Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Indonesia will be welcoming the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015 as a multilateral agreement to create integrated regions such as: (a) a single market and production base, (b) a highly competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitable economic development, and (d) a region fully integrated into the global economy. These characteristics are interrelated and mutually reinforcing in a sense that overall development would not be complete without total completion of the previous sector. This article discusses the participation of Indonesia as part of ASEAN as a single market and production base, through free flow of services which targets higher education in law. The author researched that Indonesian higher education system still faces issues, especially in legal education. As a result, the quality of Indonesian law graduate still varies. Indonesian legal education is special in nature since it is considered profession and regulated by code of ethic. According to the author, legal education should be integrated with profession organization so that upon graduation, law graduates can directly conduct internship according to their desired profession and compete against ASEAN law graduates.

Indonesia akan menghadapi ASEAN Economic Commmunity pada tahun 2015 sebagai realisasi perjanjian multilateral untuk menciptakan wilayah terintegrasi seperti: (a) pusat produksi dan pasar tunggal, (b) wilayah ekonomi yang kompetitif, (c) wilayah yang memiliki perkembangan ekonomi yang memadai, dan (d) wilayah yang terintegrasi dengan ekonomi global. Karakteristik ini saling berhubungan dan mendukung dalam arti semua perkembangan ini tidak akan lengkap tanpa terpenuhinya semua persyaratan tersebut. Artikel ini membahas partisipasi Indonesia sebagai anggota ASEAN mengenai potensi pendidikan tinggi dalam bidang hukum sebagai sektor jasa. Akibatnya kualitas lulusan hukum di Indonesia masih beraneka ragam secara nasional. Pendidikan hukum itu sifatnya khusus karena berupa profesi dan diatur oleh kode etik. Menurut hemat penulis, seharusnya pendidikan hukum terintegrasi dengan lembaga profesi, sehingga lulusan sarjana hukum sudah memiliki sertifikasi untuk langsung magang menurut profesinya masing-masing dan bersaing dengan lulusan hukum dari ASEAN.

Abstrak :
This volume provides a critical roadmap through the major historical sources of legal semiotics as we know them today. The history of legal semiotics, now at least a century old, has never been written (a non-event itself pregnant with semiotic possibility).  As a consequence, its sources are seldom clearly exposed and, as word, object and meaning change, are sometimes lost. They reach from an English translation of the 1916 inaugural lecture of the first Chair in Legal Significs at the Amsterdam University, via mid 20th century studies on “property” or “contract,” to equally fascinating essays on contemporary semiotic problems produced by former students of the Roberta Kevelson Semiotics Roundtable Seminar at Penn State University 2012 and 2013. Together, the materials in this book weave the fabric of semiotics and significs, two names for the unfolding of semiotics in law and legal discourse at least until the second half of the 20th century, and both of which covered a lawyer’s focus on sign and meaning in law.  The latter is embedded within the cultural imperatives of the civilization that gave these terms meaning and made them an effective tool for the dissection of law, its reconstitution as an instrument to be used by the lawyer to advance the interests of her clients, and for judges as a means to restructure language as a narrative of law whose power could bend behavior to its strictures. Legal semiotics has become an indispensible part of the elite lawyer’s toolkit and a fundamental approach to analysis of legal texts. Two previous volumes published in 2011 and 2012 explored the conceptual, methodological and epistemological progress in the field of legal semiotics, the modern forms of semiotics study, and the mechanics of meaning making processes by lawyers. Yet the great lessons of semiotics requires a focus on the origins of the concepts and frameworks that would become contemporary legal semiotics, its origins as an object of the consciousness of meaning making—one whose roots, as lessons for the oracular conversations of law, are expanded in this volume.