Malaysia has asserted sovereign rights over the ND6 and ND7 sea blocks, which partially overlap with the Ambalat and East Ambalat sea blocks. Indonesia has also asserted sovereign rights over there. This article argues the validity of Malaysia's claim over the ND6 and ND7 sea blocks by virtue of the Pulau Ligitan dan Pulau Sipadan case in which the International Court of Justice found that the 4°10' N parallel mentioned in the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands Defining Boundaries in Borneo terminated on the east coast of Sebatik and did not extend seawards. This article finds that Malaysia may use the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands as a basis to assert sovereign rights over the ND6 and ND7 sea blocks. The authors also highlights several other documents including a 1954 British declaration and bilateral treaties between Malaysia and Indonesia.
The retirement benefits scheme is one of the social security protections accorded to employees around the world. In Malaysia, the retirement benefits scheme is in the form of the contribution made by both employer and employee at a specified rate based on the employee’s monthly wages and such contribution will be credited into the employee’s fund. An employee is allowed to withdraw money from the fund when he or she reaches retirement age. The doctrinal study found that the retirement benefits scheme in Malaysia differs greatly between the local employees and migrant workers. Although migrant workers are allowed to contribute to the retirement benefits scheme known as Employees Provident Fund, their contribution is voluntary, and not done compulsorily. The contribution of the employer is capped at only RM5 per month, which is very low. It is exacerbated by the fact that the contribution in the fund is not transferable as the Employees Provident Fund Act does not provide any provision to transfer the retirement benefit to another scheme in another country. It is hoped that these challenges faced by migrant workers will be given due consideration by the government to allow the migrant workers to have adequate social security protection by reforming the current retirement benefit statute or introducing a new retirement benefit statute that only protects the migrant workers.
The doctrine of superior responsibility has been embedded in Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which enunciates the responsibility of both military commanders and civilian superiors. Although constitutional monarchs are civilians entrusted with the position of commanders in chief, there are States that opposed accession to the Rome Statute on the simple ground that their respective monarchs could be indicted and punished under the Rome Statute. The main objective of this paper, therefore, is to examine whether constitutional monarchs could be responsible under the doctrine of superior responsibility. The paper focuses on the analysis of the elements of superior responsibility by referring to the authoritative commentaries of Article 28 and constitutional practices of three selected constitutional monarchies: the United Kingdom, Japan, and Malaysia. The paper finds that constitutional monarchs could not be held responsible because they have to act on the advice of the government and do not possess the effective and operational control over the armed forces as required under the Rome statute.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.