Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Campur tangan negara dalam penyelenggaraan keselamatan penerbangan sipil dimaktubkan dalam berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan. Negara mempunyai kewajiban untuk menyediakan pelayanan kesehatan sebagaimana yang diamanatkan oleh Undang-Undang Dasar NRI, termasuk kesehatan penerbangan. Sebelum terbang, sebagaimana telah diatur dalam Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 121.535 (a) dan (b) dan CASR 135.537, pilot in command, co-pilot, awak kabin, dan flight engineer wajib untuk dilakukan pengecekan kesehatannya sebelum terbang. Hal ini disebut dengan pre-flight medical check. Namun, kejadian berupa penerbangan yang terganggu akibat kesehatan pilot yang kurang baik kerap kali terjadi. Penulis melakukan penelitian untuk menganalisis penerapan kewajiban tersebut di bandar udara terbesar di Indonesia, Bandara Internasional Soekarno-Hatta. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam melakukan penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian yuridis-normatif, dengan hasil bahwa penerapan Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) mengenai kewajiban pre-flight medical check pada operator penerbangan sipil di Bandara Soekarno Hatta sudah dijalankan pada sebagian maskapai, walaupun tidak semua maskapai mempunyai fasilitas kesehatan sendiri berupa unit kesehatan penerbangan. Terdapat beberapa peraturan yang menyebabkan kurang jelasnya pembebanan tanggung jawab atas kewajiban tersebut. Tidak ada pula peraturan yang mengatur mengenai sanksi terhadap operator penerbangan yang tidak melaksanakan ketentuan-ketentuan ini. Maskapai-maskapai yang masih lalai dalam mematuhi peraturan pre-flight medical check harus segera melaksanakannya. Kementerian Perhubungan dan Kementerian Kesehatan Republik Indonesia harus membuat aturan yang lebih jelas mengenai pre-flight medical check serta pengadaan fasilitas kesehatan penerbangan, sehingga tidak menimbulkan ambiguitas mengenai pihak mana yang harus hadir dalam penyediaan upaya pelayanan kesehatan tersebut.

---

Indonesia State intervention in the enforcement of civil aviation safety is stipulated in various laws and regulations. The state has an obligation to provide health services as mandated by the Constitution, including aviation health. Before flying, as stipulated in Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) 121.535 (a) and (b) and CASR 135.537, pilots in command, co-pilots, cabin crew and flight engineers are required to have their health checked before flying. This is called “pre-flight medical check”. However, incidents in the form of disrupted flights due to poor pilot health often occur. The author conducted research to analyze the implementation of these obligations at the largest airport in Indonesia, Soekarno-Hatta International Airport. The research method used in conducting this research is the juridical-normative research method, with the result that the implementation of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations (CASR) regarding the obligation of pre-flight medical check on civil aviation operators at Soekarno Hatta Airport has been carried out on some airlines, although not all airlines have their own health facilities in the form of an aviation health unit. There are several regulations that cause the imposition of responsibility for these obligations is unclear. There are also no regulations governing sanctions against airline operators who do not implement these provisions. Airlines that are still negligent in complying with the pre-flight medical check regulations must immediately carry it out. The Ministry of Transportation and The Ministry of Health Republic of Indonesia must make clearer rules regarding pre-flight medical checks and the procurement of aviation health facilities, so as not to cause ambiguity about which parties should be present in providing these health service efforts."

"Pada prinsipnya, ICJ hanya memiliki yurisdiksi asli, di mana ICJ bertindak sebagai pengadilan tingkat pertama dan terakhir. Namun, beberapa perjanjian internasional ICAO memberikan yurisdiksi banding kepada ICJ, di mana ICJ bertindak sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO. Adapun ICJ telah menjatuhkan tiga putusan sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO. Walaupun demikian, instrumen hukum ICJ dan ICAO serta praktik ICJ dalam putusan-putusannya tidak memberikan landasan yang komprehensif mengenai yurisdiksi banding ICJ. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menganalisis (1) dasar hukum dan ruang lingkup yurisdiksi ICJ sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO berdasarkan instrumen hukum ICJ dan ICAO; (2) praktik penerapan yurisdiksi ICJ sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO dalam Kasus ICAO 1972; dan (3) konsistensi praktik penerapan yurisdiksi ICJ sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO dalam Kasus ICAO 2020. Melalui penelitian dengan metode yuridis normatif dan pendekatan kualitatif, dapat disimpulkan sebagai berikut. Pertama, Pasal 84 Konvensi Chicago, Pasal II(2) IASTA, serta Pasal 36(1) dan 37 Statuta ICJ menjadi dasar hukum yurisdiksi ICJ sebagai pengadilan tingkat banding dari Dewan ICAO; tetapi instrumen hukum ICJ dan ICAO tidak mengatur secara spesifik mengenai ruang lingkup yurisdiksi tersebut. Kedua, praktik ICJ dalam Kasus ICAO 1972 memperjelas ruang lingkup yurisdiksi bandingnya—terutama mengenai jenis putusan yang dapat diajukan banding, yakni meliputi bukan hanya putusan Dewan ICAO atas merits, tetapi juga atas yurisdiksi; serta ruang lingkup peninjauan yang diterapkan pada persidangan banding, yakni standar peninjauan de novo. Ketiga, praktik ICJ dalam Kasus ICAO 2020 konsisten dengan praktiknya dalam Kasus ICAO 1972; dan semakin memperjelas ruang lingkup yurisdiksi banding ICJ—terutama memperjelas bahwa standar peninjauan de novo diterapkan bukan hanya terhadap pertanyaan hukum, tetapi juga terhadap pertanyaan fakta.

---

In principle, the ICJ only has an original jurisdiction, wherein it acts as a court of first and last instance. However, several ICAO treaties provide the ICJ with an appellate jurisdiction, wherein it acts as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council. The ICJ has rendered three judgments as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council. Nevertheless, the legal instruments of the ICJ and ICAO as well as the ICJ’s practice in its judgments do not provide a comprehensive basis regarding the ICJ’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, this study analyzes (1) the legal basis and scope of the ICJ’s jurisdiction as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council based on the legal instruments of the ICJ and ICAO; (2) the practice in applying the ICJ’s jurisdiction as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council in the 1972 ICAO Case; and (3) the consistency of the practice in applying the ICJ’s jurisdiction as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council in the 2020 ICAO Case. Through research using normative juridical method and qualitative approach, the following conclusions can be drawn. First, Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, Article II(2) of the IASTA, as well as Articles 36(1) and 37 of the ICJ Statute constitute the legal basis of the ICJ’s jurisdiction as a court of appeal from the ICAO Council; but the legal instruments of the ICJ and ICAO do not specifically regulate the scope of that jurisdiction. Second, the ICJ’s practice in the 1972 ICAO Case clarifies the scope of its appellate jurisdiction—particularly regarding the types of decisions that are subject to appeal, which include not only the ICAO Council’s decisions on the merits, but also on jurisdiction; and the scope of review that applies in appellate proceedings, namely a de novo standard of review. Third, the ICJ’s practice in the 2020 ICAO Case is consistent with its practice in the 1972 ICAO Case; and further clarifies the scope of the ICJ’s appellate jurisdiction—particularly by clarifying that a de novo standard of review is applied not only to questions of law, but also to questions of fact."