarluaskan informasi dan wadah sumbangsih pemikiran di bidang hukum dan perjanjian internasional yang berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan hubungan luar negeri. Terima kasih dan selamat membaca.

Redaksi Opinio Juris

v

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


BOOK: “TREATIES UNDER INDONESIAN LAW” (ROSDA, 2014) Executive Summary Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman [email protected] http://perjanjian-internasional.blogspot.com

1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITIES CONCERNING TREATIES UNDER INDONESIAN LAW

At present, the legal status of treaties under Indonesian law is still ambiguous in nature. By using traditional monist-dualist theories as tools of analysis and the empirical basis of comparative research, it was revealed that the existing constitutional order of Indonesia has not adequately addressed the legal status of treaties under its domestic law. In practice, there are various constitutional interpretations on their domestic status in Indonesia that are at variance with one another, and mutually negate each another. Different interpretations have led to different outcomes. Such various different interpretations stem from

6

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


various constitutional ambiguities that exist in the constitutional order of Indonesia. The ambiguities are created by the following: unclear constitutional provisions, poorly drafted statutory laws concerning treaties, no theoretically informed basis, and inconsistent constitutional practices.

The constitutional

ambiguities have resulted in

legal

uncertainty about the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law. The remnants of the monist legal approach of the Netherlands had occupied the legal thoughts of many Indonesian scholars in the earlier period of independence. Many scholars viewed that once a treaty enters into force, it binds Indonesia. Thus the question of deciding on its domestic status was considered unnecessary. The influence of Indonesian constitutional experts in the years to come, coupled with the emerging issues of non-self-executing treaties in international practice, apparently affected such monist legal thoughts, which in turn brought up a dualist legal view in scholarly fields. In subsequent practice, the two conflicting theories have inadvertently influenced the observations of many scholars in Indonesia within their respective spheres. The debate was however conducted without any theoretically informed concept or academic guidance due to a shortage of legal expertise and a lack of international legal references. The domestic order was influenced by the absence of a theoretical backup. Thus the legal construction existed without any necessary concept relevant to the determination of the domestic status of treaties, such as the mode for

7

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


granting domestic validity, the hierarchical rank of treaties in domestic law; etc. The strict separation of the academic disciplines between constitutional law and international law in Indonesia also contributed to the deficiency of the domestic order. The two academic disciplines never collaborated and did not keep each other well-informed. The constitutional order is understood partially, be it from the viewpoint of constitutional law or/and international law that was never approached through a collaborative perspective. Constitutionalists and international law experts in Indonesia interpreted the order in an uncoordinated manner and imposed their own terms in interpreting the constitutional provisions for their own respective academic fields. Both groups of experts understood treaties in their isolated schools of thought and independent perspectives. As a result, the constitutional approach became incoherent because it ignored

relevant

international

aspects

of

domestic

law.

The

understanding of treaties by international law experts lacked domestic legal

aspects.

Such

rudimentary

and

incomprehensive

outlooks

apparently caused and exacerbated the said constitutional ambiguities. Although the sentiment of nationalism, the culture of resistance or indifference towards the so-called ‘colonial’ international law in Indonesia since the 1960s has been fading away, there was still no great interest among Indonesian scholars to place treaties properly in domestic law

8

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


until recently. Policy option is still absent in the constitutional agenda. No intensive scholarly debate has to date significantly taken place on the matter. Various factors account for this. From the experiences of the states under comparative examination, this kind of attitude appears to be typical in developing countries that have no close connection to the Western legal tradition, as evidently shown by China. The following historical facts have contributed to the typical unenthusiastic attitude: Indonesia developed its own legal system by disconnecting it from the legal tradition of its former colonial states, its geo-political isolation from intensive international interactions, and the hostile attitude of Indonesia towards international law in the earliest phase of independence. The authoritarian

government regime in

the aftermath

delayed the

development of the constitutional order on treaties. The need for a clear regime of the domestic aspect of treaties arose only after Indonesia entered into a democratic system in 1999, 54 years after gaining independence. As Indonesia continues its transition toward a fully democratic system, the question concerning the legal status of treaties to which Indonesia is bound shall be adequately addressed and their validity under domestic law shall be constitutionally determined. Their domestic treatment can no longer rely on discretionary power. To serve this purpose, Indonesia needs a clear basis for their domestic application as well as their constitutional legitimacy. Such a clear basis could be achieved by optimizing the existing legal regime.

9

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


There are at least three constitutional ambiguities that need to be resolved with a view to optimize the existing legal regime concerning the status of treaties under Indonesian law: a.

The utmost ambiguity is rooted in the existing constitutional provisions i.e. Article 11 of the Constitution of 1945: The President, with the approval of the DPR1, declares war, makes peace, and treaties with other states, which is considered too simplistic and largely influenced by the provision from the Meiji Constitution. While in Meiji Constitution prescribed that “the Japanese Emperor was empowered to make treaties”), the Indonesian version was only slightly modified through the insertion of the words ‘with the approval of the House of Representatives’. Such a formulation has raised many legal difficulties in practice as it may be interpreted that Parliament could be involved in all stages of the treaty-making process and that all treaties are subject to parliamentary approval.

b.

The second problem concerns the role of Parliament in treatymaking, in view of existing constitutional practices which arises from the first ambiguity. The practice distinguishes its functions in a strict manner i.e. whether it is within the ambit of legislative

1

The Indonesian term DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) corresponds to the Indonesian House of Representatives (hereinafter ‘House of Representatives’). The House of Representatives is considered as the Indonesian Parliament. In this writing, the term ‘parliament’ or ‘parliamentary’ will refer to the House of Representatives.

10

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


function or otherwise its oversight functions. This has created confusion and brought up a number of versions in the understanding of the outcome of parliamentary participation in treaty-making. According to the Law No. 24 of 2000 on Treaties, the parliamentary approval takes a form of ‘law/Act of Parliament approving treaties’. The choice unintentionally tends to create the said prescription that the determination of the domestic status of treaties would correspond to the legal effect of parliamentary participation. This is in particular when it comes to how one signifies the law approving treaties as the outcome of such participation. On the one hand, the view that parliamentary participation in treaty-making is within the ambit of legislative function has tended to induce the interpretation of the law approving a treaty as a legislative product. On the other, there also appears a view that such participation is within the ambit of the Parliament’s oversight function, which tends to create a strong assertion that the law approving a treaty is merely a formal expression of parliamentary approval. c.

The third relates to the consequence that indirectly took place due to the second ambiguity, which relates to the mode of granting the treaty domestic validity. The choice has created a double interpretation with regard to the law approving a treaty. On the one hand, the view that the law approving treaties is a legislative product has induced the idea that it constitutes a transformation

11

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


into domestic law. The other view states that the law is merely a formal expression of parliamentary approval and has led to an approach whereby the treaty, upon its entry into force, is considered as adopted instead of transformed into domestic law. The entry into force of the treaty in international law is considered identical with its entry into domestic law.

2. POLICY OPTIONS

Since neither monism nor dualism is satisfactory, and no single constitutional order subscribes to strict monism or dualism as well as to a stringent mode of adoption or transformation, the idea of establishing a constitutional order on the basis of pure monism and strict dualism is not realistic and therefore should not per se serve as policy option. However, the knowledge of the conceptual divide between the two theories is considered as owing great importance towards a proper understanding concerning the different attitudes of states in giving domestic effect to treaties, and provides a clear perspective necessary for a starting point in the formation of policy in the constitutions. Various approaches in the actual practice of states illustrate that, under both monism and dualism, the distinction between the validity of treaties

12

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


under international law and under domestic law becomes inevitable. It is increasingly held in the actual practice that international law and domestic law have their own standpoint in dealing with the relationship between treaties and domestic law by which different outcomes may arise. At this stage international law remains silent on how domestic law should meet treaty obligations. This is because the nature of such obligations is normally that of obligations of result, with the exception of human rights treaties, which have been arguably seen as imposing obligations of conduct. It is therefore not feasible to maintain a policy which holds that the domestic validity of a treaty is dictated by international law, as monism suggests, or to view that a treaty under international law is completely separated from that of a treaty under (which is transformed into) domestic law, as dualism suggests. Actual practice of states demonstrates that both are distinguishable but inextricable. Policy consideration shall therefore include these converging and diverging elements of monism and dualism. The experiences of the states under review reveal that a constitutional regime regarding the domestic status of treaties is not supposed to change abruptly from one doctrinal approach to another. Building up a legal regime on the basis of the existing constitutional order is more appropriate for Indonesia. It is therefore suggested that Indonesia optimizes its legal regime by reconstructing the existing legal framework rather than creating a completely new framework. The reconstruction should clarify the vague legal constructions and fill the gap that exists in

13

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


the current order, resulting from the lack of doctrine. For this purpose Indonesia needs to have clearer constitutional provisions and at the same time it has to fix the existing constitutional ambiguities arising from the distorted practice. The legal concept available at the theoretical level may provide helpful directions.

3. PARLIAMENTARY PARTICIPATION

Indonesia is already equipped with democratic constitutional infrastructures that may serve to build up a clearer legal regime with regard to the question of the status of treaties in domestic law in which parliamentary participation may be well facilitated. There exist sufficient state organs that are basically required for a modern state, inter alia, President, Parliament, and also the various types of judicial institutions. The treaty-making power can be properly allocated among the state organs. The existing constitutional arrangement has, however, invited criticism for its ambiguity. The simple and ambiguous provision under the Constitution as such could be widely interpreted in a manner that Parliament is involved in all stages of the treaty-making process and gives consent to all treaties. The clarification made by Law No. 24 of 2000 on

14

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Treaties which technically modified the original meaning of the provision of the Constitution, has appeared to constitute unintentionally a quasiconstitutional

amendment

and

given

rise

to

the

question

of

constitutionality. For a coherent system, this constitutional defect must be fixed so that all parliamentary powers should only be given effect by the Constitution. The subsequent practices of treaty-making of the states under review, in light of the proliferation of subject matters that require parliamentary approval, have suggested that parliamentary participation should not necessarily be determined on the basis of a distinction between its legislative function and oversight function. The existing constitutional setting, which tends to regard the law approving a treaty as either merely a legislative product (within the ambit of legislative function) or otherwise merely a formal expression of parliamentary approval, is not helpful in describing the proper role of Parliament. The current democratic system has prompted an extensive participation of Parliament in all matters that are related to political and economic strategic interests as well as matters that may affect the rights and obligations of individuals. In this regard, the outcome of parliamentary approval, in the form of statutory law, shall be attributed to the general function of Parliament without necessarily referring to the distinction between those functions. Parliamentary participation may embrace all matters within the ambit of legislative function, oversight function as well as budgetary

15

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


function. Therefore, all functions are equally necessary and should be attached to parliamentary participation in treaty-making.

4. CRITERIA OF TREATIES THAT REQUIRE PARLIAMENTARY PARTICIPATION The criteria as set out in Law No. 24 of 2000, which are on the basis of a general description of subject matters, are no longer adequate for two main reasons. First, the criteria should be stipulated in the Constitution instead of the lower legislation as it stands now, since this very matter relates to the allocation of constitutional powers which belong to the Constitution. Second, these criteria greatly emphasize on politically-heavy matters concerning the very existence of the state and exclude, in most parts, matters that affect the rights and obligations of individuals which fall under the legislative domain. As apparent from the comparative outlook, legislative power is nowadays vested in Parliament. On the other hand, there is a growing number of treaties intended to produce legislative effects. It is therefore compelling to include matters that are subject to legislation in the criteria. The inclusion of matters of legislation into the criteria will prevent the drafting out of legislation through backroom deals without parliamentary control. Other important matters

16

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


that carry political and economic strategic interests of the state may be added to the criteria. The criteria on the basis of constitutional separation of powers between Parliament and President are apparently more feasible than making a distinction between a political and an executive/technical nature of a treaty. The complexity and wide range of subject matters covered by treaties under globalization have created difficulties in drawing such distinctions in the practice. It is not always easy to assess treaties as technically and politically important. Therefore, other treaties which do not fall into the category of those that require parliamentary approval shall relate to matters that are, according to the Constitution, exclusively under the purview of government powers. The existing legal framework raised a problem because the subject matters that are qualified to be embodied in a statutory law should be according to a set of criteria, determined by Treaties Law No. 24 of 2000 and Law No. 12 of 2011 on Legislation. The former deals with criteria of treaties that are subject to parliamentary approval in the form of statutory law, and the latter determines what subject matters should be embodied in statutory law. The criteria set out by the two Laws overlap and are uncoordinated, which seemingly reflects the differences in legal thought between experts of constitutional law and international law. They bring about great disparities in terms of their subject matters and thus the two laws need to be synchronized.

