Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.928.pp101-121
R. Robert, Rosa Agustina, B. Nasution
The Indonesian bankruptcy regime tends to be harsh to the debtors, especially the individual debtors. In contrast, the creditors possess the right to pursue the debtor’s outstanding debts even after the bankruptcy process. For that reason, this article aims to argue why it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement a debt discharge policy in the Indonesian bankruptcy regime. This article employs a normative research method, using a conceptual and comparative approach. The result of this study is based on the debtor cooperation theory and the humanitarian theory of debt discharge. Hence, it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement a debt discharge policy for individual debtors. The first and second Sila of Pancasila is also in line with these theories. Consequently, as a member of society, the individual debtor should be treated with dignity and humane values, which includes debt forgiveness. Nevertheless, not every debtor is deserves to be discharged from his debts. Therefore, it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement the debt discharge policy in the amendment of Indonesian bankruptcy law to protect the honest but unfortunate individual debtors.
{"title":"The Rationalization of Debt Discharge Policy for Individual Debtors in Indonesian Bankruptcy Regime","authors":"R. Robert, Rosa Agustina, B. Nasution","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.928.pp101-121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.928.pp101-121","url":null,"abstract":"The Indonesian bankruptcy regime tends to be harsh to the debtors, especially the individual debtors. In contrast, the creditors possess the right to pursue the debtor’s outstanding debts even after the bankruptcy process. For that reason, this article aims to argue why it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement a debt discharge policy in the Indonesian bankruptcy regime. This article employs a normative research method, using a conceptual and comparative approach. The result of this study is based on the debtor cooperation theory and the humanitarian theory of debt discharge. Hence, it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement a debt discharge policy for individual debtors. The first and second Sila of Pancasila is also in line with these theories. Consequently, as a member of society, the individual debtor should be treated with dignity and humane values, which includes debt forgiveness. Nevertheless, not every debtor is deserves to be discharged from his debts. Therefore, it is rational for the Indonesian government to implement the debt discharge policy in the amendment of Indonesian bankruptcy law to protect the honest but unfortunate individual debtors.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74708797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1363.pp24-40
Hamonangan Albariansyah, T. Santoso, Eva Achjani Zulfa
Between 2014 and 2018, the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower recorded 89,625 cases of work accidents, and 1,193 of them resulted in death. During this period, 34,075 companies were reported for alleged work safety crimes. From the 2,074 cases, only four have been sentenced to prison. The most interesting issue is that the victims of work safety crimes do not get any kind of restitution or even compensation. This article aims to investigate the legal protection for victims of work safety crimes from the criminal law perspective. The method used is normative qualitative research on primary data, such as work safety legislation, the Criminal Code, and criminal court decisions. As a result, the work safety law stipulates that the purpose of law enforcement on work safety is recovery for victims, repairs and prevention. They are carried out to protect the public interest. Work safety regulations also regulate the qualifications of actions categorized as work safety crimes. Unfortunately, the regulation does not provide a mechanism for resolving work safety crimes. So that the settlement of work safety crimes relies on the general criminal justice system that adheres to retributive objectives in law enforcement. The purpose of law enforcement on work safety cannot be applied because victims do not get restitution or compensation. Thus, to obtain legal protection in accordance with the objectives of law enforcement on work safety, the alternative solution is a criminal policy to establish a special criminal mechanism for the settlement of work safety crimes.
