Kreatifnya Orang Dari Negeri Kincir Angin

Belanda merupakan negara yang sangat kreatif dan inovatif. Sejak Dulu orang dari negeri Kincir Angin tersebut telah menciptakan berbagai macam penemuan baik di bidang teknologi, pendidikan, arsitektur dan lain sebagainya. Selalu saja mereka mempunyai ide-ide yang sangat kreatif untuk membuat suatu benda yang besar seperti rumah dengan menggunakan barang-barang yang dalam pikiran kita tidak mempunyai manfaat lagi. Baru-baru ini saya dibuat terpukau oleh kreativitas orang Belanda ketika melihat rumah modern orang Belanda yang sebagian besar bangunannya dibangun dengan menggunakan bahan-bahan bekas dari billboard dan payung. Ditambah lagi dengan paduan arsitektur yang minimalis semakin membuat rumah tersebut terlihat menawan dan nyaman. Kita akan bertanya bagaimana mungkin sebuah rumah yang modern bisa dibuat dari billboard dan payung? Hal tersebutlah yang dilakukan oleh sebuah tim dari perusahaan Dwell yang bergerak di bidang desain dan arsitektur interior di Belanda.

Tim tersebut mencari lokasi bekas bangunan yang ditinggalkan untuk membangun rumah itu. Mereka mengklaim bahwa 60% dari eksterior dan hampir 90% dari interiornya terbuat dari barang-barang yang dapat didaur ulang. Mereka tidak membuat rumah tersebut begitu saja akan tetapi mereka juga memberikan banyak pertibambangn pada aspek-aspek yang lain termasuk untuk mengurangi lahan yang terbuang serta mengurangi menggunakan sumber daya alam yang jumlahnya memang terbatas terlebih lagi Belanda juga merupakan salah satu negara kecil dalam skalanya di Eropa. Sehingga masuk akal apabila di Belanda tidak terdapat banyak sumber daya alam. Hal tersebutlah yang kemungkinan memicu orang-orang Belanda utuk berpikir lebih inovatif dan kreatif. Sehingga mereka dapat menggunakan benda-benda yang sudah tidak terpakai lagi untuk menciptakan suatu produk atau barang yang baru yang bahkan dapat membuat orang lain tercengang serta tidak menutup kemungkinan jika hal-hal seperti itu semakin dikembangkan, bisa  jadi dalam 20 atau 30 tahun yang akan datang negara Belanda akan menjadi salah satu pioneer sebagai negara yang membuat rumah yang mempunyai nilai estetika yang tinggi, ramah lingkungan serta bernilai ekonomis.

Selain itu, tahukah kalian kalau beberapa waktu lalu, seorang ilmuan nano Belanda yang bernama Leo Kouwenhoven berhasil menemukan sebuah partikel yang bernama partikel Majorana. Jika hal tersebut dikonfirmasi dan benar adanya maka bersiap-siaplah karena kita akan memasuki zaman teknologi informasi yang luar biasa, karena partikel tersebut dapat digunakan untuk membuat komputer kuantum yang dapat mengolah informasi dengan sangat cepat. Jika dikatakan, computer kuantum hanya memerlukan waktu 20 menit untuk mengolah atau mengerjakan sebuah proses yang butuh waktu 1025 tahun pada komputer saat ini, semua orang pasti akan tercengang jika mendengarnya.

Hal tersebut juga tidak terlepas dari banyaknya perguruan tinggi di negeri Belanda yang bertaraf internasional sehingga menghasilkan bibit-bibit unggulan yang sangat luar biasa. Kebanyakan dari lulusan tersebut telah membuktikan dirinya dengan memberikan andil kedalam berbagai bidang ilmu terapan yang ada baik itu science, pendidikan, design, arsitektur bahkan ekonomi. Sehingga tidak menutup kemungkinan kalau negeri kincir angin tersebut dapat menjadi sebuah negeri yang mempunyai teknologi yang canggih dimasa yang akan datang yang memberikan manfaat bagi seluruh masyarakat internasional. Oleh karena itu, sudah sepatutnya orang Belanda disebut sebagai orang yang haus akan inovasi yang baru.

Perbedaan Antara Hukum Materil dalam UU Narkotika dengan KUHP & Hukum Formil dalam UU Narkotika dengan KUHAP

 BAB I. PENDAHULUAN

A.   Latar Belakang

Hukum Pidana Khusus, sekarang diganti dengan istilah Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus. Secara prinsipil tidak ada perbedaan antara kedua istilah ini. Oleh karena yang dimaksud dengan kedua istilah itu adalah UU Pidana yang berada di luar Hukum Pidana Umum yang mempunyai penyimpangan dari Hukum Pidana Umum baik dari segi Hukum Pidana Materil maupun dari segi Hukum Pidana Formal. Kalau tidak ada penyimpangan tidaklah disebut hukum Pidana Khusus atau Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus. Hukum tindak pidana khusus mengatur perbuatan tertentu atau berlaku terhadap orang tertentu yang tidak dapat dilakukan oleh orang lain selain orang tertentu. Oleh karena itu hukum tindak pidana khusus harus dilihat dari substansi dan berlaku kepada siapa Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus itu.