17

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


The criteria for having a treaty approved in the form of a statutory law need to be revised. As suggested above, it is preferable that the criteria shall be construed on the basis of, and therefore covering, all parliamentary functions. The first criterion concerns treaties that contain subjects of legislative matters. Treaties regulate matters which, according to prevailing regulations, shall be the content of a statutory law. This must then be submitted to Parliament for approval and acquire the order of execution in the form of statutory law. The second criterion concerns matters that effect strategic interests of Indonesia, over which Parliament performs the function of oversight or monitoring control. These may be matters concerning political and economic strategic interests, the application of which will affect the very existence of Indonesia as an independent state. These treaties may not necessarily affect the rights and obligations of individuals and may be outside of legislative matters. The most frequently quoted treaties under this criterion are, inter alia, boundary treaties; defense and security treaties; and friendship treaties. For these treaties, the statutory law may only grant authorization to the President to ratify them. The third criterion concerns treaties relating to state budget. This kind of treaty generates financial burdens for which a specific financial plan shall be allocated in the state budget. Loan agreements or memberships to international organizations that involve financial contribution belong to this kind of treaty as well.

18

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


As envisaged from the comparative analysis, the government decision determining that a treaty according to its subject matters requires no parliamentary approval may be subject to constitutional dispute. It may lead to the abuse of power and result in arbitrary decisions if the discretion is entirely left to the government unchecked. The model of the Netherlands, where the Parliament is empowered to decide otherwise, would apparently prevent such abuse. Upon the submission of the list of treaties under negotiation to Parliament, the government may indicate that the treaties in question do not require parliamentary approval but, on the contrary, Parliament may decide, on the basis of its own interpretation according to the criteria that the treaties shall be subject to its approval.

5. MODES BY WHICH TREATIES ARE INCORPORATED INTO DOMESTIC LAW

The comparative analysis offers various options concerning the modes for granting domestic validity of a treaty where all of the options have already been interchangeably adopted in the practice and held by scholars in Indonesia. As a former colony of a monist state, Indonesia is not unfamiliar with the monist-adoption mode because it had practiced this approach in its early years of independence and therefore, in terms of legal tradition, its legal system was rooted in a monist basis. The dualist-

19

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


transformation mode has also found its expression in the legal practices in Indonesia. Since 1974, there has been a growing tendency which considered the law approving a treaty as constituting transformation by which the treaty becomes valid in domestic law. Now, there exists another variant of the transformation mode where the law approving a treaty is still regarded as a formal expression of parliamentary approval but separate transformation legislation is still required for granting domestic validity to the treaty. Indonesia is also familiar with providing reference provisions in domestic law by which a treaty may acquire domestic status upon its entry into force. Despite the fact that the mode may effectively give effect to a treaty in domestic law, the scope of this mode is still limited to specific treaties and is not expected to provide a general rule which applies for all treaties. This mode may, however, complement a general mode, particularly in determining the special status of a given treaty with regard to its hierarchical rank. As a former colony of a monist state, the monist tradition continues to occupy the mindset of policymakers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Indonesian position towards the UN Human Rights Body can be described as one that is aimed at carrying out its international obligations faithfully at the domestic level, without giving due regard to possible dualist barriers. Historical facts point out that dualism does not belong to

20

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


the Indonesian tradition - Indonesia was never influenced by the common law dualist system and it was never persuaded by the dualist thinking of Triepel or Anzilotti. Tendencies to portray a dualist posture in its subsequent legal practices should not to be misunderstood as a proper dualist attitude taken up by Indonesia. It is an expression of public sentiment in Indonesia that international law is nothing but international morality, or that this branch of law is not familiar to Indonesia. In this regard, a dualist perspective is not only seen as unfamiliar to Indonesia but also as not having a basis in its legal system. Globalization meanwhile has given rise to the need for protecting the legal interests of domestic law in light of the pressures arising from democratic legitimacy. The idea of democratic legitimacy finds its expression in the current political setting where the principle of rule of law (Rechtsstaat), democracy, as well as checks and balances are high on the political transformation agenda. The political attitudes arising from the current democratic transition has induced many policymakers to pursue a dualist preference, as has been indicated by a number of cases brought to courts, in which a greater call for shielding domestic law from international intrusion has been expressed. The two aspects shall therefore play an important role in the policy options by which a radical monist as well as a strict dualist mode becomes untenable. The best mode Indonesia could adopt may be reached by reconciling the interest of democratic legitimacy, on the one hand, and removing unnecessary legislative burden, on the other.

21

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


The monist-adoption mode had been practiced by Indonesia in the earliest period of independence but was then gradually abandoned in the wake of nationalism and constitutionalist pressure that arose in the subsequent period. The monist character of the first mode might not impress constitutionalists in Indonesia at the present stage, at a time when democratic values play an increasingly important role on the political agenda. Constitutionalists developed a constitutional law during the prereform regime in favour of nationalism by which they have been more accustomed to domestic legislations than to treaty rules . The presence of treaty rules in domestic law without the cover of domestic legislation as envisaged by this mode will invite strong resistance from those legal enforcers who are mostly unfamiliar with treaties that have not been incorporated into legislation. The dualist-transformation may look compatible to the existing legal practice but it is not free from distorted constitutional features. The first concerns the allocation of powers among constitutional organs that are involved in the treaty- making. From the inception of the state, treatymaking power in Indonesia was not under the exclusive competence of the executive. Indonesia has therefore not subscribed to the constitutional distinction

between

treaty-making

by

executive

and

treaty

implementation by legislature as is widely known in dualist states. The application of dualist transformation in Indonesia will create a procedure where the same organs will conclude a treaty and transform it into

22

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


domestic legislation in a separate arrangement. This procedure will be excessive because there will be two different statutory laws for the same treaty i.e. the law approving the treaty for ratification and the law transforming the treaty into domestic law. In this regard, Indonesia should not subscribe to a mode that requires it to enact two different and separate laws devoted respectively to the conclusion and the granting of municipal validity of a treaty. From a procedural perspective, the mode will overburden the legislative bodies because with the same procedure they are required to enact two different laws for a relatively similar purpose. The two may actually be given effect by virtue of the same and a single law. Furthermore, two different kinds of parliamentary treatment to a treaty will create a dilemmatic question of great constitutional importance i.e. whether Parliament, having granted the approval to the ratification of a treaty, may reject its transformation into domestic law through the same course of action as may occur in the South African system. The second problem concerns the place of transformed treaties in the legislative structure arising from the system of Stufenbau. Indonesia subscribes to a hierarchical legislative system based on Kelsen’s Stufenbau that, according to the current law, is divided into eight different levels. The complex situation of this legislative hierarchical system, if applied consistently, will create legal difficulties in placing the transformed treaty rightly in light of so many levels of legislation. It will bring about too

23

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


many different hierarchical ranks of treaties and give rise to a complex relationship between them in domestic law. From the substantive perspective, the dualist-transformation mode will not be easily adaptable with regard to certain treaties that are concerned with human values, such as human rights treaties, and financial interests, such as tax treaties. These treaties possess characters that mainly impose restrictions on the free will of the legislatures. The experiences of strict dualist legal systems all over the world have revealed that the dualist principles are increasingly eroded by the intrusive character of human rights treaties in such a way that dualist states are gradually forced to adopt remedial monist-like measures, such as consistent interpretation (Charming Betsy doctrine), the Australian legitimate expectation doctrine (so-called Teoh doctrine), and the British implied incorporation. The inconsistent views expressed by the Government before the UN Human Rights Bodies have raised significant doubt whether Indonesia is truly applying a dualist approach in respect to human rights treaties. Indonesia has indeed persistently argued that human rights conventions are not self-executing and this view appears to deny their self-executing nature by unconsciously invoking dualist arguments rather than the merits of the provisions. However, Article 7 (2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights provides a general rule which gives effect to human rights treaties whereby the treaties become part of Indonesian law upon their

24

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


entry into force. The argument that the Convention is not self-executing, on the one hand, and the existence of reference domestic provisions declaring that the Convention becomes part of domestic law, on the other, will weaken the assertion that Indonesia applies a dualist approach to human rights treaties. In this respect, human rights treaties may form part of Indonesian law but in the same vein this fact should not necessarily imply that treaties have a self-executing character. This feature is closer to the monist model of the Netherlands. However, on the basis of the same Article, the Government in 2013 expressed a contrasting view in favour of direct application. The inconsistent views overturned the consolidation of either approach, and brought about the process of going nowhere. Having visited the existing legal frameworks in Indonesia with respect to the relations between treaties and domestic law, it is argued that Indonesia should embrace both elements and seek a point of balance between the two dominating approaches. The most suitable mode for Indonesia is the mode that attempts to reconcile the two extreme approaches and at the same time keeps the balance between an international law-friendly attitude, on the one hand, and democratic legitimacy on the other. From the available options offered by the constitutional orders examined, the doctrine of the order of execution (Vollzugslehre), one of the doctrines prevailing in Germany, would be best suited for the Indonesian legal system. Some valid reasons may, inter alia, justify this policy option:

25

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


a. The current practice of Indonesia suggests a mixed approach that amalgamates two models: the German dualist model and the monist model of the Netherlands. This is exemplified through the double meaning given to the law approving a treaty in Indonesian practice. The law approving a treaty was rooted in the model of the Netherlands, which was originally intended to authorize the President to ratify the respective treaty. In the subsequent practice, however, it has been gradually understood by most constitutionalists as ‘transforming’ the treaty into domestic law. The amalgamation of the two doctrines altogether will present ambiguities and raise uncertainties pertaining to the legal status of the given treaty in domestic law. The two prevailing models should therefore be reconstructed in a manner that the two converge into a single coherent approach, embracing both elements. Therefore, the precise legal character of the law approving a treaty, which is still unclear and ambiguous, should be clarified. In this regard, the law approving a treaty should be assigned the function of expressing a formal approval of Parliament (as originally envisaged by the framers of the Constitution) and at the same time it should constitute an order of execution of the treaty in domestic law (as demanded by the subsequent practice).

26

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


b. The doctrine of the order of execution has encompassed all constitutional

concerns

that

have

occupied

most

Indonesian

constitutionalists so far. First, the sovereignty of the state in granting a treaty access to enter in domestic law is well preserved, because it needs domestic authorization in the form of a national legislation. The domestic law authority is well respected in the sense that it is the domestic law that permits the entry of the treaty into domestic law. Second, the role of Parliament as the popular representation in treatymaking is secured, in which therefore, the democratic legitimacy of the treaty could be upheld. c. The doctrine could also ease the concern of international law experts because it could bridge the gap between treaties and domestic law as expected by them. International law experts would prefer this as having a closely connected relation to a separated one thus the domestic

and

external

procedures,

albeit

distinguished,

are

interrelated and form part of an integrated process. d. The doctrine does not envisage transformation and therefore does not need to equate treaties with the complex structure of Indonesian legislation. The nature of the legislation as required under this doctrine is only an order of execution, instead of a transforming legislation, thus not all levels of legislation are necessarily assigned to serve as orders of execution.