{"title":"Legal Protection of Work Safety Crimes Victims In Indonesia","authors":"Hamonangan Albariansyah, T. Santoso, Eva Achjani Zulfa","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1363.pp24-40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1363.pp24-40","url":null,"abstract":"Between 2014 and 2018, the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower recorded 89,625 cases of work accidents, and 1,193 of them resulted in death. During this period, 34,075 companies were reported for alleged work safety crimes. From the 2,074 cases, only four have been sentenced to prison. The most interesting issue is that the victims of work safety crimes do not get any kind of restitution or even compensation. This article aims to investigate the legal protection for victims of work safety crimes from the criminal law perspective. The method used is normative qualitative research on primary data, such as work safety legislation, the Criminal Code, and criminal court decisions. As a result, the work safety law stipulates that the purpose of law enforcement on work safety is recovery for victims, repairs and prevention. They are carried out to protect the public interest. Work safety regulations also regulate the qualifications of actions categorized as work safety crimes. Unfortunately, the regulation does not provide a mechanism for resolving work safety crimes. So that the settlement of work safety crimes relies on the general criminal justice system that adheres to retributive objectives in law enforcement. The purpose of law enforcement on work safety cannot be applied because victims do not get restitution or compensation. Thus, to obtain legal protection in accordance with the objectives of law enforcement on work safety, the alternative solution is a criminal policy to establish a special criminal mechanism for the settlement of work safety crimes.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85264948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1145.pp70-100
A. Afriansyah, H. Purnama, Akbar Kurnia Putra
Since the 1970s, Indonesia has been acting as a transit country for asylum seekers and refugees to reach Australia and New Zealand. Being a non-state party to the Refugee Convention, Indonesia has become the strategic partner for Australia in managing the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. The two countries have been involved in many bilateral and regional arrangements to tackle the issues. The “Bali process” is one of Indonesia and Australia's arrangements to lead the region in tackling forced migration and refugees. Unfortunately, despite their “common” interests, many of Australia's policies towards asylum seekers have negatively impacted Indonesia in many ways. This paper uses desk study research with a normative approach to analyse nationally and internationally relevant laws and policies. This paper analyses the Bali Process as regional cooperation means of burden-sharing in which Indonesia and Australia play dominant roles while scrutinising how both countries implement the policies within their domestic realms. In addition, the dynamics within the two countries will also be examined to understand how they shape their policies. This paper argues that Indonesia has fulfilled its part by managing these protected persons within Indonesia. However, Australia seems to consistently try to shift its burden to Indonesia as its neighbouring state. By revisiting the Bali Process arrangement, it is suggested that Australia needs to respect its commitment and take any means necessary to keep good relations with its neighbours, including Indonesia.
{"title":"Asylum Seekers and Refugee Management: (Im)Balance Burden Sharing Case between Indonesia and Australia","authors":"A. Afriansyah, H. Purnama, Akbar Kurnia Putra","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1145.pp70-100","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1145.pp70-100","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1970s, Indonesia has been acting as a transit country for asylum seekers and refugees to reach Australia and New Zealand. Being a non-state party to the Refugee Convention, Indonesia has become the strategic partner for Australia in managing the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. The two countries have been involved in many bilateral and regional arrangements to tackle the issues. The “Bali process” is one of Indonesia and Australia's arrangements to lead the region in tackling forced migration and refugees. Unfortunately, despite their “common” interests, many of Australia's policies towards asylum seekers have negatively impacted Indonesia in many ways. This paper uses desk study research with a normative approach to analyse nationally and internationally relevant laws and policies. This paper analyses the Bali Process as regional cooperation means of burden-sharing in which Indonesia and Australia play dominant roles while scrutinising how both countries implement the policies within their domestic realms. In addition, the dynamics within the two countries will also be examined to understand how they shape their policies. This paper argues that Indonesia has fulfilled its part by managing these protected persons within Indonesia. However, Australia seems to consistently try to shift its burden to Indonesia as its neighbouring state. By revisiting the Bali Process arrangement, it is suggested that Australia needs to respect its commitment and take any means necessary to keep good relations with its neighbours, including Indonesia.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77266781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1646.pp174-188
Mada Apriandi Zuhir, Febrian Febrian, Murzal Murzal, Ridwan Ridwan
The act of utilising all the resources owned by a state, including natural resources, is the right of every state. However, its use is prohibited if it causes harm to other states. This is then referred to as the principle of no harm rule in international law. Therefore, each state is responsible not for causing damage to other States' environments or areas outside the limits of its jurisdiction. This article will analyse the development of the no harm rules and its application model for claiming state responsibility. As normative research, it used secondary data as the main data, and the primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials were analysed qualitatively. In discussion, this principle has long existed as customary international law to mitigate transboundary pollution. In the case of the environment in general, many studies have applied this principle. However, due to the uniqueness of the climate change issue, evidence and proof of the impacts caused cannot be used as the basis for a lawsuit like ordinary environmental cases. Based on the discussion and simulation conducted, it is concluded that the no harm rules principle can be applied to climate change issues. However, this principle is not satisfactory and has limitations in its application.
