Competence dispute which involves independent state organs occur several times in Indonesia has an impact on obstruction of competence. Several cases of competence dispute which involve independent state organ have been submitted to the Constitutional Court but not all have been granted. This study aims to examined the concern of competence dispute which involves independent state organ and factors of independent state organ can fulfill the subjectum litis criteria of SKLN in Constitutional Court. The research method is normative by using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials, collected from library research. This research analytical data use the statute approach and case approach. The results of this study indicate that the authority of the Constitutional Court does not specifically regulate state institutions that can be subjectum Litis SKLN in the Constitutional Court, there is a gap accommodated by the Constitutional Court in several decisions.
The frame of international news is colored with a series of systemic and consistent human rights violation experienced by the Rohingya ethnic group in Burma. Toward this case, it is unlikely for Burma to be willing and to be able to resolve this case internally. Hence, as a regional security and stability guard in the Southeast Asia region, ASEAN should take part in settling human rights violations that occur in its member states. However, every settlement attempted by ASEAN is constantly distracted with Non-Intervention Principles. This research aims to examine the alternative ideas for Non-Intervention Principles of ASEAN as a settlement towards human rights violation on Rohingya ethnic. This research used normative research, based on the secondary data was employed as the research method. The obtained data were analyzed by using qualitative analysis. The research found that the Non-Intervention principle has been applied in ASEAN in the most rigid form. Meanwhile, Humanitarian Assistance and Humanitarian Intervention mechanism is an alternative settlement towards human rights violations on the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar
Departing from the mandatory vaccination had been debated and received a lot of rejection which has caused intense emotions. In this study, the authors tried to evaluate the mandatory regulation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination from a human rights and utilitarianism perspective. By conducting normative research method, this study revealed that indeed the obligation that tends to be coercive for COVID-19 vaccination seems to violate individual human rights which each individual has the right to decide for themselves whether they want to participate in the program or not without coercion. However, mandatory vaccination is still justified, from a human rights perspective, to protect other people's rights not to be infected with infectious diseases. This is also in line with a utilitarian perspective that departs from the argument that vaccines provide a myriad of benefits for many people in the midst of a pandemic, therefore to create benefits for the majority of society, the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination is something that is needed. Even if necessary, both sanctions and punishments can be justified in utilitarianism to achieve the greatest utility for the society.
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.