27

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


For adopting the doctrine, there are only two fundamental features that need to be clarified under the present Indonesian legal system. The first feature is that of the date of the entry into force of the law approving a treaty, which is presently distinguished from the date of the entry into force of the treaty itself, which shall be made concurrent. Following the German model, the date of the entry into force of the law should be dependent upon the entry into force of the treaty in Indonesia. The second feature concerns the character of the provisions of the treaty to be applied in domestic law. The provisions shall be linked with the international character of the treaty. The provisions of a treaty applied under domestic law shall retain their character as treaty provisions and consequently the interpretation rules shall be governed by international law. On the basis of this mode, the domestic courts will treat treaty provisions as having the force of law and may directly apply them in a given case before it without the aid of ordinary domestic legislation. The direct application of such treaty provisions could be realized insofar as the provisions are self-executing or capable to be judicially enforced. The question of non-self-executing provisions is not unfamiliar to the Indonesian legislative system. The Constitution and the umbrella laws normally provide general provisions prescribing that their application shall be stipulated in or, implemented by, the lower legislations. Pending the enactment of such implementing legislations, these constitutional and statutory law provisions cannot be enforced by the courts.

28

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


6. THE PLACE OF TREATIES IN THE LEGISLATIVE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE

In view of adopting a coherent approach consistent with the idea of the order of execution mode, the relationship between the statutory laws and the treaties concerned shall be reconciled by balancing the two different views i.e. that treaties are identical with the laws approving them, and that the two are distinguishable legal instruments. Therefore in order to resolve the perplexity arising from the constitutional practices, the relationship between the two shall be construed according to the following premises:

a. Treaties remain distinct from the laws that give order to their execution; however, the manner in which they are manifested in domestic law should be concurrent in terms of the date they take effect. b. Under this term, domestic treaty-making and lawmaking are exercised through the same constitutional procedures except in the case of the right to submit the bill, which should remain vested in the president. c. The statutory laws ordering executions shall serve twofold functions i.e. first, authorizing the president to ratify/accede to a treaty and,

29

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


second, granting domestic effect to the treaty upon its entry into force to the state. d. The Constitutional Court may judicially review the laws ordering the execution of treaties. However, a specific procedure should be set out in order to affirm that the law ordering the execution has a unique character distinct from ordinary laws.

The precise and appropriate place a treaty should occupy in the complex structure of the Indonesian legislative hierarchy would become a complicated question underlying the policy option and bring about dilemmatic problems. The use of the form of law for incorporating a treaty and its integration into the legislative structure might likely imply that the process constitutes a transformation mode. Furthermore, the legislative structure under the current system consists of eight levels of legislations, and it is untenable to have all legislations available to perform as an order of execution of treaties into Indonesian law. A general rule should therefore be devised in order to determine what level of legislation is fitting enough to be used as an order of execution, as well as what subject matters should belong to each legislation. The question of parallel treaties, commonly known in the German system, may arise: whether or not an order of execution in the form of a statutory order is still required for certain treaties if their provisions have

30

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


already been contained in the existing statutory law. The konkrete Theorie is preferable, thus these treaties require parliamentary approval and a concrete order of execution. The reason for this is simply that the exact parallel legislation hardly exists, even if a piece of legislation provides mutatis mutandis provisions of a treaty, the language used in the legislation differs from the original text of the treaties and may create different interpretations. Parallel treaties thus require their own legitimacy from Parliament. Other treaties that, according to the subject matters, do not require parliamentary approval should take the form of regulations within the ambit of executive competences i.e. presidential regulations or other administrative regulations depending on the given subject matters and the corresponding competent authorities. Under the prevailing law, there are three levels of executive regulations that belong exclusively within the competence of the President as the Head of Government i.e. government regulations, presidential regulations and ministerial regulations, or regulations enacted by other government organs at the ministerial level. The form of a government regulation could not be used as an order of execution of a treaty. This kind of law according to Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning Legislations serves only for the purpose of implementing the provisions of a statutory law - a general nature of the provisions of the given law needs to be elaborated or concretized in a number of detailed provisions in the government regulations. Therefore, no government

31

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


regulation will be enacted in the absence of a clear stipulation by an existing law. A treaty ordered by a statutory law generally does not require that the provisions of the treaty shall be implemented by a government regulation, because the treaty generally contains a set of autonomous provisions for which no further domestic legislation is necessary, apart from the law ordering the execution of the treaty. The government regulations may however be used as implementing legislation to the law ordering the execution of a treaty, but not within the context of granting domestic validity of such a treaty. It will be only for rendering them as self-executing. For example, if a treaty has been approved through a law and requires that state parties set up a national body for the implementation of the treaty, the government regulation may be used to set up this national body. The only available regulations that may serve as granting domestic validity of a treaty below statutory law level are presidential regulations, and ministerial or equivalent regulations. It follows that a treaty whose subject matters are only within an exclusive authority of a ministry shall be brought to effect by a ministerial regulation, while a treaty whose subject matters involve the participation of various ministries shall be given effect through a presidential regulation. The given treaty will enjoy rank corresponding to the respective legislation according to the legislative structure.

32

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


The use of a legislative format as orders of execution of treaties shall be construed in a manner that may fit the legal tradition of Indonesia concerning legislations. Having inherited the legal tradition of the Netherlands, laws and regulations in Indonesia may commonly be identified by two characteristics i.e. the laws and regulations having regulatory (regeling) character and those having ruling (beschikking) character. The former contains general provisions in an abstract manner and are known as proper laws/regulations, while the latter contains a specific

prescription

to

a

concrete circumstance.

In

respect of

laws/regulations approving treaties, they serve only as domestic orders to execute the treaty in domestic law by which the provisions remain embodied in the treaties instead of in the laws/regulations. This order character resembles the kind of laws/regulations that possess a ruling (beschikking) character under which they only contain orders and do not transform or rewrite the provisions of the treaty into the legislation. Therefore, the laws/regulations shall be identified as having ruling (beschikking) character instead of regulatory (regeling) character. This legal construction will ensure that the character of the provisions remain in the form of treaty provisions, as envisaged by the monist-adoption mode. As the provinces and municipalities/cities are empowered to enact their respective regulations, these regulations might be used as orders of execution of treaties insofar as the subject matters fall into their exclusive spheres. Nevertheless, although the subject matters are within their exclusive

powers,

the

central

government’s

regulations

may

33

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


appropriately serve as the execution orders if the treaties are intended to be applicable to the whole territory instead of specific provinces and municipalities/cities. This is possible because these local regulations are not exclusive and they are still subject to central government regulations. In order to address the concern of the provinces and municipalities/cities, there must be a mechanism allowing them to participate in the treatymaking negotiations on matters that are exclusively under their competences. As has been suggested above, the laws ordering the execution of treaties are legislative products with a distinct feature and therefore are reasonably subjected to constitutional scrutinizing. Indonesia has a Constitutional Court which partially resembles that of the German model. Thus the question of the constitutionality of a treaty by virtue of the law ordering its execution may arise, as is frequently experienced by the German Constitutional Court. The case of the judicial review of the ASEAN Charter which was brought before the Constitutional Court in recent times gave rise to the need to resolve this issue. Even if Indonesia subscribes to an adoption approach which is closer to a monist perspective, there is no democratic reason under the present democratic legal system why the constitutionality of the law ordering the execution of a treaty cannot be tested. On the other hand, the decision by the Constitutional Court that might declare a treaty unconstitutional and therefore null and void will create unnecessary effects by which Indonesia

34

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


violates its international obligations. The constitutionality test however should have been taken with a distinct procedure in a way that promotes compliance to international law. The preferred solution for Indonesia is to provide balance between the two premises that mutually negate each other by allowing a treaty to be constitutionally tested without creating unnecessary international obligations. This outcome could be attained by adopting the German practice, and developing greater legal clarification on constitutional procedures. Within this context, Indonesia should prescribe a constitutional procedure, posing some restrictions by which a treaty upon the enactment of the law ordering its execution may be submitted for judicial review to the Constitutional Court within a specific time limit. Within that limit, the President should not ratify the treaty as yet, pending a Constitutional Court ruling on the case. Following the lapse of the time limit, the President may proceed to the ratification and by then no submission of judicial review would be constitutionally acceptable. ****

35

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


TREATIES UNDER INDONESIAN LAW: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

36

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


BOOK REVIEW : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative

Judul

Study Penulis buku

: Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman

Penerbit

: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya

Bahasa

: Inggris

Jumlah halaman

: 554 Halaman

Tahun penerbitan

: Oktober 2014

Pembuat resensi

: Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach, LL.M.

As it was the case in many other countries in the Southern Hemisphere, Indonesia’s relation to international law has gone through different stages after reaching independence. After a critical period when all international law was regarded as the product of the colonial powers, i.e. the North and West, developing countries practices gradually led to a consolidation that marked the beginning of the next stage. In the subsequent stage, reforms of the government system resulted in a new orientation. While in systems of monocracy the executive was the main actor for the conclusion of treaties, now the coordination with the legislative power which represents the people became necessary. Like in many other states, this change takes place without any important changes of the text of the constitution..

37

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


The book aims at extracting criteria according to which the future development might take place from comparative legal studies. For that purpose the author examines Indonesia and four other legal orders namely the People’s Republic of China, as an aspiring country that plays an important role in international economic relations and thus faces similar challenges; the Republic of South Africa, as a state that is similar to Indonesia in facing the task of placing its international treaty practice on a new basis after dealing with profound internal turmoil; the Netherlands, as the legal order from which Indonesian law has developed with respect to some essential elements; and, finally, as a contrast, the Federal Republic of Germany which is similar to the Netherlands for having abundant practices and scientific knowledge, but follows a different model.

II

The Book is divided into six chapters: (1) An introduction chapter, describing the Indonesian parameter, the problem and outlining the methods used; (2) a theoretical chapter on general theories of the domestic validity of international law; (3) an overview of the Außenstaatsrecht (law pertaining to the international relations of a state) of the five legal orders under review; (4) a comparative description of these legal orders

38

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


according to six different parameters, (5) an appraisal of the material presented and (6) conclusions for future Indonesian practices.

(1) The introduction gives an account of the different stages of Indonesian constitutional development. The first stage took place from 1945/1949 until 1966, marked by a hostile attitude towards international law. They include the nationalization of foreign assets, the unilateral claim to the Indonesian archipelagic waters in contradiction to contemporary international law of the sea and Indonesia’s withdrawal from the United Nations. The second stage (1966-98) was marked by the motto of ’making’ instead of ‘breaking’ of international law (p. 12). This period is characterized by the attempt to use and influence international law for Indonesia’s interests, referencing the appeal to the International Court of Justice for the settlement of a dispute with Malaysia and the so-called Asian Values Debate. The third stage begins in 1998 end stretches until today; itis characterized by notable changes ensuing democratization on the internal level, and globalization on the external level to put into motion a reform process that has reallocated the weight within the internal part of the process of the conclusion of treaties. Another factor is the new Charter of the ASEAN Community that creates new international obligations with respect to the internal constitutionalization of its members. Another condition for the Indonesian state system are centripetal powers that show the necessity to decentralize state administration and possibly to provide subordinate levels of authority

39

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


with more competences (see p. 24) due to the heterogeneity of the population.

The author elucidates his approach in the second part of the introduction. He departs from the dichotomy between monism and dualism in order to extract criteria for the classification of the different settings of the constitutional debate. Despite the known objections against these theories and their validity, the author still aims at using them as an analytical framework. It will be demonstrated that there are specific features in the Indonesian legal system that might account for these differences. In the last part the author justifies the choice of the four legal orders under review in greater detail and very convincingly and further offers an overview of the following chapters.

