Kedaulatan Negara vis a vis Keistimewaan dan Kekebalan Hukum Organisasi Internasional dalam Sebuah Intervensi Kemanusiaan
(1)
Abstract
Perkembangan organisasi internasional yang dimulai dengan pengakuan terhadap variasinya pada sekitaran 1945 dikenal sebagai salah satu perkembangan Hukum Internasional yang membuka aturan baru dunia internasional, dan aspek yang paling sering menjadi perdebatan tentang keberadaannya adalah ketentuan tentang keistimewaan dan kekebalan. Munculnya doktrin Responsibility To Protect, menjadikan fondasi teoritis Hukum Internasional yang telah diterima secara umum selama berabad – abad semakin rapuh. Problem terbesarnya secara jelas adalah pada tataran kedaulatan negara. Organisasi internasional yang melakukan berbagai aktivitas dengan membawa kepentingan negara, semakin memperjelas polemik penerimaan intervensi kemanusiaan dalam sebuah negara. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memaparkan tantangan bagi organisasi internasional dalam sebuah intervensi kemanusiaan tersebut ketika berhadapan dengan Negara-negara tersebut, dan mengemukakan urgensi perlunya keistimewaan dan kekebalan untuk diberikan terhadapnya. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif, penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa indikasi pelemahan terhadap kedaulatan, yang direfleksikan misalnya dalam doktrin Responsibility to Protect, tidak akan selalu menambah pertentangan terhadap konsep kedaulatan tradisional yang absolut, namun justru akan memberikan beberapa kemungkinan bagi beberapa negara tertentu untuk memproyeksikan kedaulatan dan kepentingannya secara global. Dengan perumusan kembali konsepsi kedaulatan kepada konsep yang relational atau terbuka, serta semakin besarnya peran organsasi internasional dalam masyarakat internasional baik sebagai treaty makers maupun law makers, maka pemberian keistimewaan dan kekebalan terhadap organisasi internasional semakin penting untuk menjamin pelaksanaan tugas – tugasnya.
The development of international organization that began with the recognition of its variations around 1945 was known as one of the development of international law that opens new international rules, and the most often debated aspect is about the provision of privileges and immunities. The emergence of the doctrine of Responsibility To Protect makes the theoretical foundations of international law which has been generally accepted for many centuries become more fragile. The biggest problem is clearly at the level of state sovereignty. International Organizations that developed activities brought by state’s interest, clarify the polemic of the acceptance of a humanitarian intervention. This paper aims to discuss the challenges of international organizations in a humanitarian intervention dealing with these states, and deliver the urgency of a privilege and immunities to them.. By using normative legal research method, this study concluded that the indication of the weakening of the sovereignty, which is reflected for example in the doctrine of the Responsibility To Protect, will not necessarily add to the opposition to the traditional concept of absolute sovereignty, but it will provide possibilities for some countries to project its sovereignty and interests globally. By re-formulate the concept of sovereignty to a relational sovereignty, and the bigger the role of international organizations in the international community as a treaty-makers as well as law-makers, then the privilege and immunities to an international organizations should be applied to assure its functions.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abbott, K.W. 1989. Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers, 14 Yale J. Int’l L. 335.
Agnew, J. 2009. Globalization and Sovereignty, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers., Maryland.
Armstrong, D., ed. 2009. Routledge Handbook of International Law, Routledge, New York.
Arup., C. 2008. The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, 2nd ed., Cambridge Studies I Law And Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge., hlm. 73.
August, R., et.al. 2009. International Business Law Text, Cases, And Readings, 5th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey., hlm. 338
Aust, A. 2010. Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bankas, E.K. 2005. The State Immunity Controversy in International Law, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Bartelson, J. 2006 The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited, EJIL. Vol 17 No.2.
Bausili, A.V. 2002. Rethinking the Methods of Dividing and Exercising Powers in the EU : Reforming Subsidiarity and National Parliaments, Jean Monnet Working Paper 9/02, NYU School of Law, New York.
Bederman, D.J. 2006. International Law Framework, Second Edition, Thomson West, New York.
Briggs., H.W. 1939. De Facto and De Jure Recognition : The Arantzazu Mendi, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, No. 4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2192880.
Bronckers, M. 2001. More Power To The WTO, JIEL Vol. 4 Issue 1 2001, http://jiel.oxfordjournals.org.
