i
Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional
OPINIO JURIS
Volume 17 Januari —April 2015
DIREKTORAT JENDERAL HUKUM DAN PERJANJIAN INTERNASIONAL
KEMENTERIAN LUAR NEGERI REPUBLIK INDONESIA 2015
Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional OPINIO JURIS Volume 17 Januari —April 2015
Diterbitkan oleh Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional Kementerian Luar Negeri Sejak Oktober 2009
Penanggung Jawab Ferry Adamhar, SH, LL.M Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman Redaktur Patrick S. Hasjim, S.H., M.Si; Drs. Sukarsono; Sudarsono, S.H., MM; Rofita, S.H.; Zainul Idris Yunus, S.E.; Fajar Yusuf, S.H., LL.M; Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho, S.H., LL.M; Editor
Ahmad Saleh Bawazier, S.H., M.H., M.A.; Nenda Inasa Fadhilah, S.H., LL.M.; Santa Marelda Saragih, S.H., MH.; Vina Novianti, S.Hum.; Rike Wijayanti Octaviany, S.H., LL.M.; M. Ferdien, S.H.; Galuh Indriana Rarasanti, S.H.; Dyan Radin Swastika, S.H. Disain Grafis
Asep Hermawan; Andre Bramantya, S.H. Sekretariat Uki Subki, S.Sos, M.Si; Agustian; Sutono, S.Sos; Tasunah; Maisaroh, S.Sos. Anisa Husna, S.Hum. Alamat Redaksi:
Sekretariat Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional Kementerian Luar Negeri Jl. Taman Pejambon No. 6 Jakarta Pusat Telp. +62 21 3846633 Fax. +62 21 3858044; Email: [email protected] Jurnal Opinio Juris versi digital dapat diunduh di website http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/
Tulisan yang dimuat dalam Jurnal Opinio Juris adalah pendapat dan
analisis pribadi dari para penulis dan tidak mewakili pandangan/posisi
Kementerian Luar Negeri dan/atau Pemerintah Republik Indonesia.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
iii
DAFTAR ISI
Daftar Isi .............................................................................................................. iii Pengantar Redaksi ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 8 REVIEW BUKU 8 Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study Stefan Kadelbach ..................................................................................................... 8 Simon Butt ........................................................................................................... 51 Abdulkadir Jaelani ................................................................................................ 44 Haryo Budi Utomo ............................................................................................... 51 Prita Amalia ....................................................................................................... 102 GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................... 108 TENTANG PENULIS ...................................................................................... 109
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
iv
PENGANTAR REDAKSI
Dalam rangka menjalankan tugas dan fungsi diseminasi
informasi terkait isu-isu hukum dan perjanjian internasional,
Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional telah
menerbitkan Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional yang
diberi nama “Jurnal Opinio Juris”.
Dalam Volume 17 tahun 2015 ini, redaksi membahas resensi
buku Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman berjudul “Treaties Under
Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study” oleh lima peresensi buku,
yaitu Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach, Prof. Simon Butt, Dr. Haryo Budi
Utomo, Prita Amalia S.H. M.H., dan Abdulkadir Jaelani S.H., M.H.
M.A.
Dalam kesempatan ini, redaksi Opinio Juris juga hendak
mengucapkan terima kasih kepada para anggota redaksi terdahulu
yang telah mendapat penugasan baru di beberapa Perwakilan RI
atas dedikasinya dalam memajukan Opinio Juris. Redaksi juga
mengajak para pembaca untuk turut berkontribusi serta
memberikan saran dan masukannya demi peningkatan kualitas
Opinio Juris di masa mendatang melalui email
Untuk memudahkan para pembaca setia Opinio Juris,
Redaksi telah memuat Opinio Juris yang pernah terbit terdahulu
pada Perpustakaan Hukum Digital (e-library) Kemlu yang dapat di
akses melalui http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/. Pada kesempatan
ini, Redaksi Opinio Juris secara terus menerus mengajak para
pembaca untuk turut menyumbangkan tulisan, memberikan saran
dan masukannya demi peningkatan kualitas Opinio Juris di masa
mendatang.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
v
Akhir kata, Redaksi Opinio Juris berharap semoga jurnal ini
dapat bermanfaat serta menjadi sarana dalam menyebarluaskan
informasi dan wadah sumbangsih pemikiran di bidang hukum dan
perjanjian internasional yang berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan
hubungan luar negeri.
Terima kasih dan selamat membaca.