(2) In the beginning of chapter two, the dispute between monism and dualistm and its development through the ages is discussed. Essentially, the obvious question is whether international law and domestic law are one single legal sphere, resulting in the fact that international law is only left to be applied domestically, or whether they are two separated legal orders, resulting in the necessity of an implementing act of international law for the purposes of domestic law. This discussion has been considered obsolete for a long time now since both positions have moved very close to each other. However, as they played an important role for the formation of national constitutions, knowledge of this debate is

40

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


necessary in order to understand the differences in various systems. It should not be overlooked that the debate between both sides often continues within the framework of written constitutions if they can be interpreted according to both theoretical approaches. According to the author, monism in particular has received new impulses by the development of international human rights (p. 51). This view is possible; especially since this concerns mainly legal norms that can be directly applied in domestic law and since their content is similar to that of constitutions. After this general introduction concerning the dispute, dualism is introduced and is ascribed via Heinrich Triepel and Dionisio Anzilotti to Bodin (p. 57). As a phenomenon that might be better explained by dualism than by monism, the immunity of states is particularly emphasized beside the sovereignty of states in the 19th century. This argument does not convince me completely since the reciprocal inviolability of states before national courts is based on the coordination of the subjects of international law that might just as well be explained by means of monism. What speaks against dualism is that state sovereignty has eroded increasingly since Word War II. According to the author, the development of international criminal law and objective order phenomena such as peremptory law has proven it in particular. On the other hand, dualists could argue in their favor that individuals have not yet become subjects of international law, a fact that would speak against a single legal order (p. 64). It is known that the reciprocal objections have resulted in the fact that both theories no longer occur in pure, but in a

41

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


moderate form, attempting to incorporate counterarguments. Thus a third way has developed in literature, especially influenced by Gerald Fitzmaurice, that denies the importance of the entire debate and recommends solving problems pragmatically without taking the theories into account.

The pair of terms of monism and dualism corresponds to the terms of adoption and transformation. From the point of view of the monism and dualism theories, they relate to the corresponding domestic act. While adoption merely designates the application of international law as such, transformation is an act that transforms the character of international law in domestic law and exchanges the addressees of the obligations (states against individuals and domestic authorities). The author does not overlook that laws approving treaties and orders to apply treaties can be interpreted from both theories. However, according to the author there are still numbers of factors where they would lead to different results. One of those is the official language (p. 97 et seq.) because if monism is applied strictly the official language cannot be applied if it is not an authentic treaty language. One could add that the methods of interpretation of international law in general must be taken into stronger account, including, in particular, the later treaty practice of parties and of arbitral or other tribunals. Another differentiating factor is the importance of challenges of their validity as they arise from constitutional objections that are evaluated differently by the theories; this, however, is disputable.

42

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Further, the author dwells intensively on the question of so-called selfexecuting treaties (p. 98 et seq), i.e. treaties that are directly applicable due to their nature. It may seem obvious to interpret them in the sense of monism, however, it is not a cogent conclusion. The question whether such treaties have domestic effect ultimately depends on the national legal order. It should be noted that the case law with respect to GATT quoted by the author could be more updated (p. 114). But the author rightly notes that this debate does not advance a dispute. What is interesting is the notion whether the increasing importance of democracy, particularly in countries of the Southern Hemisphere, rather suggest a dualist stance, as it tends to favor the engagement of parliament. The author

also

contemplates

whether

the

phenomenon

of

constitutionalization and pluralism has put an end to the debate. The author sees this differently because under these circumstances the states still can and must decide upon the status of treaties, even if, admittedly, that the freedom to accept treaties has been restricted in particular by constitutionalization and international human rights. This issue remains controversial. For the court practice, both tendencies to international law and national sovereignty are possible. Therefore, the author does not want to choose one side or the other and the results remain relatively open.

3. The third chapter introduces the chosen legal orders with respect to their ‘Außenstaatsrecht’ (constitutional law pertaining to international

43

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


relations) in an overview. For every one of these states the author describes the background of the existing constitutional rules, the competences for the conclusion of a treaty, the underlying meaning of the term of treaty and possible idiosyncrasies. The description of German law is, generally speaking, correct. The part about Indonesia, that for obvious reasons is the most detailed one, takes up much of what is stated in chapter one. This holds true in particular with regard to the division of the different phases. The first phase lasted from 1945 to 1960 when treaties were concluded on the basis of the Constitution that resulted from strong Dutch and Japanese influence. In the second period (1960 until 2000) the conclusion of treaties was regulated by a Letter of the President. In the third period there is now a law governing international treaties. The constitutional basis, however, has remained, with short interruptions and minor changes, the same. What is interesting is that there was no distinction made between the conclusion of a treaty and the ratification. This

corresponds

to

the

heavy

weight

the

executive

of

the

‘Außenstaatsrecht’ (law pertaining to international relations) has; however, it does not fit with the parliament clause which was introduced later (p. 234). What is confusing is the difference in terms of terminology stemming from Dutch law between “treaty”, on the one hand, and “agreement”, on the other hand. This applies both in political practices and in theory, which are satisfactorily explained. Ultimately, it remains unclear what is meant with the phrase a treaty should be ‘governed by international law’. What seems particularly contestable is whether that

44

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


includes treaties under private law (p. 244). Apparently this problem arises with respect to loan agreements. All of this results in the fact that the internal competences have remained quite uncertain.

4. Chapter four compares the five legal orders with respect to two aspects that are important for treaties namely the distribution of competences in the treaty-making power and the status of international treaties in domestic law. With regard to the treaty-making power the author describes the different categories of treaties that require parliamentary participation. What connects them is the fact that the parliament is only competent for certain and more detailed treaty categories. Moreover, the author points out in particular those legal norms that are familiar with the engagement or competence of sub-ordered (autonomous) entities, such as Germany (Art. 32 GG), China (Hong Kong, Macao) and, within strict limits, Indonesia (Papua and Aceh p. 261).

The segment on the domestic status of international treaties takes up again the debate between monism and dualism. Apparently mixed forms occur everywhere. In China, for instance the traditional monist view has been restricted by growing practices in the sense that certain treaties, especially within the framework of human rights and commercial law, require transformation. It seems obvious to assume that these are types of treaties that may be in tension with the prevailing doctrine. (p. 283). South Africa, like many other common law countries, is a dualist state.

45

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


However, for self-executing treaties that allow for adoption it is adequate according to the monist mode. The situation with regard to the German Basic Law is correctly described, including contradictions that are reflected in the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. The author has not overlooked other interesting details such as the qualification of ordinary law that may restrict or exclude the possibility of direct application of international treaties. The special status of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is correctly described. Finally in the Netherlands, it is understood as a model of monist systems where the courts may decide if treaties are directly applicable or not (see p. 340). Contrastingly in Indonesia, domestic status was of no importance. Thus the questions of implementation, the rank, the parliamentary process and the form of the act of approval have been debated. Gradually, however, practices have developed that result in the form of the law having the character of an act of transformation. However, some factors of the state practice may be interpreted in the sense of monism. With regard to the case law as well, which is surprisingly extensive and outlined in great detail, it has not resulted in clarity. Mostly international law only plays a role mediated through national law. A clear statement on the relation of both, however, cannot be made (p. 395 et seq).

5. The fifth Chapter has an analytical character and is meant to bring together the findings of Chapter 4. First, there is a general part establishing that there are no models that strictly keep up monism or

46

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


dualism only. The German system is in most regards rightly described as hybrid and ambiguous (p. 429). It seems plausible to me that both systems play a role (p. 430), especially in South Africa and Germany. There are other good observations made in this Chapter. It is certainly true that the question of the domestic status of treaties has played a major role only since World War II (p. 415), since the conclusion of treaties and the creation of international organizations have increased in a way that is unparalleled in history. Moreover, it is rightly observed that states which have overcome a dictatorship tend to be more open towards international law (p. 435) and that international law and constitutional law increasingly penetrate each other (p.439). Additionally, the author determines three common features in the five legal orders under review; first, that all treaty-making power has developed in the course of time, from executive heavy archaic privileges towards stronger parliamentary participation, which was often resulting in a state of uncertainty with respect to the interpretation of the participation of parliament, as it is unclear whether this primarily serves controlling the executive or legislative purposes (p. 430). Second, in all legal orders under review, not all but only certain treaties require the approval of parliament. Here the German model that describes categories very abstractly differs from the other legal orders because other legal orders designate treaties that require approval according to the content they regulate. In every case, however, it seems to be of importance that legislative competences should not be wrongfully restricted by the competence of the government to conclude treaties.

47

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Third, the author concludes that the involvement of subordinate entities is rather a historic phenomenon, as for instance in Germany and China and that it does not occur necessarily in a systematic manner in federal states, as can be seen in the case of South Africa.

The following part that deals with the models of treaty validity takes up again the never-ending monism-dualism debate. The points that matter in this respect are, according to the author, the relation between the date of the entry into force of treaties and direct applicability. With regard to the rank within the domestic pyramid of norms, monism tends to rank them high, as can be seen in the case of the Netherlands (p. 462). However, one might use the example of the US as a counterargument as they are understood as a monist system in general, but do not accord treaties a clear, or at least not necessarily a high, rank. In its closing, the author concludes that the problem of self-executing treaties is not necessarily correlating to this issue; the different approaches do not indicate a clear concept (463). In the end stands a conclusion that has not found a clear attitude with respect to a number of issues raised for China and Indonesia. This is true even for the status of human rights (p. 468).

6. Chapter six infers from the previous five chapters for future Indonesian treaty practice:

48

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

-


The text of the constitution is outdated, ambiguous and

inadequate with respect to the problems that occur. It is particularly unclear with respect to the function of the law approving treaties, resulting in controversy (p.475 et seq). -

Neither Dualism nor Monism alone offer satisfying solutions.

According to the author, Indonesia should follow the example of other countries and ensure a gradual process of change on the basis of the existing order. -

The dichotomy of both function of the act of approval between

control and legislation should be brought to an end. The criteria of both, that is particularly the regulation concerning the approval of treaties and the legislative process intended by constitutional law should be adapted to each other. Moreover it must be clarified to which treaties these new coherent procedures should apply. According to this, the competence of the constitutional organs should be determined when it is a (state) treaty and when it is an (administrative) agreement. Parliament should have the right to step in into the procedure by its own initiative. -

The recommended generic approach favors a careful continuation

of the monist tradition stemming from Dutch law that has the advantage of being international law friendly. On the other hand dualism might be more democratic, because with the requirement of an act of transformation, in most cases a statute, it justifies the competences of parliament. The middle way would be Vollzugs theory (p. 485). Further,

49

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


the question of the entry into force of a treaty and its connection with the law approving a treaty could be clarified on this basis. -

The rank of the treaty should follow the act introducing it in

domestic law. However, it should not, as sometimes discussed, form an independent category. The Indonesian Constitutional Court should have the competence to examine if laws approving treaties are in conformity with international law.

III

The Author has submitted a well founded study using a lot of material, in which he describes the character of the legal orders under review – at least the German one - very adequately and nuanced, considering he is a jurist who has not grown up in this system. Despite the fact that the dichotomy between monism and dualism is overemphasized, in my opinion, the author has succeeded in extracting criteria that structure the depiction. Parts of the thesis are excessively detailed and there are some redundancies. However, the author has reached a number of a very interesting and remarkable theories and results. One of these is the correlation between the affirmations of a constitutional order of a particular system with regard to the domestic status of international treaties with the respective arrangement of the balance of powers. The author has demonstrated so with respect to Indonesia, South Africa and,

50

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


with reservations, for China as well. The historical example from which this idea is deducted is the antagonism between crown and parliament in Great Britain that has led to a specific form of dualism. Another interesting factor is the tension between both parliamentary functions of the legislation and the control that is reflected in the law of approval and which in some constitutional orders requires a resolution. The final conclusions drawn with respect to Indonesia seem modest. However, it must be granted that a proposal aiming at influencing political practices must not lose sight of what is feasible.