{"title":"Exercising No Harm Rule: Claims for Damage and Loss Due Climate Change Effects","authors":"Mada Apriandi Zuhir, Febrian Febrian, Murzal Murzal, Ridwan Ridwan","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1646.pp174-188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1646.pp174-188","url":null,"abstract":"The act of utilising all the resources owned by a state, including natural resources, is the right of every state. However, its use is prohibited if it causes harm to other states. This is then referred to as the principle of no harm rule in international law. Therefore, each state is responsible not for causing damage to other States' environments or areas outside the limits of its jurisdiction. This article will analyse the development of the no harm rules and its application model for claiming state responsibility. As normative research, it used secondary data as the main data, and the primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials were analysed qualitatively. In discussion, this principle has long existed as customary international law to mitigate transboundary pollution. In the case of the environment in general, many studies have applied this principle. However, due to the uniqueness of the climate change issue, evidence and proof of the impacts caused cannot be used as the basis for a lawsuit like ordinary environmental cases. Based on the discussion and simulation conducted, it is concluded that the no harm rules principle can be applied to climate change issues. However, this principle is not satisfactory and has limitations in its application.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"48 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90057931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1054.pp122-142
Oksidelfa Yanto, I. Rahmadi, Nani Widya Sari
In the criminal law system in Indonesia, there are two reasons why an individual suspected of having committed a crime must be released. These two reasons are justifying and forgiveness reasons. In practice, these two reasons are linked to the elimination of criminal acts based on legal justice and human rights. This article discusses the legal consequences when the judge rejects the justifying and forgiveness reasons that can eliminate the sentence. The method used in this research is normative juridical by analysing norms, principles and rules of law with a case approach. As a result, this research shows that judges in practice have the authority given by law to determine whether an action can be categorised as justifying and forgiveness reasons that eliminate punishment by referring to the principles and legal regulations for justice and human rights. However, when the judge ignores these two reasons due to considerations of lack of justice and respect for human rights, this practice can be carried out by the judge with the consequence that this decision will cause harm, suffering and misery for the accused. This article argues that to protect the public interest from wrong decisions is necessary to reform the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to provide objectivity, honesty, and justice that rely on legal principles and rules.
{"title":"Can Judges Ignore Justifying and Forgiveness Reasons for Justice and Human Rights?","authors":"Oksidelfa Yanto, I. Rahmadi, Nani Widya Sari","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1054.pp122-142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1054.pp122-142","url":null,"abstract":"In the criminal law system in Indonesia, there are two reasons why an individual suspected of having committed a crime must be released. These two reasons are justifying and forgiveness reasons. In practice, these two reasons are linked to the elimination of criminal acts based on legal justice and human rights. This article discusses the legal consequences when the judge rejects the justifying and forgiveness reasons that can eliminate the sentence. The method used in this research is normative juridical by analysing norms, principles and rules of law with a case approach. As a result, this research shows that judges in practice have the authority given by law to determine whether an action can be categorised as justifying and forgiveness reasons that eliminate punishment by referring to the principles and legal regulations for justice and human rights. However, when the judge ignores these two reasons due to considerations of lack of justice and respect for human rights, this practice can be carried out by the judge with the consequence that this decision will cause harm, suffering and misery for the accused. This article argues that to protect the public interest from wrong decisions is necessary to reform the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) to provide objectivity, honesty, and justice that rely on legal principles and rules.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"26 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81591025","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1510.pp1-23
S. Geroe
This paper considers the effectiveness of Australian regulatory measures to support storing atmospheric carbon in plants and organic matter in soils (biosequestration), a central element of the Australian greenhouse gas (GHG) emission policy through the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Eligible methodologies under the ERF are broader than those in other jurisdictions. Hence Australian experience may have international application. The functionality of Australian regulation to achieve GHG emissions reduction is considered, focusing on provisions relating to additionality, permanence, monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions bio-sequestration. This analysis is conducted by reviewing key publications by research organisations, academics, government departments, industry organisations, environmental organisations and private sector consultancies. While the integrity of Australian biosequestration offsets is generally well regarded, persistent issues have been identified with regard to the additionality of avoided deforestation methane capture in intensive agriculture and landfill gas projects. The proportion of Australian emissions represented by existing biosequestration offset projects is deficient. These issues must be addressed in order to scale up biosequestration projects as an effective element of Australia's net-zero emissions strategy. It can best be achieved by tightening Safeguard Mechanism baselines to drive demand for carbon credits and funding the Clean Energy Regulator to implement effective, independent MRV. Ongoing regulatory reform will be necessary to address such issues as they arise in the course of the implementation of specific methodologies. Nonetheless, ongoing emissions risks relating to biosequestration and other offset projects can only be adequately addressed by complementary policy to reduce emissions at the source.