Hukum Tindak pidana khusus ini diatur dalam UU di luar Hukum Pidana Umum. Penyimpangan ketentuan hukum pidana yang terdapat dalam UU pidana merupakan indikator apakah UU pidana itu merupakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus atau bukan. Sehingga dapat dikatakan bahwa Hukum Tindak Pidana Khusus adalah UU Pidana atau Hukum Pidana yang diatur dalam UU pidana tersendiri. Contoh dari tindak pidana khusus ini adalah Narkotika. Dimana ketentuan materil dan formilnya tidak sama dengan ketentuan yang ada dalam KUHP dan KUHAP. Artinya ketentuannya diatur sendiri dalam Undang-Undang No.35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika.

B.   Tujuan

a.       Untuk mengetahui gambaran perbedaan antara hukum materil dalam Undang-undang Narkotika dengan KUHP.

b.      Untuk mengetahui gambaran perbedaan antara hukum formil dalam Undang-undang Narkotika dengan KUHAP.

BAB II. PEMBAHASAN

A.   Perbedaan Hukum Materil Dalam Undang-Undang Narkotika Dengan KUHP

Hukum materil dalam Undang-undang Narkotika dibandingkan dengan KUHP.

a.       Undang-undang Narkotika Bersifat Elastis.

Artinya ketentuan-ketentuan yang terdapat dalam undang-undang narkotika dapat dengan mudah untuk dirubah apabila terdapat penyimpangan atau untuk mengatur hal-hal yang sebelumnya tidak diatur dalam undang-undang tersebut, karena undang-undang tersebut hanya mengatur tentang satu hal yaitu tentang narkotika. Misalnya undang-undang No. 22 Tahun 1997 yang dirubah dengan undang-undang No. 35 tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika. Sedangkan KUHP tidak bersifat elastic karena ketentuan-ketentuan yang terdapat didalamnya tidak hanya mengatur mengenai satu hal melainkan banyak hal.

b.      Pengaturan Tersendiri Tindak Pidana Kejahatan dan Pelanggaran.

Dalam undang-undang narkotika hanya mengatur mengenai kejahatan dan pelanggaran terhadap narkotika saja. Apabila terjadi pelanggaran ketentuan mengenai penyimpangan, maka hukumannya diatur sendiri, seperti dalam pasal 14 ayat (2) UU ini mengenai sanksi adminisratif berupa:

1)      teguran

2)      peringatan

3)      denda adminisratif

4)      penghentian sementara kegiatan

5)      pencabutan izin

c.       Percobaan dan Membantu Melakukan Tindak Pidana Diancam Dengan Hukuman.

Percobaan atau permufakatan jahat untuk melakukan tindak pidana Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika sebagaimana diatur dalam undang-undang narkotika tersebut dengan pidana penjara yang sama dengan orang melakukan kejahatan atau pelanggaran terhadap ketentuan dalam undang-undang narkotika ini, misalnya percobaan untuk menyediakan narkotika golongan 1,dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling singkat4 (empat) tahun dan paling lama 12 (dua belas) tahun danpidana denda paling sedikit Rp800.000.000,00 (delapan ratus juta rupiah) dan paling banyak Rp8.000.000.000,00(delapan miliar rupiah). Sedangkan dalam KUHP, hukuman terhadap orang yang melakukan percobaan adalah maksimum hukuman utama yang diadakan bagi kejahatan dikurangkan dengan sepertiganya, dalam hal percobaan.

d.      Perluasan Berlakunya Asas Teritorial (ekstera teritorial).

Pemerintah mengupayakan kerja sama dengan negara lain dan/atau badan internasional secara bilateral dan multilateral, baik regional maupun internasional dalam rangka pembinaan dan pengawasan Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika sesuai dengan kepentingan nasional. Hal tersebut diatur dalam pasal 63 UU No.35 Tahun 2009. Sedangkan KUHP tidak bersifat ekstra teritorial karena KUHP hanya berlaku diwilayah Negara Indonesia.

e.       Mempunyai Sifat Terbuka.

Maksudnya adanya ketentuan untuk memasukkan tindak pidana yang berada dalam UU lain asalkan UU lain itu menetukan menjadi tindak pidana. Artinya tindak pidana dalam UU lain dapat dijadikan tindak pidana dalam UU Narkotika apabila perbuatan pidana tersebut berkaitan dengan kejahatan narkotika. Sedangkan balam KUHP tidak bisa.

f.       Hukuman-hukuman Dalam UU Narkotika.