51

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


REVIEW BUKU : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative

Judul

Study Penulis buku


Penerbit


Bahasa

: Inggris

Jumlah halaman

: 554 Halaman

Tahun penerbitan

: Oktober 2014

Pembuat resensi

Indonesia’s

: Professor Simon Butt, B.A. LL.B., Ph.D.

legal

system

has,

since

the

declaration

of

independence in 1945, laboured under a major shortcoming: no law has established the precise status of international law within the domestic legal order. Over the decades, Indonesia has signed more than 4000 international agreements, yet their precise legal effect - that is, the extent to which they bind Indonesian officials and institutions, including judges in courts - has been uncertain. One result appears to have been inconsistency, with some officials and courts being willing to apply and enforce international law ‘directly’ and others refusing to do so without a direct act of ‘transformation’ – that is, the adoption of the subject matter of an international agreement within an Indonesian legal instrument, or at least a declaration of ratification within such an instrument.

52

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


For most commentators, my self included, the reason for this lack of clarity has been somewhat of a mystery. How can the world’s fourth largest nation, and an active participant in international affairs, provide no clear guidance to its own institutions and citizens about the rights and obligations that arise when Indonesian officials sign an international agreement? Happily, this mystery has now been solved, or at least explained, in an excellent new book: Treaties under Indonesian Law: a Comparative Study by Dr Iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman, SH. MA. According to Dr Agusman’s convincing explanation, before Suharto’s fall in 1998, the role of international law within the domestic legal system had not been considered a particularly important issue by previous administrations. Under the ‘Old Order’ of Indonesia’s first president, Soekarno, international law was treated with some disdain and largely ignored. After all, it had been mostly created by western powers, many of which had colonised the developing world, including Indonesia. Why, then, should Indonesia submit to the rules of the West – this time by choice? For some Indonesians, international law was also irrelevant to their concerns to build a strong nation. Indonesia even withdrew from the United Nations (UN) in 1965, arguing that it was ‘blatantly against our colonial struggle’ and ‘against the lofty principles and purposes of the UN Charter’. Nevertheless, international law was taught and studied in law faculties across Indonesia. But it was treated as a separate discipline, entirely divorced from the study of Indonesia’s domestic legal system. It

53

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


emerged almost as a body of theory rather than a body of law that had practical implications for citizens and government alike. Indonesia’s second President, Suharto, sought deeper international engagement

than

had

Soekarno

and,

therefore,

participated

in

international lawmaking fora. (Yet, as Dr Agusman notes, Indonesia’s participation was sometimes directed towards bucking principles of international law, including in the law of the sea.) However, like many countries, Indonesia adopted areas of international law that suited its interests and avoided those which did not. International agreements that were in Indonesia’s interests – such as those that sought to promote trade – were often readily endorsed by Indonesian officials without much controversy. By contrast, Indonesia preferred not to sign up to many human rights agreements. In the post-Suharto era, the Indonesian government has, according to Agusman, found itself under greater pressure, both domestic and international, to adopt legal standards based on international norms. Accordingly, Indonesia has signed up to a wide variety of international agreements,

including

the

human

rights

treaties

that

previous

administrations had avoided. Many domestic Indonesian laws were then amended or replaced to incorporate many norms of international law as their own. Perhaps the most conspicuous adoption of international norms was the insertion, in 2000, of an extensive Bill of Rights into Indonesia’s Constitution, which draws heavily from the major international human rights declarations and conventions.

54

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


However, a fundamental question has remained: if Indonesia signs an international treaty, does that treaty automatically come into force in domestic law (the so-called ‘monist’ position), or does it require some form of ‘transformation’ (the ‘dualist’ view), that is, an enactment of domestic law to bring it into force? Applied to the Bill of Rights, for example, if Indonesia had already ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would it need the Bill of Rights? In other words, would the human rights norms of the two Covenants have already formed part of Indonesian domestic law once ratified? Or was ‘transformation’ – in this case, inclusion of the rights contained in the Convention in the Constitution or some other legal instrument – necessary for those norms to become part of Indonesian law? This question is still unanswered in Indonesia, which is one of the only countries in the world that does not specify, in its Constitution or some other law, or through judicial practice, the precise status of international law within its domestic legal system. The result is the emergence of various interpretations and inconsistent practices, resulting in uncertainty about the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law. It is quite surprising that during the overhaul of Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution across four amendment rounds (1999-2002), the issue was not decided, let alone raised as an issue for serious discussion. However, uncertainties about the precise status of international law have certainly not stopped

55

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Indonesia’s executive from entering into international agreements, and Indonesia’s national Parliament from ratifying them. The value of Treaties under Indonesian Law: a Comparative Study is not merely, as the title suggests, its discussion of the status of treaties within domestic Indonesian law. It also provides excellent coverage of highly theoretical and difficult material: the various theories that have evolved to explain the reception of international law within legal systems and the domestic rules for the formulation of treaties. Dr Agusman discusses monism and dualism, engaging with very sophisticated and scholarly debates across legal traditions and long periods (Chapter II). One of the book’s other strengths lies in its use of comparative analysis – in particular, comparing the treaty-making powers and the status of treaties in China, South Africa, Germany, the Netherlands and, of course, Indonesia. Chapter III discusses treaty-making powers in these domestic legal systems, in an effort to ascertain whether ‘there is a correlation between the structure of a treaty-making power and the question of domestic status of treaties’ (p. 44). Chapter IV covers the relationship between treaties and domestic law, again using these countries as case studies. Chapter IV’s coverage of the inconsistencies in the domestic treatment of international law that have emerged in Indonesia is excellent. It provides information and analysis that was not previously available, significantly advancing debate about whether Indonesia tends towards monism or dualism. For example, the author discusses a draft of the Treaties Law,

56

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


which required national legislation to implement an international treaty if that treaty would have had the effect of amending or replacing existing legislation or creating norms that did not previously exist under domestic law. Agusman describes the treatment of international law in statutes and in judicial practices (including Supreme Court and Constitutional Court), cataloguing

many

cases,

not

discussed

in

previous

Indonesian

scholarship, in which Indonesian courts appear to have directly applied international law without implementing legislation. As for reform, Dr Agusman wisely argues that Indonesia should build up a legal regime to clarify the status of international law on basis of existing constitutional order rather than changing it abruptly. In Dr Agusman’s words, ‘The reconstruction should clarify the vague of legal constructions and fill the gap that exists in the current order, resulting from the lack of doctrine’. This wonderful and timely book attempts to grapple with this fundamental issue and many related to it. Given Indonesia’s increasing engagement with the international community, the importance of this work to Indonesia’s legal development cannot be overstated. Not only does it cover an issue of critical importance, it is also a highly scholarly work that contributes significantly to Indonesian doctrine on international law. Although it does not – and in fact cannot – solve the problem is that it raises, this is not through lack of analysis and scholarly rigour. In short, this must rank as one of the best books derived from a doctoral dissertation written by an Indonesian legal scholar. It is all the more impressive because it is based on work produced while the author was

57

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


simultaneously working as the consul general of the Republic of Indonesia in Frankfurt.

58

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

REVIEW BUKU Judul Penulis buku Penerbit Bahasa Jumlah halaman Tahun penerbitan Pembuat resensi


: Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya : Inggris : 554 Halaman : Oktober 2014 : Abdulkadir Jailani

Not many legal books are able to convey information beyond what is written inside. Such books would undoubtedly be a great scholastic work that not only descriptively presents the normative aspect of a legal issue, but also critically examines the philosophical, historical and political aspects of that legal issue. Through such books, we are able to acquire deeper understanding on the legal traditions of various international legal scholarships.

This is the impression I had after reading Treaties under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Studies written by Dr. Iur Damos Dumoli Agusman, S.H., M.A. The book is a published dissertation written by Dr. Iur Damos and defended at the Goethe University of Frankfurt, Germany in 2014. It is therefore unsurprising that the main ideas are unequivocally expressed and profoundly analyzed. 59

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Encouraged by the author’s everyday work experiences as a diplomat, the book attempts to revive one legal issue that has long been abandoned in the ruins of Indonesian legal scholarship. It also represents the concern of the author that Indonesian legal discourse has not really addressed the discourse on the juxtapose of international and national law.

Although the title of the book only indicates treaty related issues, one of its important aims is to provoke readers to rethink the dynamic relationship between international and national law. Not only do the readers gain theoretical insight on the status of treaties in national law, they are also invited to have a closer look at the basic concepts of international law both philosophically and historically. The origins and significance of the sovereignty concept in international law is also a central issue gaining special attention.

Analysis in the book begins with a discussion on the dynamic views and attitudes of Indonesia towards international law in the course of its history. In this part, we get a taste of Critical Legal Studies (CLS). We will be shown that international law is not perceived as neutral, autonomous and far from being objective. The meaning of international law is a embodiment of social construction 60

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


which is inseparable from power relations. Therefore, Indonesia’s attitude towards international law changes dynamically according to the political situation and context from one era to another. The lesson learnt from such dynamic and shifting attitude towards international law is that an Außenstaatsrecht’ (constitutional law pertaining to international relations) that can preserve co-existence between domestic law and international legal order may be pragmatically more desirable for Indonesia.

The book tries to encapsulate in greater detail how a political context in Indonesia has shaped the country’s attitude towards the treatment of international law in Indonesia. In the early years of its independence, Indonesia tended to resist international law by debunking the imperialist nature of international law. International law was perceived as the law justifying subjugation of the people of Asia and Africa. Antagonism against international law gradually turned to apathy when Indonesian political orientation move closer to align with the Socialist Block. During the New Order Era, Indonesia’s attitude to international law has shifted to become more friendly. Indonesia’s stance on international law focused on the endeavor to strike a balance between the interest of developing countries and the sanctity of the existing international obligations. 61

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


When it came to Era Reformasi, the book moves away from his initial approach emphasizing the significance of the political context to Indonesia’s official stance in various international legal discourses. It only signifies that the ignorant attitude towards international law is a result of the fact that this branch of law is neither well– understood nor particularly interesting to a wider community of international legal scholars in Indonesia. It also stresses that the teaching of international law has been undertaken in isolation from national law. The way the book points out this notion as if the problem is an exclusive phenomenon of the Era Reformasi.

Once we dig deeper into the book, we will encounter an overly extensive conceptual analysis on the relationship between international and national law. Although we have taken a whiff of the CLS perspective in the beginning of the book, the whole construction of its argument is entirely built upon the two conventional theories of Monism and Dualism which flourished under legal formalism tradition. The exclusive and excessive application of the two theories implies the persistent assumption that Monism or Dualism is a self-contained doctrine which provides absolute rules and legal criteria, with universal validity, for determining the relationship between international and national 62

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


law. In light of this, the author insists the continuous relevance of Monism and Dualism, despite globalization having significantly affected the very foundation of both theories.

The book does mention that there is the so-called “third approach” which attacks the heart of Monism and Dualism. However, the assumption on the validity of both theories remains intact. Although acknowledging the criticism against both theories, the book argues that such criticism fails to provide feasible alternative theories as their legal narratives seems to be imprecise without the help of Monism and Dualism. Moreover, the book also contends that the “new perspective” as offered by legal pluralism may only be applicable to the European context. It hardly creates practical value for non-European countries. All these standpoints are actually prone to various critical challenges.