{"title":"Regulatory Support for Biosequestration Projects in Australia: A Useful Model for Transition to Net-Zero Emissions?","authors":"S. Geroe","doi":"10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1510.pp1-23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol6.iss1.1510.pp1-23","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the effectiveness of Australian regulatory measures to support storing atmospheric carbon in plants and organic matter in soils (biosequestration), a central element of the Australian greenhouse gas (GHG) emission policy through the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). Eligible methodologies under the ERF are broader than those in other jurisdictions. Hence Australian experience may have international application. The functionality of Australian regulation to achieve GHG emissions reduction is considered, focusing on provisions relating to additionality, permanence, monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions bio-sequestration. This analysis is conducted by reviewing key publications by research organisations, academics, government departments, industry organisations, environmental organisations and private sector consultancies. While the integrity of Australian biosequestration offsets is generally well regarded, persistent issues have been identified with regard to the additionality of avoided deforestation methane capture in intensive agriculture and landfill gas projects. The proportion of Australian emissions represented by existing biosequestration offset projects is deficient. These issues must be addressed in order to scale up biosequestration projects as an effective element of Australia's net-zero emissions strategy. It can best be achieved by tightening Safeguard Mechanism baselines to drive demand for carbon credits and funding the Clean Energy Regulator to implement effective, independent MRV. Ongoing regulatory reform will be necessary to address such issues as they arise in the course of the implementation of specific methodologies. Nonetheless, ongoing emissions risks relating to biosequestration and other offset projects can only be adequately addressed by complementary policy to reduce emissions at the source.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87949447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-31DOI: 10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1058.PP218-235
Emad Mohammad Al amaren, Che Thalbi Ismail, Mohd Nordin bin Mohd Nor
Letter of credit (L/C) has a massive role in expanding international trade operations. It is considered the most secure and stable banking service to finance foreign trade operations such as import and export. As an international contract, potential legal issues arise due to fraud practices. In this case, L/C users have to be aware of different approaches followed by domestic courts while dealing with fraud at the international level. This paper aims to identify the fraud means under the fraud rule governing L/C and its impact on Jordan's practice. By applying a qualitative and doctrinal legal approach, this paper analyses the lack of organization of the uniform customs and practice for the letter of credit (UCP No. 600). It also examines, via interviews with Jordanian judges, the perceptions of the Jordanian courts' policy regarding the fraud rule exception in L/C. The finding reveals that to protect the interests of all parties in a letter of credit transaction, Jordanian courts should extend the scope of fraud to cover sale contracts fraud in cases where bona fide holder is involved and when a confirming bank is absent, or when the credit amount has not been paid yet by the issuing bank. In respect of the bank practices, such special provisions implemented to commercial code must be issued due to the lack of legal provisions of the L/C in Jordan legislation.