Dalam undang-undang narkotika terdapat hukuman mati, hukum penjara, hukuman denda. Selain itu terdapat sanksi adminisratif seperti teguran, peringatan, denda adminisratif, penghentian sementara kegiatan dan pecambutan izin serta hukuman tambahan yang diatur dalam pasal 130 ayat (2) UU Narkotika, berupa:

a)      pencabutan izin usaha; dan/atau

b)      pencabutan status badan hukum.

      Sedangkan dalam KUHP hukumannya beruap:

a)      Hukuman Pokok

·         Hukuman mati.

·         Hukuman penjara.

·         Hukuman kurungan.

·         Hukuman denda.

b)      Hukuman Tambahan

·         Pencabutan beberapa hak yang tertentu.

·         Perampasan barang yang tertentu.

·         Pengumuman keputusan hakim.

g.      Penggunaan Pidana Minimal

Penggunaan pidana minimal dalam undang-undang narkotika memberikan asumsi bahwa undang-undang tersebut diberlakukan untuk menjerat pihak-pihak yang melakukan kejahatan dan pelanggaran terhadap narkotika. Misalnya pidana minimal yang terdapat dalam pasal 113 ayat (1) UU No.35 tahun 2009, sedangkan dalam KUHP tidak mengenal pidana minimal, yang ada hanya pidana maksimal, seperti dalam pasal 362 KUHP tentang pencurian.

h.      Hukuman Bersifat Komulatif.

Hukuman yang terdapat dalam UU no.35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika bersifat komulatif, artinya orang yang tertangkap melakukan kejahatan atau pelanggaran terhadap narkotika akan dihukum dengan hukuman pidana hukuman denda. Jadi orang tersebut harus memenuhi kedua hukuman tersebut, tidak boleh memilih salah satu. Sedangkan dalam KUHP, hukumannya bersifat alternatif, artinya terhadap suatu tindak pidana hukumannya adalah hukuman penjara dan/atau hukuman denda. Artinya pihak yang melakukan kejahatan atau pelanggaran dapat memilih sendiri hukumannya baik itu hukuman penjara atau denda (subside).

i.        Azas-azas Berlakunya Tindak Pidana

Undang-undang tentang Narkotika diselenggarakan berdasarkan beberapa azas yang diatur dalam pasal 3 UU No.35 Tahun 2009 yaitu:

a)      Keadilan.

b)      Pengayoman.

c)      Kemanusiaan.

d)     Ketertiban.

e)      Perlindungan.

f)       Keamanan.

g)      nilai-nilai ilmiah.

h)      Kepastian hukum.

Sedangkan KUHP diselenggarakan berdasarkan azas:

a)      Azas legalitas.

b)      Azas territorial.

c)      Azas tidak berlaku surut ( retro aktif).

d)     Azas nasionalitas, terdiri dari nasionalitas aktif dan pasif.

j.        Tidak Dikenal Adanya Delik Culpa.

Dalam undang-undang narkotika ini tidak mengenal adanya delik culpa atau ketidak sengajaan. Hal tersebut nampak dari kata “Setiap orang yang tanpa hak atau melawan hukum”. Yang artinya siapa saja dapat dipidana tanpa melihat apakah dia melakukan perbuatan tersebut dengan tidak sengaja. Sedangkan dalam KUHP terdapat delik culpa, dimana terhadap orang yang melakukan delik tersebut masih dipertimbangkan, seperti dalam pasal 359 KUHP.

B.   Perbedaan Hukum Formil Dalam Undang-Undang Narkotika Dengan KUHP

Hukum formil dalam Undang-undang Narkotika dibandingkan dengan KUHAP.

a.       Penyelidikan dan Tugas/Wewenang BNN.

Dalam Undang-Undang No.35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika, kewenangan penyelidikan diberikan kepada Badan Narkotika Nasional (BNN). Selain itu BNN juga wewenang yang cukup besar antara lain termasuk:

·         Menyusun dan melaksanakan kebijakan nasional mengenai pencegahan dan pemberantasan penyalahgunaan dan peredaran gelap Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika.

·         Mencegah dan memberantas penyalahgunaan dan peredaran gelap Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika.

·         Berkoordinasi dengan Kepala Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia dalam pencegahan dan pemberantasan penyalahgunaan dan peredaran gelap Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika.

·         Melakukan kerja sama bilateral dan multilateral, baik regional maupun internasional, guna mencegah dan memberantas peredaran gelap Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika.

Sedangkan dalam KUHAP kewenangan penyelidikan dilakukan oleh setiap pejabat polisi negara Republik Indonesia. Yang kewenangannya antara lain

·         Mencari keterangan dan barang bukti.

·         Menerima laporan atau pengaduan dan seorang tentang adanya tindak pidana.

·         Menyuruh berhenti seseorang yang dicurigai dan menanyakan serta memeriksa tanda pengenal diri.

·         Mengadakan tindakan lain menurut hukum yang bertanggung jawab.

·         Pemeriksaan dan penyitaan surat.