In spite of the insistent assertion of the relevance of Monism and Dualism, the book does not oppose the paradigm shift from the two theories to the “new perspective” on the divide between international and national law. Many lines in the book allude that Monism and Dualism have lost their relevance as theories. On the basis of an empirical comparison review of several countries, it 63

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

clearly

maintains

that


neither

Monism

nor

Dualism

can

satisfactorily explain the State practices on the status of treaties under their domestic laws. In one way or another it agrees that both fail to grasp the (post) modern problem at the international level and the complicated interconnectedness between international and domestic law. The outcome of the overview suggests both Monism and Dualism have mutually influenced each other and resulted in some converging elements. States practices examined in the book show that the two theories have become undistinguishable. Therefore, neither absolute integration of all legal orders (monism) nor absolute separation between international and national legal order can be sustained.

Having said that, it is safely inferred that the outcome of the analysis in the book even confirms the arguments of “the new perspective”. The relevance of a theory should be determined on the basis of how it is applied in practice and whether it can cope with all the problems that it needs to solve. It is undisputed that the practical application of the two theories are unsatisfactory and they do not help in solving legal issues. Therefore, maintaining the relevance of Monism and Dualism as a doctrinal or theoretical 64

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


notion in explaining the relationship between international and national law is logically unattainable.

The suspicion that the “new perspective” fails to provide feasible legal narrative is also problematic. It is not surprising that conventional legal theorists contest the new narrative of legal pluralism by highlighting its inability to provide “positive legal narrative” – a narrative that provides a practical solution to the conceptual issues of the relationship between international and national law”. There are at least two contending arguments against this view. First, many academical legal works establish that legal pluralism is the best alternative to Monism and Dualism. Legal pluralism is not just a critical legal reasoning without any practical presence and relevance. Second, it is also arguable whether a “positive legal narrative” is necessary for defending legal pluralism. Many argue otherwise. It is actually better to have a “negative legal narrative” which accurately depicts a legal theory and generates profound insight (such as legal pluralism) than to have a utopian theory which sounds inspiring but fails to take a realistic and and critical look at the theory in question. For that reason, the expectation to have a “positive legal narrative” should itself to be questioned. 65

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


It is very true that the legal narrative proposed by the “new perspective” always requires the assitance of Monism and Dualism in order to present a precise solution. If we wish to apply a strategy of deconstruction for debunking Monism and Dualism, we will necessarily reverse all the arguments from defending the two theorists to advancing the plausibility of the “new perspective”. In the sense of simple logical metaphor, we will only be able to explain the grey color of every detail, if we have critical understanding on the concept of “black” and “white”. Therefore, the fact that legal pluralism needs the help of Monism and Dualism in explaining the relationship between international and national law does not mean that the relevance of the latter remains irrefutable

The argument which maintains that the “new perspective” as offered by legal pluralism may only be applicable to European context is also questionable. The book makes the claim without being

supported

by

an

adequately

convincing

argument.

Conversely, it can be argued that the legal pluralism perspective is very suitable for developing countries with a very dynamic attitude towards international law (such as Indonesia). The new legal perspective offers a dynamic interplay between international and 66

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


national law as it will provide broader spaces and greater opportunities for developing countries to promote international law development from below.

With a view to coping with the intricate controversy of Monism and Dualism, the book tries to offer a middle approach. This is done by modifying and adjusting the theories in such a way that they can fit with the practical realities and vindicate the mutually negated premises. Accordingly, the theories need to be condensed into a more practical construction by which the basis premises of this theories have been put aside. At the same time, their relevant characteristic modified so that they fit the practical purposes.

Although the the middle approach potentially offers a very promising practical solution, it is indeed a “newly invented theory” which is conceptually neither Monism nor Dualism. As a matter of fact, this creative attempt substantiates that Monism and Dualism are not self-contained and stable theories which are able to provide absolute rules and legal criteria with universal validity. Both theories do not release a single theological meaning, but a multidimensional one in which a variety of alternative narratives may 67

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

flourish. The introduction of such


middle approach indeed

indicates that Monism and Dualism should cease to exist as doctrinal and theoretical notions for addressing the relationship between international and national law. Beyond what is written, such a creative middle approach brings to light the incredulity towards the metanarrative of Monism and Dualism.

The last part of the book on the conclusion is quite thought provoking. The author mainly concludes that the status of treaties in Indonesian law is unclear and ambiguous. It has resulted in legal uncertainty of the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law. According to the book, this condition is caused by a number of factors, including:

a.

The formulation of Article 11 of the 1945 Indonesian Constitution (whose text originally derived from the Meiji Constitution of the ancient Japanese Empire) is overly simple and insufficient to explain the status of treaties in Indonesia;

b.

The provisions of Law Number 24 of 2000 on Treaties was so poorly drafted that it also failed to address the problem ;

68

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

c.


Legal discourse on the status of international law among Indonesian legal scholars is not supported by adequate theoretical and conceptual understanding;

d.

Constitutional practices related to treaties tends to be inconsistent.

For that reason, the author recommends amendment of Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution. Such amendment needs to provide a clear provision on the status and position of treaties in the Indonesian legal system.

Although the root of the problem does evidently rest on Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution, amending the Constitution as recommended by the book is neither easy nor risk-free. It concludes that one factor of the problem is the lack of theoretical understanding and inconsistency in the constitutional practices. This very conclusion would actually make the attempt to amend the Constitution less plausible. Without adequate theoretical understanding

and

consistent

constitutional

practices,

the

amendment process may end up with unintended outcome. Therefore, the recommendation of amending Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution is merely a typical legal formalism solution which 69

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


requires extra careful and thorough consideration of all related aspects, especially its political and sociological aspects.

Last but not least, it is not an exaggeration that the book is a must-read for Indonesian legal scholars, especially those from the constitutional and international law circles. The information conveyed is very enlightening and even beyond what the readers hope when opening the first page of the book. By reading this book, the readers will discern that any system of rules on the domestic status of treaties is not more than a rhetorical style on how States treat international law within its national order in accordance with the political preference of that particular State.

While this book is not perfect, the sharpness in analysis and the strength of the legal reasoning compensate what the book lacks. A shortage and recommendation that the author may consider is to republish in the Indonesian language.

***

70

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS



Judul

Study Penulis buku


Penerbit


Bahasa

: Inggris

Jumlah halaman

: 554 Halaman

Tahun penerbitan

: Oktober 2014

Pembuat resensi

: Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho

Comprehensive and well structured, those are the two words to describe the book titled Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study. The Author, Dr. iur Damos Dumoli Agusman, is not a stranger in Indonesian international law community. He was once the Director for Treaties for Economic and Social Cultural Affairs, and currently the Secretary for the Directorate General for Legal and Treaties Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia. This book is based on his doctoral dissertation at the Goethe University of Frankfurt, where he obtained the predicate of magna cum laude. Diplomat with a legal background, the author expresses not only his expertise in the subject matter but also the reality of the real world practice.

71

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


From Indonesian legal literature perspective, the book managed to explain the history of the Indonesian legal approach with regard to treaties, as well as the practice throughout Indonesian history. It then successfully concludes by describing the current practice in Indonesia, its positive and negative side, and carefully framing the main question: where is the rank of treaties in the Indonesian legislative structure.

Reading this book makes us not to only understand Indonesia treaty law, but Indonesian legal system context is nicely elaborated to provide a better understanding of other areas of Indonesian law. The author explains the struggle that Indonesia is going through since its independence to construct its own legal system. Generally, the division of the era in this book, Independence/Old Order, New Order, and Reformation Era, are generally accepted division of Indonesian history. Most importantly, it successfully explains the transformation of the Indonesian’s government structure. Those are important factors in understanding how Indonesian treats international law, and why such treatments are given.

Then comes the big topic: the debate between a dualist and monist approach to international law in domestic legislation. Everyone who studied law would consider this as a nightmare. This book does not fall in the complication in answering this question. It explained the two

72

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


concepts, and carefully discusses theoretical backgrounds of the two approaches, which serves as foundation in assessing what kind of approach that is practiced by states.

It further explains the other

theoretical concepts of adoption and transformation, as well as direct and indirect effects of treaties.

The book then briefly describes the

development of these theories as practiced by States.

The bread and butter of this book actually lays in the comparative study with four other legal systems, which demonstrate how theories are being applied. The States that under reviewed are China, South Africa, Germany, and most importantly the Netherlands, the former colonial power of Indonesia who gives big influence in Indonesian legal system. Each of the legal systems are discussed sufficiently, in order to give ideas where Indonesian stands in regard to its approach to treaties. Though the selection of the States in the comparative study is generally civil law system, the discussion of the direct-indirect effects (self executing - non self executing) approach, in particular in the United States system, gives a nuance of the common law system.

Unlike the general notion that most countries will inherit the legal system from their former colonial power, Indonesia did not adopt the entirety of the Netherlands system but rather struggle to develop its own. This book is very honest in [revealing the answer of the main question], as there is not a definite answer with regard to the position of treaties in Indonesian

73

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


legal system. However, the elaboration in this book helped to understand the Indonesian approach with regard to treaty, and how it will be treated in Indonesian system. It covers not only the structural discussion with regard to treaties in Indonesian legal system, but also the behavior of the judicial organs.

With the development of international communities, the subject of relation between international and domestic law are no longer exclusively the domain of international law subject. With the journey of time, treaties are more influential to individual activities in one State. Historically, it started with human rights related treaties; nowadays it developed to international trade related treaties, whereas more and more individuals are affected directly with the provisions of international law. This development should be understood not only to international lawyers, but all legal practitioners including those who are advising the parliament as well as the governments. This book will provide the reader with the necessary information in order to understand the relation between international law and the Indonesian domestic system.

This book has added an important piece in Indonesian legal literature. On one side it helps the outside world to understand Indonesian treaty practice, and on the other hand it opens the eyes of the Indonesian legal

74

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


community on the struggle of the Indonesian legal system in its approach with regard to treaties. Such understanding is necessary even since they are studying law so by the time they graduated they are equipped with thorough

knowledge

of

the

intertwine

between

domestic

and

international law, because it have to be acknowledge that exclusive separation between domestic and international law in real practice does not exist. Therefore, without a doubt, I highly recommend this book for students, international and domestic legal practitioners, as well as for those who works for government and the parliament.

75

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS



Judul

Study Penulis buku


Penerbit


Bahasa

: Inggris

Jumlah halaman

: 554 Halaman

Tahun penerbitan

: Oktober 2014

Pembuat resensi

: Prita Amalia, S.H., M.H

Masalah implementasi perjanjian internasional di suatu negara sampai saat ini selalu menjadi menarik untuk didiskusikan. Begitu juga dengan pelaksanaan perjanjian internasional di Indonesia, sebagai sebuah negara yang aktif melakukan kegiatan dengan negara lain baik dalam bentuk bilateral, regional dan multilateral. Permasalahan yang mungkin timbul adalah terkait apakah suatu perjanjian internasional yang sudah diratifikasi suatu negara dapat langsung dianggap sebagai bagian hukum nasional ataupun mengenai status perjanjian internasional di suatu negara.

Sebut saja mengenai judicial review Undang-undang No. 38 Tahun 2008 tentang

76

Pengesahan Piagam ASEAN oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Undang-undang pengesahan pada dasarnya hanya berisi ketentuan yang menegaskan meratifikasi atau mengesahkan Piagam ASEAN dan berisi Piagam

ASEAN

tersebut

yang

menjadi

lampirannya.

Dengan

dilaksanakannya judicial review tersebut apakah hal ini juga sama saja dengan Indonesia melakukan judicial review terhadap Perjanjian Internasional dan apakah Perjanjian Internasional memiliki status yang sama dengan Undang-undang Republik Indonesia pada umumnya.