{"title":"The Fraud Rules in the Letter of Credit under Jordanian Legal System","authors":"Emad Mohammad Al amaren, Che Thalbi Ismail, Mohd Nordin bin Mohd Nor","doi":"10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1058.PP218-235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1058.PP218-235","url":null,"abstract":"Letter of credit (L/C) has a massive role in expanding international trade operations. It is considered the most secure and stable banking service to finance foreign trade operations such as import and export. As an international contract, potential legal issues arise due to fraud practices. In this case, L/C users have to be aware of different approaches followed by domestic courts while dealing with fraud at the international level. This paper aims to identify the fraud means under the fraud rule governing L/C and its impact on Jordan's practice. By applying a qualitative and doctrinal legal approach, this paper analyses the lack of organization of the uniform customs and practice for the letter of credit (UCP No. 600). It also examines, via interviews with Jordanian judges, the perceptions of the Jordanian courts' policy regarding the fraud rule exception in L/C. The finding reveals that to protect the interests of all parties in a letter of credit transaction, Jordanian courts should extend the scope of fraud to cover sale contracts fraud in cases where bona fide holder is involved and when a confirming bank is absent, or when the credit amount has not been paid yet by the issuing bank. In respect of the bank practices, such special provisions implemented to commercial code must be issued due to the lack of legal provisions of the L/C in Jordan legislation.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78122662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-31DOI: 10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1161.PP300-308
M. H. Muhjad, F. Razy, Ahmad Fikri Hadin
Medical Waste for Covid-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is classified as B3, which can potentially be a medium for spreading the virus. Therefore, management must be carried out, consisting of collection, sorting, transportation, temporary storage, to processing (destruction) based on the Circular of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number 2 of 2020 using the incinerator and problematic autoclave methods. The purpose of this study is to find out how the law regulates the management of Covid-19 PPE waste in Indonesia and how it should be. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed that based on the Circular Letter of the Minister of LHK No. 2 of 2020, it is determined that the destruction of Covid-19 PPE waste as B3 waste must go through an incinerator facility with a minimum combustion temperature of 800⁰ C and an autoclave equipped with a shredder. This method is considered overkill and incurs high costs. The conclusion of this study is to provide input for the Government to review or revise the Circular regarding safer Covid-19 PPE B3 waste management, including through the pyrolysis method.
处理Covid-19个人防护装备(PPE)的医疗废物被归类为B3类，这可能是传播病毒的媒介。因此，必须根据环境和林业部长2020年第2号通知，使用焚化炉和有问题的高压灭菌方法进行管理，包括收集，分类，运输，临时储存，处理(销毁)。本研究的目的是找出法律如何规范印度尼西亚对Covid-19个人防护用品废物的管理，以及应该如何规范。本文采用的研究方法是规范法研究。结果表明，根据2020年LHK第2号部长通函，确定Covid-19个人防护用品废物作为B3废物的销毁必须通过最低燃烧温度为800⁰C的焚化炉设施和配备碎纸机的高压灭菌器。这种方法被认为是矫枉过正，而且成本很高。本研究的结论是为政府审查或修订关于更安全的Covid-19 PPE B3废物管理的通知提供意见，包括通过热解方法。
{"title":"The Problematics of Management Personal Protection Equipment Waste related to Covid-19 in Indonesia","authors":"M. H. Muhjad, F. Razy, Ahmad Fikri Hadin","doi":"10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1161.PP300-308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1161.PP300-308","url":null,"abstract":"Medical Waste for Covid-19 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is classified as B3, which can potentially be a medium for spreading the virus. Therefore, management must be carried out, consisting of collection, sorting, transportation, temporary storage, to processing (destruction) based on the Circular of the Minister of Environment and Forestry Number 2 of 2020 using the incinerator and problematic autoclave methods. The purpose of this study is to find out how the law regulates the management of Covid-19 PPE waste in Indonesia and how it should be. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed that based on the Circular Letter of the Minister of LHK No. 2 of 2020, it is determined that the destruction of Covid-19 PPE waste as B3 waste must go through an incinerator facility with a minimum combustion temperature of 800⁰ C and an autoclave equipped with a shredder. This method is considered overkill and incurs high costs. The conclusion of this study is to provide input for the Government to review or revise the Circular regarding safer Covid-19 PPE B3 waste management, including through the pyrolysis method.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89486582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-31DOI: 10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1017.PP273-286
Idris Idris, Taufik Rachmat Nugraha
Through the United Nations, the international community is seriously paying attention to the use of seabed areas as regulated by the Law of the Sea Convention 1982, which states that the area and its resources are the common heritage of humankind. The 1994 Agreement has implemented chapter XI. The resources are relating to the state's interests in terms of energy exploration and environmental impact aspects. An increasing need for global electronic products by many countries in which of the components are rare minerals. Various minerals such as manganese, polymetallic nodules, and polymetallic sulphur are lying down in the seabed. However, seabed also had an essential role in keeping the marine ecosystem balanced. On the one hand, the human's need for those minerals also cannot be denied. Draft of regulations by the International Seabed Authority to manage deep-sea mining are still insufficient to prevent irrevocable damage to the marine ecosystem and loss of essentials species for the next. On the other hand, the spirit of Sustainable Development Goals 14 concerns life underwater. This paper examines deep-sea mining science from a legal perspective to protect and preserve seabed for the future generation using normative approach describing norms and principles in the Law of the Sea Convention 1982. As a result, the commercialisation of deep-sea mining violates the principle of the convention. Thus, it needs to encourage ISA to enhance the minimum requirements for all contracting parties in the future.
