Suchergebnisse

This paper aims to analyze the relationship between the application of the legal principle ofequality before the law in law enforcement in Indonesia with the harmonization of conflict between thestate institutions and the National Police Commission. The method used in this research is normativejuridical, namely research in the review by reference and based on the norms and rules of law, thelegislation in force, theories and doctrines of law, jurisprudence, and materials other literature relevantto the research topic. From the analysis of the data, it can be concluded that there is a recognition of theprinciple of normative and empirical rule of law, namely that all the issues are resolved with the law asthe supreme guidance. Normatively either in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945,and in Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 on Human Rights, the principle of equality of treat-ment before the law has been published in a comprehensive manner, as the rights that must be re-spected, guaranteed, protected and met by the state. Disharmony between institutions or law enforce-ment agency that is now emerging, should be immediately solved by basing the legislation that exists.

Racism is often perceived as a conscious choice an individual makes to abuse another, or an explicit statement that a group of people are inferior to another. Less often is racism construed as a product of institutional culture. This inability to accurately depict the problem has stunted the ability of lawmakers to craft legislation that will adequately combat racism. This paper explores attempts in the recent past that have provided remedies for those subject to racism rather than addressing its systemic causes. S149 of the Equality Act in the United Kingdom bucked this trend by obligating public authorities to take proactive steps to eliminate discrimination. This paper examines the challenges the provision has faced, explores how it could work to prevent racism in the coming years, and argues that it remains important today.

In July 1796, Johannes Albertyn, a well-respected burgher of Stellenbosch, requested permission from Ryno van der Riet, landdrost of Stellenbosch, the chief administrative and legal officer of the district, to indenture four Khoikhoi children. He claimed that their mother, Catryn Paerl, had died recently and that before her demise, she had requested him in the presence of witnesses to raise her children and deny their biological father Jan Paerl any future role in their lives. Faced with the prospect of losing custody of his four children and having exhausted all possible avenues in seeking legal redress, including a visit to landdrost Van der Riet, the seemingly incomparable Jan Paerl hit the road and walked several kilometres from Stellenbosch to Cape Town. His destination: the Castle, in particular the office of the fiscal, otherwise known as the public prosecutor. In Cape Town, he urged the fiscal to intervene in the dispute and deny Albertyn the right to indenture his children. As their father, Paerl insisted that he, and not Albertyn, be granted sole custody of his offspring. By Paerl's demanding legal intervention at the highest level, the following encounter between Paerl, Albertyn and the Cape authorities exemplifies not only a classic struggle between master and servant, but highlights simultaneously the significance of 'equality' before the law in Cape society, at a time when burghers increasingly feared the possibility of gelykstelling at the end of the eighteenth century.

As opposed to authors who strive to justify the right of access to public passenger transport services of citizens predominantly on the principles of justice deriving from social ethics, the authors of this article justify the right of such access on the human rights to mobility and equality before the law, as the rights based on international legal acts, whereas the principles of fairness are used to upgrade the human right to equality and prohibition of discrimination. Based on the rights to mobility and equality before the law, the authors justify an obligation of democratic states to introduce a law to provide for people an adequate access to public passenger transport services at the interurban and urban level. The theoretical findings established herein will serve as a basis to evaluate legal regulations in the selected states (the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia), and create proposals to change the same.

As opposed to authors who strive to justify the right of access to public passenger transport services of citizens predominantly on the principles of justice deriving from social ethics, the authors of this article justify the right of such access on the human rights to mobility and equality before the law, as the rights based on international legal acts, whereas the principles of fairness are used to upgrade the human right to equality and prohibition of discrimination. Based on the rights to mobility and equality before the law, the authors justify an obligation of democratic states to introduce a law to provide for people an adequate access to public passenger transport services at the interurban and urban level. The theoretical findings established herein will serve as a basis to evaluate legal regulations in the selected states (the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia), and create proposals to change the same.

