PEMBERIAN SUAKA OLEH NEGARA : KASUS PEMBERIAN SUAKA OLEH PEMERINTAH AUSTRALIA KEPADA 42 WNI ASAL PAPUA. Asylum is an institution of both humanitarian and legal nature. It is humanitarian as its objective is to save a person from potential or real prosecution. It is a legal nature because once asylum is granted, the person’s status as asylee would have rights and obligations accorded or imposed by the national legislation of the country of asylum or international instrument of a legally binding nature. The grant of asylum has often caused frictions in the relations between the asylum-granting State and the Origin State where the asylum seeker came from. The asylum granted by the Australian government to the 42 Indonesian nationals from Papua has also become the cause of tension between Indonesia and Australia. Nevertheless, as humanitarian is one of the characteristics of the institution of asylum, it has become an internationally accepted that the grant of asylum by a state should not be regarded as an “unfriendly act” by any other state, particularly by the State of origin of the asylum seeker. This view reflects the generally concept that asylum is also a “peaceful nature”, therefore it can not be use for any political purposes against any other states sovereignty. See the complete article here>>>.

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreement: Compromising the Differences in Judicial Principle between States. Unlike the arbitration clause which already has a broad recognitionthrough the acceptance of New York Convention by States, the party’s choice of court agreement is still subject on the domestic law of the designated court to decide whether this court has jurisdiction or not. Moreover, judicial principles are different between States and there is no uniform law in this particular issue. This essay is aimed to discuss the possibility of the wide adoption of The Convention on Choice of Court Agreement by States. Read in more detail here>>>.

STATUS DAN TANGGUNGJAWAB MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES (MNCs) DALAM HUKUM INTERNASIONAL. The economic power of Multi National Companies (MNCs) has made many developing countries unable to enforce their national laws against MNCs. This condition invites international law to fill the gaps when national laws fail to make MNCs liable for damages caused by their operation. However, the main obstacle for the implementation of international law against MNCs is the fact that MNCs has no legal personality in international law. This article is aimed to discuss the recent status of MNCs under international law, the impact that may occur and efforts by international organization to make MNCs liable. It is proposed that MNCs should be granted limited rights under internasional law in order to make them directly and legally liable. See full article here>>>

logo_wtoARTICLE 17.6 OF THE WTO ANTI DUMPING AGREEMENT: A BURDEN FOR DOMESTIC PRODUCERS TO OBTAIN RELIEF. One type of administrative action that can be reviewed by a Panel under the WTO standard of review is the imposition of anti dumping duties. However, some scholars found that it is not clear how the standard of review as stipulated in the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement should be applied. This essay will focus on the application of standard of review as stipulated in Article 17.6 of the AD Agreement by the WTO panels and the Appellate Body. It is argued that the ambiguity of Article 17.6 has resulted in less deference towards national authorities’ anti dumping decision. Consequently, Panel and Appellate Body decision also stands less in favour of the injured domestic producers’ interest to obtain relief. Click here for more detail>>>.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s