Brownlie, I. 1991. Principles of International Law, ed.IV, Clarendon Press, Oxford
Buergenthal, T. 1988. International Human Rights in a Nutshell, West Publishing Co., St. Paul Minnesota.
Carty, A. 2007. Philosophy of International Law, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Chandler, D. 2009. Unravelling The Paradox of the “Responsibility of Protect”, Irish Studies in International Affairs Vol. 20 27 – 39.
Chimni, B.S. 2004, International Institutions Today : An Imperial Global State In The Making, EJIL 2004 Vol. 15 No.1.
Costa, P., Zolo, D., (eds.). 2007. The Rule of Law : History, Theory, and Criticism, Springer, New York.
Cralle, R.K. 1851. A Disquisition on Government and a Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States by John C. Calhoun, Columbia, SC: A. S. Johnston, https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=456
Dillon Jr., Thomas J. 1995. The World Trade Organization : A New Legal Order For World Trade, Michigan Journal of International Law Vol. 16, hlm. 355-356
Domingo, R. 2010. The New Global Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dormann, K. 2004. Elements of War Crimes Under The Rome Statute of International Criiminal Court, Cambridge University Press., Cambridge,
Duncan, J.C.Jr. 2012. Following a Sigmoid Progression: Some Jurisprudential and Pragmatic Considerations Regarding Territorial Acquisition Among Nation-States, Boston College International And Comparative Law Review Winter 2012 Vol. XXXV No. 1.
Dunov, J.L. et al. 2002. International Law: Norms, Actors, Process: A Problem-oriented Approach, 1st ed., Aspen Publishers, New York
Encyclopedia Britannica, Sovereignty, 2014. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/557065/sovereignty.
Etzioni, A. 2005. Sovereignty as Responsibility, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Elsevier Limited, http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/documents/A347a-SoverigntyasResponsibility-orbis.pdf
GATT., Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, GATT Doc. MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev.1, tanggal 3 Desember 1990, http://www.wto.org/gatt_docs/English/SULPDF/92130047.pdf.
Goodrich, L.M. 1947. From League of Nations to United Nations, International Organization Vol. 1 No.1 pp. 3 – 21., The MIT Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2703515.
Grotius, H. 1625. De Jure Belli Ac Pacis (on The Law of War and Peace), edisi revisi, 2010, Kessinger Publishing.
Hafner, G. 2007. Legal Personality of International Organizations, Eleven International Publishing
Hage, J.C., Von der Pfordten, D. (eds.). 2009. Concepts in Law, Springer, New York.
Harry, R.J. 2013. A Solution Acceptable to All? A Legal Analysis of the Senkaku-Diaoyu Island Dispute, Cornell Int’l L. J. 653 (2013), United Nations Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, 2012, The Legal Issues Involved in The Western Sahara Dispute, The Principle of Self-Determination and The Legal Claims of Morocco, New York City Bar Association
Held, D. The Changin Structure of International Law : Sovereignty Transformed, http://www.polity.co.uk/global/pdf/GTReader2eHeld.pdf
Higgins, R. 1994. Problems and Process : International Law and How We Use It, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hinsley, F.H. 1986. Sovereignty, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
Holdgaard, L. Holdgaard, R. 2001. The External Powers of the European Community, http://law.au.dk/fileadmin/site_files/filer_jura/dokumenter/forskning/rettid/artikler/20010108.pdf
Hooghe, L., Marks, G. 2012. The Authority of InternationalOrganizations, http://www.falw.vu/~mlg/papers/hooghe_marks_%20the%20Authority%20of%20International%20Organizations%2009.01.12.pdf
ICRC. 2007. International Humanitarian Law And The Challenges Of Contemporary Armed Conflicts, International Review of the Red Cross Volume 89 Number 867 September 2007.
ICRC. 2011. Annual Report for 2011: a year of complex and unforeseen crises, http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2012/annual-report-2011-news-2012-06-25.htm.
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty: the responsibility to protect, Ottawa, hlm. Vii, http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf
International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, (Advisory Opinion) 1996, ICJ Rep 226.
