Suchergebnisse

Realism stated that conflict or even war among countries are acceptable in order to achieve national interest. Such a view has become the mainstream in international relations (IR) both theoretically and practically. But it does not mean that realist views are the best approach to discuss foreign policy and national interest. Liberalism and global humanism can be used as alternative approaches to discuss it. From the perspective of liberalism and global humanism, foreign policy is not only reflecting national interest, but also dealing with human and global interest. By focussing on the issues of economic globalization, democracy, human rights, and environment, the approaches of liberalism and global humanism show that these issues have now become a part of foreign policy and national interest of countries. It means that if it comes to human and global interests, then countries choose to cooperate globally rather than to involve in conflict or war.

This paper discusses the right of self-determinationfrom international law and international human rights law perspective. It traces the emergence and development of self-determination from political principle to human right. It also explores the controversy of the right of self-determination. There have been different and even contradictory interpretations of the right of self-determination. Besides, there is no consensus on the mechanism to apply the right of self-determination. Both international law and international human rights law are vague about this.

This article analyses the Indonesian efforts to resolve past human rights abuses under the mechanism of transitional justice following the downfall of President Soeharto on May 21, 1998. The focus of analysis is the implementation of transitional justice in the cases of Aceh, Papua, and East Timor during the transitional period. This article shows that the efforts to enforce transitional justice in these cases have been faced with obstacles. Although there have been notable efforts in terms of both judicial and non-judicial to enforce transitional justice, the final results are not satisfactory. Transitional justice mechanism to resolve past human rights abuses was implemented only with half-baked and supported with half-hearted. As a result, it has failed to bring justice for the victims. There are lessons can and should be learned from these transitional justice cases for resolving other past human rights abuse cases in Indonesia today. The current Indonesian government should pay attention to the lessons in order to resolve past human rights violations in accordance with its promise during presidential election campaign in 2014. Otherwise, it is likely to repeat the same mistake and failure of justice dealing with past human rights violations.

This essay discusses the democratic peace theory from the prespective of both its proponents and opponents. The puzzle of the democratic peace theory has long been debated methodologically and empirically. Both have a strong argument to support their views, however. This essay highlights the debate by focusing on three problems of the democratic peace theory. First, the differences of the definitions of democracy, war, and peace that demonstrates the lack of robustness in the democratic peace theory. Second, democracy by force has often failed to establish peace whether international or domestic peace and therefore the promotion of democarcy around the world have been seen as a justification of democratic intervention to other sovereign states. Third, the democratic peace theory does not always apply in new emerging democratic countries. As a result, it raises a question whether the democratic peace theory or an ideology.