·         Mengambil sidik jari dan memotret seorang.

·         Penangkapan, larangan meninggalkan tempat, penggeledahan dan penyitaan

·         Membawa dan menghadapkan seorang pada penyidik.

b.      Penyidikan, Penuntutan dan Pemeriksaan di Sidang Pengadilan.

Dalam pasal 73 disebutkan bahwa penyidikan, penuntutan, dan pemeriksaan si sidang pengadilan dilakukan oleh BNN. Penyidikan yang dilakukan oleh BNN adalah seperti melakukan teknik penyidikan pembelian terselubung dan penyerahan di bawah pengawasan. Namun disamping itu penyidik pegawai negeri sipil juga berkoordinasi dengan penyidik BNN. Sedangkan dalam KUHAP, wewenang penyidikan hanya dilakukan oleh pejabat polisi Negara Republik Indonesia dan pejabat pegawai negeri sipil tertentu yang diberi wewenang khusus oleh undang-undang.

c.       Melakukan Penyadapan.

Penyadapan adalah kegiatan atau serangkaian kegiatan penyelidikan atau penyidikan dengan cara menyadap pembicaraan, pesan, informasi, dan/atau jaringan komunikasi yang dilakukan melalui telepon dan/atau alat komunikasi elektronik lainnya. Hal tersebut diatur dalam pasal 1 ayat(19) UU Narkotika. Selain itu, melakukan penyadapan yang terkait dengan penyalahgunaan dan peredaran gelap Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika setelah terdapat bukti awal yang cukup. Hal tersebut juga merupakan kewenangan dari BNN. Sedangkan dalam KUHAP tidak ada pengaturan untuk melakukan penyadapan.

d.      Berlaku Pembuktian Terbalik

Untuk kepentingan penyidikan atau pemeriksaan di sidang pengadilan, tersangka atau terdakwa wajib memberikan keterangan tentang seluruh harta kekayaan dan harta benda istri, suami, anak, dan setiap orang atau korporasi yang diketahuinya atau yang diduga mempunyai hubungan dengan tindak pidana Narkotika dan Prekursor Narkotika yang dilakukan tersangka atau terdakwa. Hal tersebut diatur dalam pasal 97 UU No.35 Tahun 2009. Selain itu, hakim juga dapat meminta kepada terdakwa untuk membuktikan bahwa harta yang diperolehnya bukan dari hasil narkotika. Sedangkan dalam KUHAP tidak mengenal pembuktian terbalik.

e.       Didahulukan Dari Perkara Pidana Biasa

Apabila terdapat dua buah perkara yang diajukan ke pengadilan, dimana salah satunya merupakan perkara pidana khusus, maka perkara tersebutlah yang lebih didahulukan penyelesaiannya dibandingkan dengan perkara biasa. Hal tersebut diatur dalam pasal 74 ayat(1) UU Narkotika.  Sedangkan  dalam KUHAP tidak diatur mengenai perkara khusus atau umum. Semua perkara yang ditangani bersifat umum. Jadi tidak ada yang lebih diutamakan.

f.       Alat bukti

Dalam undang-undang narkotika juga diatur mengenai alat bukti lain selain yang terdapat dalam hukum acara pidana, yaitu berupa:

a)      informasi yang diucapkan, dikirimkan, diterima, atau disimpan secara elektronik dengan alat optik atau yang serupa dengan itu; dan

b)      data rekaman atau informasi yang dapat dilihat, dibaca, dan/atau didengar, yang dapat dikeluarkan dengan atau tanpa bantuan suatu sarana baik yang tertuang di atas kertas, benda fisik apa pun selain kertas maupun yang terekam secara elektronik, termasuk tetapi tidak terbatas pada:

1. tulisan, suara, dan/atau gambar;

2. peta, rancangan, foto atau sejenisnya; atau

3. huruf, tanda, angka, simbol, sandi, atau perforasi yang memiliki    makna dapat dipahami oleh orang yang mampu membaca atau memahaminya.

Hal tersebut sebagaimana dimaksud dalam pasal 86 ayat (1 dan 2) UU No. 35 Tahun2009 tentang Narkotika.

Sedangkan dalam KUHAP sebagaimana disebutkan dalam pasal 187, alat bukti hanya berupa:

a)      Keterangan saksi.

b)      Keterangan ahli.

c)      Surat.

d)     Petunjuk

e)      Keterangan terdakwa.

BAB III. PENUTUP

A.    Kesimpulan

Dari pembahasan diatas, maka dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa ada beberapa perbedaan antara hukum materil dan formil dalam Undang-undang Narkotika dengan ketentuan yang terdapat dalam KUHP dan KUHAP, mulai dari hukuman, pembuktian, penyelidikan, penyidikan bahkan sampai penuntutan. Dimana dalam undang-undang narkotika ada beberapa proses termasuk penyelidikan, penyidikan dan penuntutan dilakukan juga oleh Badan Narkotika Nasional (BNN) sedangkan dalam perkara pidana biasa proses tersebut dilakukan oleh aparat kepolisian dan pegawai negeri sipil. Pembuktian dalam UU Narkotika juga mengenal pembuktian terbalik terbatas, dimana terdakwa atau tersangka harus membuktikan asal harta yang ada padanya. Apakah harta tersebut diperolehnya dari hasil melakukan kejahatan narkotika atau tidak.