Jackson, J.H. 1998. The World Trade Organization : Constitution and Jurisprudence , Royal Institute of International Affairs, London., hlm. 15 - 16
Juwana, H. 2001. Hukum Internasional Dalam Konflik Kepentingan Ekonomi Negara Berkembang dan Negara Maju, Pidato Upacara Pengukuhan Sebagai Guru Besar Tetap Dalam Ilmu Hukum Internasional Pada Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta.
Kelleh, F. 2010. The Changing Paradigm of State Sovereignty In The International System, Thesis, MA in Political Science University of Missouri, Kansas City, https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/14672/KellehChaParSta.pdf?sequence=1
Kennedy, D., Tennant, C. 1994. New Approaches to International Law: A Bibliography, 35 Harvard International Law Journal. 417,
Kingsbury, B., Casini, L. 2009. Global Administrative Law Dimensions of International Organizations Law, International Organizations Law Review 6 (2009) 319 – 358, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers http://iilj.org/aboutus/documents/GALDimensionsofIOL.BK-LC.pdf
Klabbers, J. 2002. An introduction to International Institutional Law, Cambridge University Press, New York
Kolb, R., Hyde, R. 2008. An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Hart Publishing, Oxford-Portland Oregon.
Ku, J.G. 2000. The Delegation of Federal Power to International Organizations: New Problems with Old Solutions, Minnesota Law Review, Vo. 85, No. 71.
Kusumaatmadja, M. 1990. Pengantar Hukum Internasional Buku 1 : Bagian Umum, Bina Cipta, Bandung
Lake, D.A. 2003. The New Sovereignty in International Relations, International Studies Review 5 303 – 323
Lauterpacht, H. 1958. The Development of International Law by International Court, Frederick A. Praeger Publisher, New York.
Maris, C.W., Jacobs, F.C.L.M., (eds.). 2011. Law, Order, and Freedom : A Historical Introduction To Legal Philosophy, Springer, New York.
Mauna, B. 2000. Hukum Internasional; Pengertian, Peranan Dan Fungsi Dalam Era Dinamika Global, Alumni, Bandung
Merriam, JR., C.E. 2001. History of the Theory of Sovereignty Since Rousseau, Batoche Books., Canada.,
Mo, J.S. 2000. International Commercial Law 2nd ed., Butterworths Publishing, Sydney.
Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897
Morgenstern, F. 1986. Legal Problems of International Organizations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mostov, J. 2008. Soft Borders : Rethinking Sovereignty and Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.,
Nagan, W.P., Haddad, A.M. 2012. Sovereignty in Theory and Practice, 13 San Diego Int’l L.J. 429 2012
Nagan, W.P., Hammer, C. 2003. The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations, 43 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 141 Volume 43, Number 1.
Newton, K. 2005. Foundations of Comparative Politics: Democracies of the Modern World. Cambridge University Press., Cambridge.
Newton, K., van Deth, J.W. 2010. Foundations of Comparative Politics : Democracies of the Modern World, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O’Brien, J. 2001. International Law, Routledge – Cavendish, New York
Oppenheim, L. 1954. International Law A Treatise, 8th Edition, (edited by H. Lauterpacht), Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., London.
Ott, D.H. 1987. Public International Law in the Modern World, Pitman Publishing, London.
Palang Merah Indonesia, Gerakan Palang Merah dan Bulan Sabit Merah Internasional, PMI dan ICRC, Jakarta.
Peters, A. 2009. Humanity As The Alpha and Omega of Sovereignty, EJIL Vol.20 No.3, http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/20/3/1849.pdf
Potter, D.W. 2004. State Respinsibility, Sovereignty, and Failed States, Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, http://www.adelaide.edu.au/apsa/docs_papers/Others/potter.pdf
Prokhovnik, R. 2007. Sovereignties : Contemporary Theory and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Reinisch, A. 2007. The Immunity of International Organizations And The Jurisdiction of Their Administrative Tribunals, International Law and Justice Working Papers, IILJ, http://iilj.org/publications/documents/2007-11.GAL.Reinisch.web.pdf
Reisman, M.W. 1991. Book Review, 85 Am. J. Int’l L. 205
Riyanto, S. 2007. Intervensi Kemanusiaan Melalui Organisasi Internasional Untuk Memberikan Perlindungan dan Bantuan Kemanusiaan Kepada Pengungsi Internal : Debat Tentang Urgensi Dan Kendalanya., MIMBAR HUKUM Vol.19, No.2, Juni 2007
Riyanto, S. 2012. Kedaulatan Negara Dalam Kerangka Hukum Internasional Kontemporer, Jurnal YUSTISIA Universitas Negeri Surakarta
Roberts, A. 2000. Humanitarian Issues and Agencies as Triggers for International Military Action, International Review of the Red Cross No. 839.