{"title":"Does the International Community Have Efforts to Protect the Marine Environment from Seabed Mining?","authors":"Idris Idris, Taufik Rachmat Nugraha","doi":"10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1017.PP273-286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1017.PP273-286","url":null,"abstract":"Through the United Nations, the international community is seriously paying attention to the use of seabed areas as regulated by the Law of the Sea Convention 1982, which states that the area and its resources are the common heritage of humankind. The 1994 Agreement has implemented chapter XI. The resources are relating to the state's interests in terms of energy exploration and environmental impact aspects. An increasing need for global electronic products by many countries in which of the components are rare minerals. Various minerals such as manganese, polymetallic nodules, and polymetallic sulphur are lying down in the seabed. However, seabed also had an essential role in keeping the marine ecosystem balanced. On the one hand, the human's need for those minerals also cannot be denied. Draft of regulations by the International Seabed Authority to manage deep-sea mining are still insufficient to prevent irrevocable damage to the marine ecosystem and loss of essentials species for the next. On the other hand, the spirit of Sustainable Development Goals 14 concerns life underwater. This paper examines deep-sea mining science from a legal perspective to protect and preserve seabed for the future generation using normative approach describing norms and principles in the Law of the Sea Convention 1982. As a result, the commercialisation of deep-sea mining violates the principle of the convention. Thus, it needs to encourage ISA to enhance the minimum requirements for all contracting parties in the future.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"106 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78253130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-31DOI: 10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1067.PP236-246
S. Sefriani, Seguito Monteiro
Since it was announced as a public health emergency of international concern in 2019, Covid-19 has caused enormous loss of property and life. The country's emergency policies in responding to the Covid outbreak are numerous, such as closing public transportation and prohibiting the export of medical devices. These policies have potentially harmed the interests of investors. This study has three purposes: investors' potential claims to challenge state measures addressed to Covid-19, the legal defences of states, and the possibility of an international investment dispute. This study shows that investors' potential claims may be delivered based on violations of the principles of fair and equal treatment, full protection and security, and national treatment and the most favoured nations. While a state can defend itself based on the principles of force majeure and state necessity, states can also defence through Non preclude measures or right to regulate clause in international investment agreements. In addition, it would also be better to build international solidarity and cooperation to mitigate and defeat the Covid-19 pandemic than sue the government before ISDS. States need collective action to avoid a surge of investor-state Arbitration. Governments’ policy to combat Covid-19 is to be considered as acting in necessity and therefore cannot be found in breach of their investment treaty obligations as long as that policy meet the necessity, proportionate, and non-discrimination requirements.
{"title":"Potential Investor Claims and Possible State Defences During the Covid-19 Emergency","authors":"S. Sefriani, Seguito Monteiro","doi":"10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1067.PP236-246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.28946/SLREV.VOL5.ISS2.1067.PP236-246","url":null,"abstract":"Since it was announced as a public health emergency of international concern in 2019, Covid-19 has caused enormous loss of property and life. The country's emergency policies in responding to the Covid outbreak are numerous, such as closing public transportation and prohibiting the export of medical devices. These policies have potentially harmed the interests of investors. This study has three purposes: investors' potential claims to challenge state measures addressed to Covid-19, the legal defences of states, and the possibility of an international investment dispute. This study shows that investors' potential claims may be delivered based on violations of the principles of fair and equal treatment, full protection and security, and national treatment and the most favoured nations. While a state can defend itself based on the principles of force majeure and state necessity, states can also defence through Non preclude measures or right to regulate clause in international investment agreements. In addition, it would also be better to build international solidarity and cooperation to mitigate and defeat the Covid-19 pandemic than sue the government before ISDS. States need collective action to avoid a surge of investor-state Arbitration. Governments’ policy to combat Covid-19 is to be considered as acting in necessity and therefore cannot be found in breach of their investment treaty obligations as long as that policy meet the necessity, proportionate, and non-discrimination requirements.","PeriodicalId":32073,"journal":{"name":"Sriwijaya Law Review","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78282231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：