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) Indonesia

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) Indonesia

Undang-Undang No. 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika.

The Consequences for Breaching Oslo Agreement by Israel and Legal Effect to Palestine

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

By applying the International law which binding International Community is also come from many components. The category of component of International law is defined by many figures which look at many international perspectives. In the international world itself has a international court of justice that has set forth the source of international law in Article 38 (1) statute of international court of justice which consist of : international conventions (treaty), international customs, general principle of law and doctrine.

One of the sources of international law, treaty, is become an important part in our life because it can be used to solve international problem as a soft diplomacy or to set up a relation with other countries. Moreover, during this new age, treaty is become more and more popular than used to be and also it becomes more complex and it is cannot be separated from international community as well. In this global era almost all countries make a treaty in many areas. Sometimes a state create a treaty with another state just for gaining a benefit for their state and their citizens or to solve the problem that emerge between other states. Usually treaty can solve the problem between countries. Nevertheless, there are also some disputes that occur between states or parties to the treaty, it caused by a party that breach the obligation of the treaty which has been created together by them, because they negligent or deliberately do not perform the obligations to the treaty. This condition can make the injured party or an innocent party terminates or suspends  the treaty in whole or in part. This kind of case has been happened in Oslo Agreement 1993 and 1994 between Israel and Palestine which concern about the distribution of power to establish a Palestinian Interm Self Government Authority. At that time the government of Israel did not have a good faith and failed to perform the treaty, whereas Israel government has agreed to solve the dispute together. For Palestine, however, the action of Israel gave a bad effect to the people or citizens in territory of Palestine. Hence, this research is going to explain more further about the legal consequences that can be held liable to the Israel and the legal effect to Palestine as the injured state to the treaty.

Chapter II

Theorytical Basis

Similar as other laws, there are a few principle in treaty as well. One of the important fundamental principle in treaty is pacta sunt servanda. Its mean that the states (parties)  which is to be bound to the treaty must perform or apply the treaty in good faith. Its importance is underlined by the fact that it is enshrined in the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations. As to the Charter itself, paragraph 2 of Article 2 expressly provides that Members are to “fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter”.[1]

However, even a treaty has that principle, some states tend to breach the rule to apply it. This is a matter in international law of treaties because it can give the worse effect to the innocent party and the innocent party can terminate or suspend of the operation of a treaty. In Article 60 (1) of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties mentions that a material  breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part. That’s mean if a party to the treaty breach the rules or a substantial material that were regulated to the treaty, the injured party can terminate the treaty. In addition the party who breach a treaty can be held liable a sanction if the treaty provides it. So, the parties can provide a sanction for the state that breach the obligation of a treaty at the beginning of treaty making. For example, in bilateral treaty if one of parties to a treaty failed to do the obligation of its treaty because does not have a good faith, thus that party must be responsible for their act by getting a sanction if it is provided to a treaty.

According to The Draft of The International Law Commission of 1966, the International Law Commission proceeded from the premise that, however serious, a breach cannot ipso facto terminate the treaty.[2] It was agreed that a state was not free simply to allege a violation of the treaty and consequently declare it void or at an end.[3] It, thus adopted draft Article 57, which read as follows :

1.      A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2.      A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

a.       The other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty or to terminate it either:

i.                    In the relations between themselves and the defaulting state, or

ii.                  As between all the parties

b.      A party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting state

c.       Any other party to suspend the operation of the treaty with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect  to the further performance of its defaulting state.

In paragraph 1 of this draft mentions that, dealing with bilateral treaties, provided a concrete expression to the principle inadimplenti non est adimplendum. The commission considered that the right to terminate or suspend the operation of treaties for breach arises under the law of treaties independently of any right of reprisal, the principle being that a party cannot be called upon to fulfill its obligations under a treaty when the other party fails to fulfill those which it undertook under the same treaty.[4] The paragraph provided that a material breach of a bilateral treaty entitled the innocent party only to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part. The words ‘invoke as aground’ were intended to underline that the right accruing from breach was ‘not a right arbitrarily to pronounce the treaty terminated’,[5] or to suspend its operation, but rather to take action to prove that a violation has been committed and that, consequently, the innocent party wished to terminate or suspend the breached treaty.[6]