Rommedtvedt, H. 2011. The institutionalization of a parliamentary dimension of an intergovernmental organization: the WTO, World T.R. 2011, 10(4), © 2013 Cambridge University Press, hlm. 423-446
Rosenthal, J.H., Barry, C. (eds.). 2009. Ethics and International Affair, 3rd edition, Georgetown University Press, Washington.
Rumble, W.E. 1981. Legal Positivism of John Austin and The Realist Movement in American Jurisprudence, 66 Cornell L.Rev. 986.
Satow, E. 1958. A Guide To Diplomatic Practice, Longmans, Green And Co., London
Schabas, W.A. 2001. Enforcing International Humanitarian Law : Catching the Accomplices, IRRC June 2001 Vol. 83 No. 842.,
Schermers, H.G., Blokker, N.M. 2003. International Institutional Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
Schott., J.J., Buurman, J.W. 1994. The Uruguay Round:An Assessment, Institute For International Economics, Washington., hlm. 133.
Seligman, E.R.A., Johnson, A., (eds.). 1957. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Volume Thirteen : Puritanism – Service, The Macmillan Company, New York.
Shan, W., et.al., (eds.). 2007. Redefining Sovereignty in Interntional Economic Law, Oxford, Hart Publishing, Portland – Oregon
Sinclair, I.M. 1973. The Vienna Convention on The Law Of Treaties, Manchester University Press, Manchester
Slaugther, A.M. 1995. Book Review (Volker Rittberger ed. 1993), 89 Am. J. Int’l L. 454
Snyman, M.P.F. 2009. The Evolution of State Sovereignty : A Historical Overview, PhD Thesis at the University of Leiden : The Erosion of State Sovereignty in Public International Law, http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/3689/Fundamina%20Snyman.finaal.pdf?sequence=1
Stallybrass, W.T.S. 1918. A Society of States: Or, Sovereignty, Independence, and Equality in a League of Nations, California : G. Routledge & Sons
Stumpf, S.E. 1960. Austin’s Theory of the Separation of Law and Morals, 14 Vand L. Rev 117 (1960 – 1961)
Suherman, A.M. 2003. Organisasi Internasional dan Integrasi Ekonomi Regional Dalam Perspektif Hukum dan Globalisasi, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta
Suryono, E., Arisoendha, M., 1986, Hukum Diplomatik dan Konsuler, Angkasa, Bandung
Teson, F. 1998. A Philosophy of International Law, Westview Press, Oxford.
Tokár, A. 2001. Something Happened. Sovereignty and European Integration, Extraordinary Times, IWM Junior Visiting Fellows Conferences Vol. 11 Vienna, http://www.iwm.at/publ-jvc/jc-11-02.pdf
United Nations., UN ECOSOC Res. 13. UN Doc. E/22 (1946),
Van den Bossche, P. 2005. The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Verellen, T. 2010. What To Do With Sovereignty, Jura Falconis Jg. 47 2010 – 2011, https://www.law.kuleuven.be/jura/art/47n3/verellen.pdf,
Walker, N., (ed.). 2003. Sovereignty in Transition, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Wallenstein, P., (ed.), 1997. International Intervention : New Norms in the Post Cold War Era?, Department of Peace and Conflict Research Uppsala University, Uppsala
Watson, G.R. 1994. The Death of Treaty, 55 Ohio ST. L. J. 781, 789 – 90
Weinert, M.S. 2007. Democratic Sovereignty : Authority, legitimacy, and state in a globalizing age, University College London (UCL) Press, New York.
Wells, D.A. 2005. The United Nations : States vs International Law, Algora Publishing, New York.,
World Trade Organization, Agreement on Establishing The World Trade Organization, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto.pdf.
World Trade Organization, Guide to GATT Law and Practice (1995), http://www.wto.org.
World Trade Organization,“What Is WTO?”, http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm.
Wouters, J., De Man, P. 2009. International Organizations As Law Makers, Working Papers No. 21 Leuven Centre For Global Governance Studies, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
