Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas mengenai perkembangan teori restrictive sovereign immunity di dalam hukum internasional dan penerapannya terhadap imunitas pejabat publik. Penulis akan menganalisis tujuh putusan pengadilan dari beberapa negara dan pengadilan internasional yang menggunakan pendekatan imunitas yang terbatas di dalam dalil gugatan melawan negara di hadapan pengadilan asing. Analisis didasarkan pada studi literatur mengenai perkembangan teori imunitas yang terbatas dan pengaturannya dengan meninjau perjanjian internasional dan peraturan perundang-undangan nasional serta hukum kebiasaan internasional. Simpulan yang didapatkan menunjukkan bahwa adanya perubahan penerimaan pendekatan imunitas absolut menjadi pendekatan imunitas negara secara terbatas oleh berbagai putusan pengadilan nasional. Pembatasan imunitas negara didasarkan kepada dua tes, yaitu rationae personae dan rationae materiae. Praktik ini diterapkan secara konsisten di dalam praktik-praktik negara.

---

This thesis discusses the development of restrictive sovereign immunity under international law and its application to public official immunity. The author of this thesis analyses seven judgments of national courts and international tribunals regarding the use of restrictive sovereign immunity as the claimants motions to raise a civil actions against State before foreign courts. The analysis is based on literature studies concerning the development of restrictive sovereign immunity theory and how it is governed in customary international law, treaties and national laws. In conclusion, there has been a change of practice of national courts to accept the restrictive approach to immunity in numerous decisions. There are two limitations to this approach, namely rationae personae and rationae materiae. These limitations are consistently referred in the State practices.

Abstrak :
The immunity or exemption enjoyed by States from legal proceedings before foreign national courts is a crucial area of international law. On the basis of an exhaustive analysis of judicial decisions, international treaties, national legislation, government statements, deliberations in international organisations as well as scholarly opinion, Xiaodong Yang traces the historical development of the relevant doctrine and practice, critically analyses the rationale for restrictive immunity and closely inspects such important exceptions to immunity as commercial transactions, contracts of employment, tortious liability, separate entities, the enforcement of judgments, waiver of immunity and the interplay between State immunity and human rights. The book draws a full picture of the law of State immunity as it currently stands and endeavours to provide useful information and guidance for practitioners, academics and students alike

Abstrak :
Skripsi ini membahas tentang keberadaan pengecualian pelanggaran berat HAM dalam hukum internasional mengenai imunitas negara. Pertanyaan dasar yang menjadi pusat penulisan skripsi ini adalah dapat tidaknya imunitas negara di hadapan pengadilan negara lain dikesampingkan bilamana negara yang pertama tersebut telah melakukan pelanggaran berat HAM. Dengan demikian skripsi ini membahas pertemuan/persinggungan antara dua norma dalam hukum internasional. Dalam satu sisi, kedaulatan setiap negara dalam hubungan internasional pada umumnya dianggap sama - dengan demikian satu negara tidak berhak mengadili negara lain karena mereka sejajar. Di sisi lain, pertumbuhan rezim perlindungan terhadap pelanggaran berat HAM telah berkembang sedemikian rupa sehingga menjadisalah satu rezim norma tertinggi dalam hukum internasional - keberadaan tersebut menimbulkan kebutuhan akan penegakan norma dengan lebih pasti. Kepastian penegakkan norma tersebut terkadang terhalang oleh alasan-alasan prosedural jika para korban pelanggaran HAM berat menggantungkan nasibnya pada mahkamah internasional, forum internasional lainnya, dan/atau sistem peradilan negara pelanggar berat HAM itu sendiri.

---

This study explains about the existence of the gross human rights violation exception to the international law on state immunity. The core question underlying this study is whether or not it is possible to set aside a state?s jurisdictional immunity in other state in the event that the former state has committed gross human rights violation. Accordingly this study discusses about the intersection between two norms of international law. On one hand, sovereignty of all states is regarded as equal - so as to disable one state to adjudicate other state because they are equal. On the other hand, the development of the regime of protection against gross human rights violation has reached such level that it becomes one of the highest international law norms - such nature produces the need for a more reliable enforcement regime. Such reliability of enforcement regime is sometimes clouded by procedural reasons when the victims of gross human rights violation depend their fate on the International Court of Justice, other international fora, and/or the violator state's own judicial system.