Suchergebnisse

The Indonesian government experiences constant shocks as some state actors at central and regional levels, either of executive, legisla-tive or judicative bodies, are adjudicated for corruption cases. As it is considered as an extraordinary crime, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KomisiPemberantasan Korupsi or KPK) made a legal breakthrough by imposing punishment in addition to principal pun-ishment for a deterrent effect. The said additional punishment is in the form of revocation of corruptors political rights asconducted by Criminal Corruption Judge and confirmed by Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. However, this decision cre-ates a polemic because of the existence of Decision of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia which cannot annul punishment in the form of revocation of citizens political rights, for it is considered contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indone-sia. There is an overlapping between the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia with the Decision of the Constitu-tional Court of the Republic of Indonesia stating that such revocation of political rights violates the human rights. Our contention is that overlapping authorities and impacts of revocation of political rights require an additional legal instrument. This is important to ensure the mechanism of the revocation aligns with the human rights and exhibits a progressive legal movement in eradicating corruption. Keywords:Revocation of Political Rights; Corruption;Legal System

The Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion advanced an agenda found in neither the text nor the legislative history of the Federal Arbitration Act. Concepcion provoked a maelstrom of reactions not only from the press and the academy, but also from Congress, federal agencies, and lower courts, as they struggled to interpret, apply, reverse, or cabin the Court's blockbuster decision. These reactions raise a host of provocative questions about the relationships among the branches of government and between the Supreme Court and the lower courts. Among other questions, Concepcion and its aftermath force us to grapple with the relationship between law and politics, the role of legislative history in statutory interpretation, the meaning of legislative primacy, the influence of federal agencies on the development of the law, and competing conceptions of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the lower courts.

The aim of the contribution is to define the concept of international military operations to which the rules of humanitarian law apply. The work also offers a definition of the sending state and the host state of these operations. It also identifies the normative sources governing these phenomena: from international humanitarian law ("ius in bello") to human rights law, UN standards, the agreements on the status of the forces deployed, but also internal legal systems.