Masalah implementasi perjanjian internasional juga terkait dengan apakah setelah suatu negara meratifikasi perjanjian internasional harus dibuat

peraturan

pelaksana

(implementing

legislation)

untuk

melaksanakan kewajiban internasional yang melekat dalam perjanjian internasional tersebut, atau proses ratifikasi sudah memiliki akibat hukum bahwa kewajiban internasional harus sudah dapat dilaksanakan tanpa atau adanya peraturan pelaksana (implementing legislation). Suatu kasus yang sudah cukup lama terkait dengan pelaksanaan dari Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award (New York Convention 1958) yang oleh salah satu hakim di Indonesia pada saat itu, berpendapat bahwa walaupun konvensi ini sudah diratifikasi Indonesia melalui Keputusan Presiden No. 34 Tahun 1981, bukan berarti langsung dapat dilaksanakan sehingga diperlukan peraturan pelaksana lainnya. Pada akhirnya dibuatlah Peraturan Mahkamah Agung No.1 Tahun 1990 tentang Tata Cara Pengakuan dan

77

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing.

Permasalahan selanjutnya yang sangat ramai didiskusikan adalah mengenai ketentuan Pasal 85 Undang-undang No. 7 Tahun 2014 tentang Perdagangan. Dalam pasal tersebut mengatur bahwa Pemerintah Indonesia

memiliki

kewenangan

untuk

membatalkan

perjanjian

internasional yang diratifikasi oleh Indonesia baik melalui UndangUundang maupun Peraturan Presiden, pada saat perjanjian internasional tersebut

merugikan

kepentingan

nasional.

Diskusi

mengenai

permasalahan ini juga merupakan hal yang menarik, apakah memang dibenarkan bahwa suatu negara dapat memiliki kewenangan untuk membatalkan perjanjian internasional atau suatu negara hanya dapat menarik diri dari perjanjian internasional pada saat merugikan kepentingan nasional. Tentu saja pembatalan perjanjian internasional dan penarikan diri dari perjanjian internasional memiliki akibat hukum yang berbeda.

Berdiskusi mengenai implementasi perjanjian internasional tidak terlepas dari bagaimana hubungan antara Hukum Internasional atau Hukum Nasional. Apakah sebuah Hukum Internasional merupakan sistem hukum yang sama dengan hukum nasional atau Hukum Internasional memiliki sistem hukum yang berbeda dengan hukum nasional. Terkait

78

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


hal ini maka diskusi mengenai teori monism dan dualism dalam hukum perjanjian internasional sangat menarik untuk dibahas.

Beberapa masalah yang kami coba sampaikan di atas, menunjukkan bahwa diskusi permasalahan dalam hukum perjanjian internasional merupakan suatu permasalahan yang menarik untuk didiskusikan dan memerlukan

beberapa

sumber

untuk

mendapatkan

jawabannya.

Kehadiran literature-literature terkait hukum perjanjian internasional sangat diperlukan, khususnya buku-buku yang secara khusus mengkaji hukum perjanjian internasional baik secara praktik dan teori.

Dr. Iur.s Damos Dumoli Agusman, S.H., M.A. merupakah salah satu ahli hukum yang sangat memiliki perhatian terkait Hukum Perjanjian Internasional lebih khusus mengenai Teori Monisme dan Dualisme baik dari segi praktik maupun teori. Penulis sehari-harinya beraktifitas di Kementerian Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia sejak tahun 1988, dan bertugas di Direktorat Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional, yang tentu saja selalu terlibat dalam diskusi-diskusi dan pekerjaan yang terkait dengan perjanjian internasional dimana Indonesia menjadi pihak dalam perjanjian internasional tersebut. Berbekal aktifitas sehari-harinya di Direktorat Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional ini, semakin melengkapi pribadi penulis yang menurut hemat saya memiliki jiwa akademisi seperti mengajar dan meneliti. Buku ini Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study. merupakan intisari dari disertasi pada Doctoral

79

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Degree di Goethe University of Frankfurt, Jerman pada 2014, yang secara lengkap berjudul “The Legal Status of Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study of China, South Africa, Germany and The Netherlands”. Penulis mengambil Doctoral Degree bersamaan dengan ketika beliau mendapat tugas untuk menjadi Konsulat Jenderal Republik Indonesia di Frankfrurt. Dapat dilihat dari karya-karya penulis sebelumnya merupakan karya-karya yang secara linear membahas Hukum Perjanjian Internasional sejak beliau menulis Skripsi untuk gelar Sarjana dan Thesis untuk gelar Master dari University of Hull pada tahun 1991.

Buku ini merupakan buku mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional yang kedua yang ditulis penulis, setelah buku yang pertama telah beberapa kali diterbitkan ulang. Buku tersebut berjudul Hukum Perjanjian Internasional: Teori dan Praktik Indonesia, diterbitkan oleh Refika Bandung pada tahun 2010. Buku pertama ini cukup banyak diminati oleh para mahasiswa dan pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian Internasional, sehingga telah mengalami cetak ulang untuk memenuhi permintaan pembaca.

Kehadiran buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study, sepertinya akan melengkapi dan sangat memberikan pengetahuan serta wawasan

bagi

para

pemerhati

Hukum

Perjanjian

Internasional,

khususnya bagaimana perjanjian internasional diimplementasikan di

80

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Indonesia, dan di beberapa negara untuk menjadi bahan perbandingan. Penulis menggambarkan bagaimana perjanjian internasional berkembang di Indonesia dan beberapa negara, yang pada akhirnya menghasilkan suatu analisis dari hasil studi banding mengenai bagaimana status perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum nasional masing-masing negara, tinjauan mengenai hukum perjanjian internasional di beberapa negara dan yang terpenting adalah bagaimana hubungan antara hukum perjanjian internasional dengan hukum nasional di negara tersebut..

Buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study yang memiliki 554 Halaman, membahas Hukum Perjanjian Internasional dalam Enam Bab yang terdiri dari sub bab- sub bab yang saling mendukung. Sebagaimana yang telah disampaikan sebelumnya bahwa buku ini merupakan hasil penelitian disertasi penulis yang telah disesuaikan, sehingga dalam penulisannya penulis menggunakan Bahasa Inggris. Penggunaan Bahasa Inggris menjadi bahasa dalam penulisan buku ini merupakan hal yang baik, mengingat buku ini dapat dinikmati oleh semua pembaca tidak hanya pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian Internasional yang berasal dari Indonesia, namun juga pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian Internasional dari luar negeri. Perlunya bagaimana Hukum Perjanjian Internasional di Indonesia untuk dapat diketahui oleh dunia internasional, merupakan hal yang cukup penting, sebagai contoh dalam praktik penanaman modal di Indonesia dengan negara mitra yang biasa terjalin melalui Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), untuk melaksanakan

81

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


BITs tersebut negara mitra ataupun investor negara mitra perlu mengetahui bagaimana praktik hukum perjanjian internasional di Indonesia, mengingat BITs merupakan perjanjian internasional yang juga tunduk pada Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties 1969.

Enam bab ini terdiri dari Pendahuluan, Status Hukum Perjanjian Internasional berdasarkan Hukum Nasional berdasarkan Perbandingan Praktik Negara, Tinjauan mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional di Cina, Afrika Selatan, Jerman, Belanda dan Indonesia, Hubungan antara Perjanjian Internasional dan Hukum Nasional di Cina, Afrika Selatan, Jerman, Belanda dan Indonesia, Analisis Komparatif serta Kesimpulan.

Pada Bab Pertama yang merupakan Pendahuluan, bab ini terbagi lagi menjadi 4 sub bab yang terdiri dari Pengantar, Sejarah Hukum Internasional di Indonesia dalam beberapa tahun, Kebutuhan akan kejelasan mengenai Hukum Internasional di Republik Indonesia dan Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan buku ini. Pada sub bab pengantar penulis menjelaskan mengenai Hukum Internasional dan Hukum

Nasional

di

Indonesia.

Dalam

Sub

Bab

ini

penulis

mengungkapkan mengenai masih terdapatnya perdebatan mengenai bagaimana hubungan di antara dua hukum ini, khususnya mengenai teori monism dan dualism dan juga mengenai teori “adoption” dan “transformation”. Begitu banyak penelitian yang menulis mengenai perdebatan ini, dan juga menulis bagaimana beberapa sistem hukum

82

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


menggunakan kedua teori ini untuk pelaksanaan perjanjian internasional. Dalam bab ini penulis membahas Indonesia sebagai salah satu contoh khususnya sebagai negara yang merdeka dan bebas dari negara kolonialnya. Pada dasarnya negara bekas koloni akan mengikuti pendekatan tradisional dari negara koloninya terkait dengan hubungan antara hukum internasional dan hukum nasional. Namun demikian, menurut penulis,

hal ini tidak berlaku bagi Indonesia, karena status

perjanjian internasional dalam hukum nasional Indonesia belum dapat ditentukan.

Permasalahan hubungan antara perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional di Indonesia menjadi masalah yang cukup penting. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari latar belakang yang mungkin sesuai untuk memeriksa bagaimana

pandangan

Indonesia

mengenai

hukum

internasional

khususnya hukum perjanjian internasional. Penulis mengutip pendapat Ko Swan Sik, yang berpendapat bahwa permasalahan mengenai akibat hukum dari Hukum Internasional dalam kaitannya dengan hukum nasional sangat terkait dengan sejarah atau pengalaman negara-negara tersebut di dunia internasional. Dalam sub bab ini penulis juga mencoba memaparkan bagaimana perkembangan permasalahan hubungan hukum internasional dan hukum nasional di Indonesia sejak lepas dari negara koloni sampai dengan era reformasi dan saat ini. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa perkembangan status hubungan hukum internasional dan hukum nasional di Indonesia sampai dengan saat ini belum dapat ditentukan.

83

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Permasalahan mengenai hubungan hukum internasional dan hukum nasional di Indonesia semakin tajam khususnya apabila terdapat tekanan internal dan tekanan eksternal. Sebagai contoh dari tekanan eksternal adalah globalisasi, yang mengakibatkan batas antar negara menjadi tidak ada batas. Pembahasan selanjutnya adalah mengenai bagaimana Indonesia dan Hukum Internasional terbagi menjadi 3 fase yaitu fase Perang dan Kemerdekaan, Fase Orde Baru dan Fase Era Reformasi sampai dengan sekarang.

Bagian terpenting dari Bab Pendahuluan ini adalah sub bab mengenai pentingnya

untuk

mendapatkan

kejelasan

mengenai

Hukum

Internasional dalam sistem hukum Internasional. Penulis menjawab kebutuhan akan kejelasan hukum internasional ini dari beberapa segi di antaranya sebagai konsekuensi sistem hukum demokrasi, adanya kewajiban untuk tunduk pada hukum internasional termasuk di dalamnya

mengenai

standar

internasional,

dan

adanya

sistem

desentralisasi, dimana kewenangan Pemerintah Daerah terpusat dari Pemerintahan Pusat.

Pada bab kedua dari buku ini, yang berjudul Analysis of General Theories: The Legal Status of Treaties under domestic law with reference to contemporary state practice. Penulis membahas mengenai teori-teori yang terkait dengan hukum perjanjian internasional khususnya dalam hubungannya dengan hukum nasional. Dibahas dalam bab ini adalah

84

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


perbedaan antara beberapa aliran terkait implementasi hukum perjanjian internasional di suatu negara, seperti teori dualism dan monism, teori adoption dan transformation, serta mengenai non self dan self executing treaties. Pada bagian terakhir dari bab ini, terdapat pembahasan yang menarik terkait pengaruh globalisasi yang memberikan pengaruh mengenai pendekatan hubungan antara hukum internasional dan hukum nasional, khususnya karena pada masa globalisasi batasan antara satu negara dengan negara lain menjadi tidak terlihat.

