AbstractRatification in Indonesia does not have any legal consequences for the application of the treaties at national level. The reason is that ratification only binds Indonesia as a subject of international law. In comparison, parliamentary approval in the Indonesian context is not the same as the United States Senate's approval. The Indonesian Government signed the Palermo Convention on December 12, 2000 and ratified it on April 20, 2009. The issue discussed here regards the legal status of this Convention. In the 80's it was assumed that any treaties ratified or acceded, would ipso facto be enforceable in Indonesia. I argued that Indonesia should be regarded as a state applying the monist approach, which legal practice seems to reject. I stand for the monist approach especially with regard to the legal status of the 2000 Palermo Convention. In addition I also argue about the importance of differentiating between Indonesia's international obligations and the issue of direct applicaton of the Convention by national couts. Keywords: Ratification, Integration, Implementation, Treaty, Indonesia's legal system
Ratification of treaties in Indonesia can be regarded as mere political acts, as ratification itself does not yet rule for its enforcement in Indonesia's jurisdiction. As stipulated in Article 11 of the 1945Indonesian Constitution, these ratifications are still subject to consent from the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) as they are the appointed institution in Indonesia with treaty-making powers. The act of ratification by the Indonesian Government is regarded as a ratification only in the international sense, where such action would only make the treaty enter into force internationally, but not internally within Indonesia. This paper seeks to analyze the legal implications which signatureand ratification of international treaties may hold in the Indonesian government. Such is done by studying the class action lawsuit for Indonesia being signatories the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Member of Their Families and its failure continue to further ratify the Convention. Ratifikasi perjanjian internasional merupakan tindakan politik yang memerlukan persetujuan dari Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) sebagai lembaga dengan treaty-making power sebagaimana yangdiatur oleh Pasal 11 UUD 1945. Tindakan ratifikasi oleh Pemerintah Indonesia hanya bermakna sebagairatification hanya dalam the international sense, yakni membuat perjanjian tersebut berlaku di levelinternasional, bukan berlaku di wilayah hukum Republik Indonesia. Artikel ini menganalisis proses andimplikasi hukum diratifikasinya dan ditandatanganinya suatu perjanjian internasional oleh PemerintahIndonesia dengan menelaah gugatan class action yang dilakukan terhadap Pemerintah Indonesia mengenaibelum diratifikasinya Konvensi Buruh Migran.
A rule of international law is regarded as non-self-executing in the Indonesian legal system. It means the international legal norm does not have legal binding force in the domestic courts of Indonesia without an implementing legislation. Indonesia is a dualist country vis-à-vis the relation of international law and national law. In regard with the implementation of rules of international law into the Indonesian courts, Indonesia follows the transformation theory where the rules of international law must be transposed into national laws to have them enforced. Therefore, it is the supremacy of national law over international law before the domestic courts.
In regard to the implementation of treaties in municipal courts, treaty is divided into self-executing and non-self-executing. A self-executing treaty is defined as a treaty that its implementation does not need an implementing legislation. However, a nonself- executing treaty needs an implementing legislation to have it enforced in national courts.Terkait dengan implementasinya di pengadilan nasional suatu negara, perjanjian internasional digolongkan menjadi perjanjian internasional self-executing dan non-self-executing. Perjanjian internasional self-executing adalah perjanjian internasional yang dapat diimplementasikan secara langsung di pengadilan tanpa implementing legislation, dan perjanjian non-self-executing adalah perjanjian internasional yang tidak dapat langsung dimplementasikan di pengadilan tanpa adanya implementing legislation.