AbstractIn the Indonesian criminal justice system, dismiss cases based on public interest reason is an embodiment from opportunity principle as outlined in the provisions of the article 35 letter c Law No. 16 of 2004 concerning the Republic of Indonesia's Prosecutor. Application of opportunity principle considered contradictory with the equality before the law principle which has been introduced in the Indonesian Contitution because it creates discrimination in the law enforcement process. Nevertheless, the existence of opportunity principle remains recognized in the Indonesian criminal justice system. This article aims to analyze and understand the legislation policy of the opportunity principle, influence of the opportunity principle to the equality before the law principle as well as the relevance of the opportunity principle in the Indonesian criminal justice system, based on the provisions of article 35 letter c Law no. 16 of 2004 concerning the Republic of Indonesia's ProsecutorAbstrakDalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia, pengesampingan perkara demi kepentingan umum merupakan perwujudan dari asas oportunitas yang dituangkan dalam ketentuan pasal 35 huruf c UU No.16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan RI. Penerapan asas oportunitas tersebut dianggap bertentangan dengan asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum yang telah diintrodusir dalam Konstitusi negara Indonesia karena menimbulkan diskriminasi dalam proses penegakan hukum. Meskipun demikian keberadaan asas oportunitas tetap diakui dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan memahami tentang kebijakan legislasi penerapan asas oportunitas, pengaruh penerapan asas oportunitas terhadap asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum, serta relevansi penerapan asas oportunitas dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia, berdasarkan ketentuan pasal 35 huruf c UU No. 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan RI. ; AbstractIn the Indonesian criminal justice system, dismissal of cases for the good of public interest is a manifestation of the principle of opportunity as set forth in Article 35(c) of Law Number 16 of 2004 on Indonesian Attorney. The application of the principle of opportunity is deemed to contradict the principle of equality before the law, which is introduced in the Indonesian Constitution, because it creates discrimination in the process of law enforcement. The absence of a comprehensive legislation policy on the application of the principle of opportunity in the Indonesian criminal justice system has led to contradictions. It weakens the principle of equality before the law, which has been guaranteed by the constitution. In addition, it can cause constitutional harm to a number of citizens. Nevertheless, the existence of the principle of opportunity remains recognized in the Indonesian criminal justice system because, in principle, it contains the values of goodness to balance the sharp principles of legality. This writing aims to analyze and to understand the legislation policy on the application of the principle of opportunity. It also reveals the meaning of abstraction and multiple interpretations of public interest, the influence of the application of the principle of opportunity to the principle of equality before the law, and the relevance of the application of the principle of equality and the principle of equality before the law.AbstrakDalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia, pengesampingan perkara demi kepentingan umum merupakan perwujudan dari asas oportunitas yang dituangkan dalam ketentuan pasal 35(c) UU No. 16 Tahun 2004 Tentang Kejaksaan RI. Penerapan asas oportunitas tersebut dianggap bertentangan dengan asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum yang telah diintrodusir dalam Konstitusi negara Indonesia karena menimbulkan diskriminasi dalam proses penegakan hukum. Tidak adanya kebijakan legislasi yang komprehensif tentang penerapan asas oportunitas dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia menyebabkan pertentangan yang justru melemahkan asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum yang telah dijamin oleh konstitusi dan dapat menyebabkan kerugian konstitusional terhadap sebagiian warga negara. Meskipun demikian keberadaan asas oportunitas tetap diakui dalam sistem peradilan pidana Indonesia, karena pada prinsipnya mengandung nilai-nilai kebaikan untuk mengimbangi tajamnya asas legalitas. Penulisan ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan memahami tentang kebijakan legislasi penerapan asas oportunitas juga terkait makna kepentingan umum yang bersifat abtrak dan multitafsir, pengaruh penerapan asas oportunitas terhadap asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum, serta relevansi penerapan asas oportunitas dengan asas persamaan kedudukan di hadapan hukum. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v5n2.a4