Metode yang digunakan dalam buku ini adalah metode perbandingan. Penulis melakukan perbandingan dengan beberapa negara dan termasuk di dalamnya Indonesia. Negara-negara yang menjadi objek perbandingan penulis terkait dengan tinjauan umum mengenai hukum perjanjian internasional di negara tersebut, yaitu di antaranya Cina, Afrika Selatan, Jerman, Belanda dan pada akhirnya Indonesia. Bab yang diberi judul Overview of the Law of Treaties: China, South Africa, Germany, The Netherlands and Indonesia merupakan Bab ketiga dari buku ini. Pada umumnya yang menjadi objek pembanding dari negara-negara tersebut terkait dengan Hukum Perjanjian Internasional adalah terkait bagaimana konstitusi

dari

negara

tersebut

mengatur

mengenai

Perjanjian

Internasional, bagaimana hukum dari negara tersebut secara khusus mengatur hukum perjanjian internasional sesuai dengan hukum nasional yang digunakan. Perbandingan juga dilakukan dengan meninjau bagaimana hukum nasional dari negara tersebut memberikan batasan apa

85

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


yang dimaksud dengan perjanjian internasional termasuk mengetahui terminologi perjanjian internasional yang digunakan treaties atau international agreements. Hal yang sangat penting yang menjadi objek perbandingan negara-negara ini adalah terkait Treaty Making Power, yaitu lebih tepatnya untuk mengetahui bagaimana suatu perjanjian internasional dapat disepakati atau dibuat oleh negara-negara, terhadap lembaga atau badan mana yang memiliki power untuk membuat atau menyetujui perjanjian internasional di negaranya. Pembahasan treaty making power juga terkait dengan bagaimana aspek politik dan ekonomi mempengaruhi di suatu negara. Khusus untuk Indonesia, Penulis membahas treaty making power dilihat dari sejarahnya berdasarkan konstitusi terdahulu sampai dengan sekarang, bagaimana akhirnya perjanjian internasional dibuat secara bersama antara Presiden dan DPR. Penulis membahasnya tentu saja dengan meninjau ketentuan UndangUundang No.24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional.

Apabila pada Bab III penulis melakukan studi perbandingan dengan beberapa negara terkait dengan hukum perjanjian internasional, Maka pada bab selanjutnya atau Bbab IV penulis melakukan perbandingan dengan negara yang sama, namun pada bab ini perbandingan dilakukan terkait dengan hubungan antara perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional. Seperti yang telah dijelaskan di muka bahwa hubungan antara hukum perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional atau dalam hal ini hukum internasional dengan hukum nasional selalu menjadi topik

86

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


diskusi yang menarik terkait dengan apa pun, khususnya mengenai bagaimana sikap negara

memberikan status perjanjian internasional

dalam hukum nasionalnya. Negara-negara yang menjadi objek studi perbandingan penulis masih sama dengan bab sebelumnya yaitu negaranegara China, Afrika Selatan, Germany, Netherlands, dan tentunya Indonesia. Pembahasan Bab IV ini yang diberi judul The Relationship Between Treaties and Domestic Law: China, South Africa, Germany, Netherlands, and Indonesia. Hubungan antara perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional dibahas oleh Penulis dengan memaparkan beberapa hal, di antaranyayaitu, kerangka konstitusi di masing-masing negara terkait perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional, status perjanjian internasional khususnya dalam hukum nasional suatu negara, praktik non self dan self executing treaties di suatu negara, bagaimana hierarki peraturan perundang-undangan berdasarkan hukum nasonal mengakui perjanjian internasional, dan yang tidak kalah penting terkait dengan bagaimana

sikap

pemerintah

khususnya

terkait

kewenangan

melakukan

judicial

review

terhadap

perjanjian

pengadilan

terhadap

suatu

perjanjian

internasional, negara

untuk

internasional.

Di

Indonesia diskusi terkait bagaimana status perjanjian internasional dalam hukum nasional masih terus berkembang, bahkan perdebatan di antara para sarjana pun masih terus terjadi.

Sesuai dengan judulnya A Comparative Study, maka setelah dua bab penulis menggambarkan hasil dari studi perbandingan di beberapa

87

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


negara baik terkait perjanjian internasional maupun hubungan hukum antara hukum internasional dan hukum nasional, pada bab lima dari buku ini dibahas mengenai analisa dari studi perbandingan tersebut (Comparative Analysis). Hasil studi perbandingan tersebut dikerucutkan oleh penulis menjadi beberapa hal penting terkait dengan keterlibatan atau

partisipasi

parlemen

dalam

hal

perjanjian

internasional,

mengidentifikasi kriteria dari perjanjian internasional yang harus mendapatkan persetujuan parlemen, khususnya terkait dengan proses ratifikasi

dari

perjanjian

internasonal,

mengidentifikasi

perjanjian

internasional yang terinkorporasi secara langsung dalam hukum nasional, hierarki atau tata urutan perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum nasional dan permasalahan mengenai non self executing treaties. Terkait dengan hierarki perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum nasional di Indonesi, penulis berpendapat bahwa hierarki mengenai perjanjian internasional di Indonesia masih belum mendapatkan kepastian, karena tidak adanya rezim hukum yang pasti untuk menentukan dimana status dari perjanjian internasional tersebut. Hal ini salah satunya terkait perdebatan dan perbedaan pendapat di antara penganut paham monism dan dualism. Ketidakjelasan mengenai hierarki perjanjian internasional dalam hukum nasional di Indonesia, sama hal nya dengan mengenai permasalahan non self executing treaties di Indonesia.

88

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


Pada akhir dari buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study penulis menutupnya dengan Bab Kesimpulan atau conclusion dari penelitian dan studi perbandingan yang telah dilakukan. Penulis memberikan beberapa hal untuk kesimpulan terkait dengan perjanjian internasional berdasarkan Hukum Indonesia. Suatu kritikan dan pendapat penulis terkait dengan perjanjian internasional di Indonesia, adalah bahwa masih terdapatnya peraturan di Indonesia khususnya dalam bentuk konstitusi yang masih bersifat ambiguity terkait dengan perjanjian

internasional

berdasarkan

hukum

nasional.

Dapat

ditambahkan bahwa ketidak jelasan ini juga termasuk bagaimana sikap pemerintah memberikan status terhadap perjanjian internasional. Selain itu catatan juga diberikan oleh penulis terkait dengan policy options, yang seharusnya ditentukan oleh Indonesia. Sebagai penutup, penulis juga memberikan kesimpulan atau catatan terkait keterlibatan parlemen dalam perjanjian internasional, kriteria dari perjanjian internasional yang memerlukan keterlibatan parlemen dikaitkan dengan Undang-Uundang No. 24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional, metode terkait perjanjian internasional yang terinkorporasi dalam hukum nasional dan status perjanjian internasional dalam hierarki peraturan perundangundangan.

Pembahasan mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional dalam buku ini serta dalam bentuk penyajian perbandingan dengan beberapa negara terkait praktik perjanjian internasional, membuat buku ini memiliki nilai

89

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


lebih untuk dapat dibaca oleh semua kalangan baik akademisi, mahasiswa, praktisi dan Pemerintah, khususnya bagi Pemerintah Republik Indonesia yang sering terkait dengan praktik pelaksanaan perjanjian internasional atau yang terlibat dalam pembuatan perjanjian internasional dimana Indonesia menjadi pihak.

***

90

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


GLOSSARY Rebus sic stantibus: Legal doctrine in public international law which allow treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. This clause is an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda. Some aspects of rebus sic stantibus is codified in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Clausula rebus sic stantibus does not apply if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurence of the changed circumstance. It only relates to the changed circumstances that were never contemplated by the parties.

Jus cogens: Jus cogens is a fundamental, overriding principles of imternation law, form which no derogation is ever permitted. In practice, jurists attempt to classify certain rules, rights and duties as jus cogens or peremptory norms have not met with success: while there is near-universal agreement for existence of the category of jus cogens norms, there is far less agreement regarding the actual content of this category.

91

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS

“


Let Justice be done though heavens will fall. - William Murray, 1st Baron Mansfield -

92

”

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


TENTANG PENULIS Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach Beliau adalah Profesor pada Faculty of Law Johann Wolfgang Goethe – University Frankfurt semenjak tahun 2005. Kini beliau menjabat sebagai Chair of Public Law, European and International Law dan Co-Director of the Wilheim Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order. Prof. Simon Butt, B.A. LL.B., Ph.D. Profesor Simon Butt adalah ARC Australian Postdoctoral Research Fellow pada Sydney Law School. Sebelumnya Penulis menempuh program pendidikan Law School (di University of Sydney. Beliau kemudian memperoleh gelar PhD di University of Melbourne, dan memutuskan untuk bergabung dengan almamaternya, University of Sydney sebagai Associate Director pada Centre for Asian and Pacific Law. Abdulkadir Jaelani, S.H., M.H., M.A. Penulis adalah lulusan Fakultas Hukum Unair dan meraih gelar Master of European Law and Policy di Portsmouth University pada tahun 2002. Saat ini beliau menjabat sebagai Direktur Perjanjian Ekososbud di Direktorat Jenderal Kementerian Luar Negeri, jabatan yang dipangkunya semenjak tahun 2012. Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho S.H., L.L.M. Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho bergabung dengan Kementerian Luar Negeri Indonesia pada tahun 2007 setelah sebelumnya bekerja sebagai pegawai magang sejak tahun 2005. Saat ini ia bertugas di Direktorat Perjanjian Politik, Keamanan dan Kewilayahan. Dr. Haryo memperoleh gelar Sarjana Hukum dari Universitas Indonesia, dan Master of Laws (LL.M.)

93

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS


serta Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) dari University of Virginia School of Law di bidang hukum laut. Prita Amalia, S.H. MH. Prita Amalia adalah lulusan S2 Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjajaran pada tahun 2009. Saat ini beliau mengajar di bidang Hukum Perdagangan Internasional sekaligus menjabat sebagai Lektor Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjajaran.

94

JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17  Januari – April 2015 Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS Jurnal Opinio Juris menerima tulisan dengan tema hukum internasional, perjanjian internasional, diplomasi, hubungan internasional, dan isu-isu dalam negeri yang memiliki dimensi hukum dan perjanjian internasional. Ketentuan Penulisan: 1. Panjang tulisan 10—20 halaman kertas A4 (termasuk abstraksi, isi, catatan kaki, dan daftar pustaka), format MS Word, spasi satu setengah, font Times New Roman ukuran 11. Untuk catatan kaki, spasi satu dan font Times New Roman ukuran 10; 2. Tulisan dapat dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia atau bahasa Inggris; 3. Setiap naskah harus disertai abstraksi maksimal 1 halaman A4. Untuk tulisan dalam bahasa Indonesia, abstraksi dibuat dalam bahasa Inggris dan untuk tulisan dalam bahasa Inggris, abstraksi dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia. Jumlah kata abstraksi sekitar 100 kata. 4. Rujukan dibuat dalam bentuk catatan kaki (footnote); 5. Tulisan harus asli dari penulis, belum pernah diterbitkan, dan tidak sedang dikirimkan ke penerbit lain; 6. Untuk setiap naskah yang masuk, redaksi berhak mengedit dengan tidak mengubah maksud dan isi tulisan; 7. Apabila diperlukan, redaksi akan memberikan masukan dan rekomendasi kepada penulis tentang tulisan yang dikirim; 8. Setiap naskah yang dikirim harus disertai daftar riwayat hidup singkat penulis (curriculum vitae) yang setidak-tidaknya terdiri dari pekerjaan, pendidikan, alamat, dan nomor telepon yang bisa dihubungi; 9. Setiap naskah yang disetujui untuk diterbitkan akan mendapatkan kompensasi finansial; 10. File naskah beserta kelengkapan lainnya dapat dikirim ke email Redaksi. 11. Keputusan untuk menerbitkan atau menolak penerbitan suatu naskah berada pada redaksi dengan tidak dapat diganggu gugat. Sekretariat Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Interansional Kementerian Luar Negeri Jalan Taman Pejambon No. 6 Jakarta Pusat Telp: +62 21 3846633 Fax: +62 21 3858044 Email: [email protected] http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/

95

Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS. Volume 17 Januari April 2015

Recommend Documents