The consequences of a material breach of a bilateral treaty are no doubt correctly expressed under Article 60 that has already mentioned above; it is in any event satisfactory that the exercise of the right of termination or suspension is optional at the discretion of the injured party. On the other hand, it may not be entirely satisfactory that, in the case of a material breach of a bilateral treaty, the party seeking to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty must comply with the procedural safeguards set out in Article 65 to 68 of VCLT. In effect, this means that the aggrieved party must continue compliance with a treaty which other party is violating, while the protracted procedure of dispute settlement is in progress.[7]

  

Chapter III

Analyzing the Case

The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the "Council"), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338,[8] which were lead by Yitzhak Rabin as prime minister of Israel and Yasser Arafat as Palestine Liberation Organisation chairman. The agreement reached several approval including; Israel must stop its occupation withdrawal their troops from Jericho city and Gaza, and those areas should be transferred from Israel to the Palestinian, Israel have to stop to build and expand its illegal colonies, Israel have to open the Northern safe passage route between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and closes the Southern safe passage route and stop using lethal force and Israel asks to Palestinian government to protect its citizens from threat of terrorist as well. Those are several agreement that must be fulfilled by Israel and Palestine.

Nevertheless, the settlement of the dispute is not running on the plan. In real time, however, Israel failed to do its obligations to the treaty or agreement. That’s mean Israel breach the contain of the treaty without performs the obligations that has arise to the treaty. At that time Palestinian is very surprise with the Israel action, because Israel did not withdraw its soldiers from Jericho city and Gaza, Israel’s military occupation not only continues, but also intensifies and Palestinians were still living under military occupation. The number of settlers living  in the West Bank and Gaza Strip has doubled by Israel approximately 400.000 and Israel has increased the number of illegal housing units in the occupied Palestinian Territories by 62%.

In the paragraph above has mentioned obviously that Israel’s action has breached the Oslo agreement, and the point that breached is the important point into the agreement. Its mean Israel has done a material breach or substantial breach by which it is can be held liable a sanction if the Oslo agreement provides it or in the beginning of treaty making, the parties agreed to give a sanction for the party that breach the agreement. So, Israel should be responsible for its action which breach the treaty. The innocent party, here is Palestine, can presume that breach as a ground for terminating or suspending  the agreement in whole or part. The Palestine government has a right to terminates or suspends the Oslo agreement because another party, Israel, has breached the agreement and it gives a bad effect for Palestine. Nonetheless, termination or suspendtion the treaty or agreement must through formal procedure which is regulated in Article 65-68 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Thus, if Palestine government wants to terminate or suspend the treaty then they have to through that procedure and apply it.

Chapter IV

Conclusion

To sum up, according to article 60 (1) of VCLT mentions “a material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part”. It is based on the draft of the International law Commission 1966. In case or the dispute between Palestine and Israel, Palestine has a right to terminate or suspend the operation of the agreement in whole or even in part but they must comply the rule for terminating or suspending a treaty as settled in Article 65-68 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Israel can get a sanction from the agreement if the agreement provides it, because the Government of Israel obviously shows that they has breached the Oslo agreement, because they did not perform their obligations of the treaty and did not have a good faith to apply the treaty. In the principle of pacta sunt servanda has mentioned that all of parties to the treaty must perform a treaty in good faith. Thus, if one party to the treaty do a material breach, so the aggrieved party can make that breach as a ground for terminating or suspending in whole or part of the treaty.

---

[1] Report of the International Law commission to the General Assembly (yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966) vol II, 172, p.211)

[2] YBILC, Vol. II, p.254 (1966)

[3] Loc.cit

[4] Ibid. para.6 at p.255. The Commission emphasized that a violation of a treaty obligation may give the injured party the right to take non-forcible reprisals. These include the non-performance of obligations relating to the rights of the defaulting party under the breached convention. Ibid. p.254.

[5] Ibid. para.6 at p.255.

[6] Ibid. p.254.

[7] The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties by Sir Ian Mc Taggart Sinclair, p.188

[8] The Oslo Accords 1993

THE DISTINCTION OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY IN ICTY & ICC

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The development of modern international criminal law must be seen against the backdrop of the various conflicts of the late 19^th and the 20^th Centuries. Some of these conflicts were relatively narrow whereas others were engaged in on a massive scale or other massacres. As a result, many attempts were made, usually in the aftermath of such a conflict, to codify rules of engagement in armed conflict and to define a set of core crimes that reflect behavior that can never be tolerated in any conflict at all.

The most influential publicist on the topic of crimes against humanity, Cherif Bassiouni, has pointed out that in the popular mind the term crimes against humanity means anything atrocious committed on a large scale.[1] As we can see, this general description is useful as a conceptual starting point but the modern law reveals crimes against humanity to be fairly specific and sometimes elusive. The concept of crimes against humanity was used firstly in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945.

            Then, the development of the concept of crimes against humanity has continued. In 1993, by establishing the ad hoc tribunal or international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) and international criminal tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) also give new definition of crimes against humanity and its elements as well. Both of two concepts or definitions of crimes against humanity were influenced by the concept of crime against humanity in Nuremberg articulation. These tribunals were set up for the purpose to prosecute the perpetrators committed crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia and Rwanda by United Nation’s resolution.