Intro -- Preface and Acknowledgments -- References -- Contents -- Contributors -- Abbreviations -- Part I: Equality and States: Are Some States More `Equal´ than Others? -- Chapter 1: The Principle of Equality Among Member States of the European Union -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Equality Among States and Sovereignty in International Law and in EU Law -- 1.2.1 The Principle of Equality Among States in International Law -- 1.2.2 The Principle of Equality and International Organizations: The Representation Tests and the Voting Rules -- 1.2.3 How the Principle of Equality Has Evolved Among EU Member States: The `Classic´ Tests of the Representation in the Insti... -- 1.2.4 The Need for a Third Test: The Role of the `Guarantee Institutions´ and the Ability to Ensure the General Interest -- 1.3 The Relation Between the Principle of Equality Among Member States and the Other Fundamental Principles of the European Un... -- 1.3.1 Equality and Uniform Application of the EU Law: Putting Limits on Differentiated Integration -- 1.3.2 The Principle of Equality Among EU Member States: From the Court´s Case Law to the Inclusion in Article 4 TEU -- 1.3.2.1 A Systematic Reading of the Principles Contained in Article 4 TEU: Equality, Conferral, and Sincere Cooperation -- 1.3.2.2 Equality, National Identities, and European Identity -- 1.3.3 Equality and Solidarity -- 1.4 Conclusions: The Principle of Equality in a Union of States with Shared Sovereignty -- References -- Chapter 2: Equality Among Member States and Differentiated Integration in the EU -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 The Many Faces of Equality -- 2.2.1 General -- 2.2.2 Equality as a Principle of EU Law -- 2.2.2.1 A Plethora of References to Equality in the EU Treaties -- 2.2.2.2 Functions of the Equality Principle -- 2.2.2.3 Meaning of Equality

The existence of differences in leave arrangements outside of the state's responsibility for incumbent candidates in the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election (pilpres) and the General Election of Regional Heads and Deputy Regional Heads (pemilukada) have an impact on the sense of justice in granting political rights attached to citizens. The research describes the arrangements' differences from the equality before the law's perspective. The type of research used is normative legal research with descriptive legal research methods. The problem approach used is statutory, comparative, and conceptual approaches. The data used in this research is secondary data, with a literature study method. Furthermore, the technique used in this research is to collect, identify and analyze the data presented in a qualitative descriptive form. The results of the research and discussion show that there are differences in leave arrangements outside of the state's responsibility for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and incumbent regional heads and deputy regional heads in the presidential and regional elections. Theoretically, every legislation formulation and application must be based on the principle of equality before as a form of social justice.

This article argues that Hannah Arendt's controversial essay "Reflections on Little Rock," when situated within her analysis of Jewish assimilation, has an astute insight: racial integration and the decrease of the racial gaps in material inequality, without taking seriously the political project of building a world in common, only intensify racism in racist polities. This occurs because attempts to extend formal equality to the racially dominated give rise to the rule of racial common sense, a result of a clash between the political structures of equality and the racial inequality practiced in quotidian interracial exchanges occurring in civil society. Though Arendt's work on racism echoes criticisms of racial integration leveled by racial realist and pessimistic accounts of the Civil Rights struggle, her work points to a more expansive practice of "the political" that calls for the institutional (re)design of formal politics as an important strategy against racism.

chapter 1 The Rights and Wrongs of Sexuality -- chapter 2 The Sexual Citizen -- chapter 3 Understanding Lesbian and Gay Rights -- chapter 4 From -- chapter 5 Sticky Intuitions and the Future of Sexual Orientation Discrimination -- chapter 6 The Sex Discrimination Argument in Gay Rights Cases -- chapter 7 Coming Out and Challenging the Closet, 1961-1981 -- chapter 8 Shared Values of Singapore: Sexual Minority Rights as Singaporean Value -- chapter 9 Constructing the Personal Narratives of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Asylum Claimants -- chapter 10 Black Rights, Gay Rights, Civil Rights -- chapter 11 The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure -- chapter 12 Gender Pluralisms under the Transgender Umbrella -- chapter 13 What's Wrong with Rights? -- chapter 14 Beyond the Locker Room: Changing Narratives on Early Surgery for Intersex Children -- chapter 15 HIV is a Virus, Not a Crime: Ten Reasons against Criminal Statutes and Criminal Prosecutions -- chapter 16 Secondary Effects -- chapter 17 The Regulation of Prostitution: Contemporary Contexts and Comparative Perspectives -- chapter 18 Evolving a Policy- Legal Status -- chapter 19 -- chapter 20 What's Queer about Polygamy?.