The basis for granting immunity to advocates is in Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003, that advocates cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in carrying out their professional duties in good faith in the interests of the Client's defense in court proceedings. The immunity obtained by advocates is not only within the scope of the court, but also protects it outside the court. The immunity has been expanded based on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 26 / PUU-XI / 2013. The granting of immunity to such advocates is considered as an act that violates the provisions of Article 28 D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, that everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee protection and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. However, the right to immunity from lawsuits (immunity) to advocates does not conflict with Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution if given with limitations to advocates who are one of law enforcers in Indonesia, these restrictions apply both outside and in court proceedings. The limitation is in the form of a professional code of ethics and legislation, as well as good faith. Any action that goes beyond or beyond these three limits cannot be protected by immunity, so that if one of the three limits is exceeded, advocates can be legally processed and sentenced based on applicable regulations.Dasar pemberian imunitas kepada advokat ada pada Pasal 16 UU No. 18 Tahun 2003, bahwa advokat tidak dapat dituntut baik secara perdata maupun pidana dalam menjalankan tugas profesinya dengan iktikad baik untuk kepentingan pembelaan Klien dalam sidang pengadilan. Imunitas yang didapatkan advokat ternyata tidak hanya dalam lingkup pengadilan, tetapi juga melindunginya diluar pengadilan. Imunitas tersebut telah diperluas berdasarkan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 26/PUU-XI/2013. Pemberian imunitas kepada advokat tersebut dianggap sebagai suatu perbuatan yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 28D Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia 1945, bahwa setiap orang berhak atas pengakuan, jaminan perlindungan dan kepastian hukum yang adil serta perlakuan yang sama dihadapan hukum. Tetapi hak atas kekebalan dari tuntutan hukum (imunitas) kepada advokat tersebut menjadi tidak bertentangan dengan Pasal 28D UUD 1945 apabila diberikan dengan batasan-batasan kepada advokat yang merupakan salah satu penegak hukum di Indonesia, batasan tersebut berlaku baik di luar maupun di dalam sidang pengadilan. Batasan tersebut berupa kode etik profesi dan peraturan perundang-undangan, serta iktikad baik. Setiap tindakan yang melampaui atau diluar ketiga batasan tersebut, tidak bisa dilindungi oleh imunitas, sehingga atas dilampauinya salah satu dari ketiga batasan tersebut maka advokat dapat diproses secara hukum dan dijatuhi hukuman berdasarkan peraturan yang berlaku.
Abstract—This Study discussed the problem whether the secession of Catalonia from Spain is in accordance with the self-determination principle in the International Law. This study used a legal, concept and case approach and concluded as follows: Catalonia was able to separate them selves from the parent nation according to the self-determination principle by making a referendum. This act of making a referendum was a way for the Catalonia society to state their opinion. This condition was in accordance with the self-determination principle in the international law because the right for secession may occur in a certain condition other than the context of decolonization. When a country is retricted by the reigning government in savoring internal self-determination (in obtaining political, economic, social and cultural status), then the country may perform a secession from the parent nation. The requierements of self-determination in the Catalonia and Spain case were political, economic, social and cultural aspects. Afterwards, Catalonia needed full fill the requirements stated in Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, and they need to get a recognition from another country. Keywords : secession, referendum, self-determination principle, recognation Abstrak—Penelitian berjudul rencana pemisahan Catalonia dari Spanyol di tinjau dari prinsip self-determination, dengan membahas permasalahan apakah pemisahan diri Catalonia dari Spanyol sesuai dengan prinsip self-determination dalam hukum internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang, konsep dan kasus, sehingga diperoleh suatu kesimpulan bahwa Catalonia bisa memisahkan diri dari Spanyol sesuai dengan prinsip self-determination dengan melakukan referendum. Referendum adalah suatu cara masyarakat Catalonia untuk menyampaikan pendapat. Hal ini sesuai dengan prinsip self-determination dalam hukum internasional, karena hak untuk memisahkan diri bisa muncul dalam keadaan khusus, selain dalam konteks dekolonisasi. Ketika suatu bangsa dihalangi haknya oleh pemerintah yang berkuasa dalam menikmati internal self-determination (untuk mendapatkan status politik, ekonomi, sosial dan budaya), maka sebagai jalan terakhir yang diperbolehkan dalam hukum internasional adalah upaya melepaskan diri dari negara tersebut. Syarat-syarat self-determination dalam kasus Catalonia dengan Spanyol yang ingin memisahkan diri adalah aspek politik, ekonomi, sosial dan budaya. Setelah itu Catalonia harus sesuai dengan Konvensi Montevideo Tentang Hak dan Tugas Negara Tahun 1933 Pada Pasal 1 yaitu syarat terbentuknya suatu negara, dan terakhir Catalonia harus mendapatkan pengakuan dari sebuah negara. Kata kunci : pemisahan diri, referendum, prinsip self-determination, pengakuan