In addition, by establishing both two earlier tribunals is the way of international community to establish a permanent court, ICC, which has purpose for prosecuting extra ordinary crimes which comprise war crime, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. However this research is focusing on crime against humanity. The charter of the permanent court also gives different definition, the offences and elements of crimes against humanity. Thus, crimes against humanity in ICC and ICTY is not so similar. This research want to provide further information regarding the differences of crimes against humanity in ICTY and ICC.

Chapter II

Theoretical Basis

            The first “official” international use of the concept of crime against humanity dates back to May 24, 1915. On that day, the governments of France, Great Britain and Russia issued a joint declaration condemning the deportation and systematic extermination of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire and denouncing these acts as constituting “new crimes against humanity and civilization” for which all members of the Turkish government would be held responsible together with its agents implicated in the massacres.[2]

A few years later, at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the Commission on the Responsibilities of the Authors of War and on Enforcement of Penalties for Violations of the Laws and Customs of War failed to define the new concept. However, the Commission repeatedly used the expressions “crimes-” or “offenses against the laws of humanity” clearly dissociated from “war crimes” or “offenses against the laws and customs of war”: the necessity to create a new legal concept for the designation and the incrimination of a specific form of State criminality, independent of the strict context of war, was undoubtedly recognized.[3]

The majority of commission supported the establishment of a tribunal with criminal jurisdiction over all persons of enemy countries that were found have violated the laws of war or the laws of humanity. However, The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Sevres, which provided for the prosecution of the German Kaiser and Turkish major war criminals respectively were never implemented in this respect.

Hence, in 1945, there is a Tribunal by which is established to prosecute the violators who commit war crime, crime against humanity, and genocide during World War II. The tribunal is namely Nuremberg tribunal and the charter of its tribunal had defined the term of crimes against humanity as well (as mentioned in Chapter I). Subsequently, the definition of crime against humanity has adopted by International Military Tribunal for Far East which take place  in Tokyo to prosecute Japanese war criminals during second World War. The concept of crimes against humanity was used firstly in Art 6(c) of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945.[4] This read as follows:

Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of, or in connection with, any other crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Until the establishment of International criminal tribunal for the former of Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993 and the incorporation therein of Art 5  there is no other international definition of crimes against humanity reappeared since the Nuremberg Statute. Nevertheless, a number of national prosecutions took place through the use of domestic statutes, which, although influenced by the Nuremberg articulation, proved to be significant factors in the gradual development of the concept of crimes against humanity.[5]

                       

Chapter III

Analyzing

A.   Crimes Against Humanity in ICTY

In ICTY statute, the provision of crime against humanity is regulated in Art 5. The ICTY jurisprudence has been largely responsible for its quick evolution and detailed elaboration. Article 5 of the ICTY statute encompasses offences committed in armed conflict, whether International or internal in character, being a part of overall attack any civilian population directly. Hence, there are five elements that comprise this offence under the ICTY statute are:

a.       Existence of an attack;

b.      The perpetrators acts must be part of the attack;

c.       The attack must be directed against any civilian population;

d.      The attack must be widespread or systematic; and

e.       The perpetrator must know of the wider context in which his acts occur and know that his acts are part of the attack

There is a list of offences which may constitute an attack under the concept of crime against humanity in ICTY. They consist of

a.       murder;

b.      extermination;

c.       enslavement;

d.      deportation;

e.       imprisonment;

f.       torture;

g.      rape;

h.      persecution on political, racial and religious grounds;

i.        other inhumane.

The ICTY definition also has retained the armed hostilities nexus of the Charter of Nuremberg Tribunal obviously, but has accepted jurisdiction irrespective of the nature of the conflict. The ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case held that Art 5 was narrower than customary international law, which no longer requires any nexus to armed conflict. This aspect of customary law (that is, the absence of a nexus to armed conflict) is reflected in Art 3 of the ICTR Statute, which, however, requires the existence of a discriminatory intent on national, political, ethnic, racial or religious grounds.[6] In Art 5 of ICTY statute requires discriminatory only with regard to the specific offence of persecution.

In article 3 of the ICTR statute further qualifies an attack as crime against humanity when it is perpetrated in widespread or systematic fashion. This last element requiring a widespread or systematic attack, although not expressly articulated in art 5 of the ICTY statute, follows the customary definition of crimes against humanity and was early elaborated by ICTY Chambers. In addition, International law requires that only overall attack, and not the underlying offences, be widespread or systematic. This is mean that a single offence could be regarded as a crime against humanity if it takes place under the umbrella of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.

The Blaskic judgment held that the term ‘systematic’ requires the following ingredients:

a.       The existence of a political objective, a plan pursuant to which the attack is perpetrated or an ideology that aims to destroy, persecute or weaken a community;

b.      The perpetration of a crime on a large scale against a civilian group, or the repeated and continuous commission of inhumane acts linked to one another;

c.       The preparation and use of significant public or private resources, whether military or other; and

d.      The implication of high-level political and/or military authorities in the definition and establishment of the plan.[7]

In addition, the Akayesu judgment defined a systematic attack as one that is ‘thoroughly organized and following a regular pattern on the basis of a common policy involving substantial public or private resources’.[8] Moreover, the existence of a plan does not have to be expressly declared, nor clearly and precisely stated, in order to prove the systematic element of crimes against humanity, although if such is found it will be useful from an evidentiary point of view.[9]

Meanwhile, the term widespread of element of crimes against humanity is easier to substantiate, it refers to the number of victims and the scale of the acts perpetrated. The judgment of Akayesu has defined the element of ‘widespread’ as ‘massive, frequent, large scale action, carried out collectively with considerable seriousness and directed against a multiplicity of victims’.[10] Besides that, in crime against humanity, the perpetrators are engaging in particular unlawful acts with the knowledge and committing those acts on a widespread scale or based on a policy against civilian population. Thus, a single unlawful act which is perpetrated with the knowledge that it is part of an overall attack directly against a civilian population constitutes a crime against humanity as well.  

B.   Crimes Against Humanity in ICC

In ICC the number of offences which constitute an attack under concept of crime against humanity are different than the number of offences that was found in ICTY statute. The general threshold for crimes against humanity in ICC statute is laid down in Article 7 (1), comprising any act contained in an exhaustive list of offences when committed ‘as part of a widespread or systematic attack’ against any civilian population. Then, the concept of an ‘attack’ in the ICC statute is regulated in Art 7(2)(a) that mentions a ‘course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts pursuant to or in furtherance of a state or organizational policy to commit such attack’. The mens rea for crimes against humanity in ICC requires that the perpetrator act with knowledge that his or her underlying offence was part of an overall widespread or systematic attack against civilian population and the elements of the particular offence be proven.[11]

However, unlike the ICTY statute, in Art 7 of ICC statute does not require a nexus to an armed conflict or a discriminatory intent. The persecution as crime against humanity in the ICC context refers only to extreme forms of discrimination with has a criminal character clearly. Moreover, persecution can only be characterized as a crime against humanity if it is linked to any of the other 10 acts articulated in Art 7 or any other offence within the jurisdiction of the court. Besides that, the ambit of offence of a sexual nature comprising crimes against humanity has been considerably expanded in comparison to the ICTY statute, including sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any form of sexual violence of comparable gravity.[12] This is the offences which is regulated in Art 7 of ICC statute:

a.       Murder;

b.      Extermination;

c.       Enslavement;

d.      Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

e.       Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

f.       Torture;

g.      Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

h.      Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

i.        Enforced disappearance of persons;

j.        The crime of apartheid;

k.      Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

Chapter IV

Conclusion

            To sum up, in crime against humanity, the perpetrator that commit crimes against any civilian population can only be punished if the violator has fulfilled all elements of the offence. The term and the elements of crime against humanity in ICTY and ICC are not so different. In the one hand, ICC statute also requires elements of crime against humanity as same as in the ICTY. On the other hand, there are several differences between crime against humanity in ICTY statute and ICC statute as well, including the term of sexual violence is more expand in ICC statute rather than in ICTY statute and ICC statute does not require a nexus to an armed conflict or a discriminatory intent, whereas ICTY requires a nexus to an armed conflict.

---

[1] Crimes Against Humanity, in Crimes of War – The Book http://www.crimesofwar.org/the book/crimes-against-humanity.html. His monumental work, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law (2d rev. ed., 1997), remains the gold standard on this subject. See the extensive review of Bassiouni’s book by Ambos, (2003) 14 Criminal Law Forum 225.  

[2]  Sévane Garibian, Crime against Humanity, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, [online], published on 19 June 2008,

[3]  Idem

[4]  Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law(Third Edition). 1945 Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, 82 UNTS 279. See E Schwelb, ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, 23 BYIL (1946), 178; B Van Schaack, ‘The Definition of Crimes Against Humanity: Resolving the Incoherence’, 37 Columbia J Trans L (1999),787.

[5]  Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law(Third Edition).

[6]  ICTY Prosecutor v Tadic, Appeals Jurisdiction Decision (2 Oct 1995), paras 140-41

[7]  ICTY Prosecutor v Blaskic, Trial Chamber Judgment (3 March 2000), para 203

[8]  ICTR Prosecutor v Akayesu, Trial Chamber Judgment (2 Sept 1998), para 580.

[9]  Blaskic Trial Judgment, note 26, para 204

[10]  Akayesu Trial Judgment, note 27, para 580.

[11]  Ilias Bantekas and Susan Nash, International Criminal Law(Third Edition).

[12]  Art 7(1)(g), ICC Statute