Redaksi Opinio Juris
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
6
BOOK: “TREATIES UNDER INDONESIAN LAW”
(ROSDA, 2014)
Executive Summary
Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman
[email protected] http://perjanjian-internasional.blogspot.com
1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMBIGUITIES CONCERNING TREATIES
UNDER INDONESIAN LAW
At present, the legal status of treaties under Indonesian law is still
ambiguous in nature. By using traditional monist-dualist theories as tools
of analysis and the empirical basis of comparative research, it was
revealed that the existing constitutional order of Indonesia has not
adequately addressed the legal status of treaties under its domestic law.
In practice, there are various constitutional interpretations on their
domestic status in Indonesia that are at variance with one another, and
mutually negate each another. Different interpretations have led to
different outcomes. Such various different interpretations stem from
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
7
various constitutional ambiguities that exist in the constitutional order of
Indonesia. The ambiguities are created by the following: unclear
constitutional provisions, poorly drafted statutory laws concerning
treaties, no theoretically informed basis, and inconsistent constitutional
practices. The constitutional ambiguities have resulted in legal
uncertainty about the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law.
The remnants of the monist legal approach of the Netherlands had
occupied the legal thoughts of many Indonesian scholars in the earlier
period of independence. Many scholars viewed that once a treaty enters
into force, it binds Indonesia. Thus the question of deciding on its
domestic status was considered unnecessary. The influence of Indonesian
constitutional experts in the years to come, coupled with the emerging
issues of non-self-executing treaties in international practice, apparently
affected such monist legal thoughts, which in turn brought up a dualist
legal view in scholarly fields.
In subsequent practice, the two conflicting theories have inadvertently
influenced the observations of many scholars in Indonesia within their
respective spheres. The debate was however conducted without any
theoretically informed concept or academic guidance due to a shortage of
legal expertise and a lack of international legal references. The domestic
order was influenced by the absence of a theoretical backup. Thus the
legal construction existed without any necessary concept relevant to the
determination of the domestic status of treaties, such as the mode for
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
8
granting domestic validity, the hierarchical rank of treaties in domestic
law; etc.
The strict separation of the academic disciplines between constitutional
law and international law in Indonesia also contributed to the deficiency
of the domestic order. The two academic disciplines never collaborated
and did not keep each other well-informed. The constitutional order is
understood partially, be it from the viewpoint of constitutional law
or/and international law that was never approached through a
collaborative perspective. Constitutionalists and international law experts
in Indonesia interpreted the order in an uncoordinated manner and
imposed their own terms in interpreting the constitutional provisions for
their own respective academic fields. Both groups of experts understood
treaties in their isolated schools of thought and independent perspectives.
As a result, the constitutional approach became incoherent because it
ignored relevant international aspects of domestic law. The
understanding of treaties by international law experts lacked domestic
legal aspects. Such rudimentary and incomprehensive outlooks
apparently caused and exacerbated the said constitutional ambiguities.
Although the sentiment of nationalism, the culture of resistance or
indifference towards the so-called ‘colonial’ international law in Indonesia
since the 1960s has been fading away, there was still no great interest
among Indonesian scholars to place treaties properly in domestic law
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
9
until recently. Policy option is still absent in the constitutional agenda. No
intensive scholarly debate has to date significantly taken place on the
matter. Various factors account for this. From the experiences of the states
under comparative examination, this kind of attitude appears to be
typical in developing countries that have no close connection to the
Western legal tradition, as evidently shown by China. The following
historical facts have contributed to the typical unenthusiastic attitude:
Indonesia developed its own legal system by disconnecting it from the
legal tradition of its former colonial states, its geo-political isolation from
intensive international interactions, and the hostile attitude of Indonesia
towards international law in the earliest phase of independence. The
authoritarian government regime in the aftermath delayed the
development of the constitutional order on treaties. The need for a clear
regime of the domestic aspect of treaties arose only after Indonesia
entered into a democratic system in 1999, 54 years after gaining
independence.
As Indonesia continues its transition toward a fully democratic system,
the question concerning the legal status of treaties to which Indonesia is
bound shall be adequately addressed and their validity under domestic
law shall be constitutionally determined. Their domestic treatment can no
longer rely on discretionary power. To serve this purpose, Indonesia
needs a clear basis for their domestic application as well as their
constitutional legitimacy. Such a clear basis could be achieved by
optimizing the existing legal regime.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
10
There are at least three constitutional ambiguities that need to be
resolved with a view to optimize the existing legal regime concerning the
status of treaties under Indonesian law:
a. The utmost ambiguity is rooted in the existing constitutional
provisions i.e. Article 11 of the Constitution of 1945: The President,
with the approval of the DPR1, declares war, makes peace, and treaties with
other states, which is considered too simplistic and largely
influenced by the provision from the Meiji Constitution. While in
Meiji Constitution prescribed that “the Japanese Emperor was
empowered to make treaties”), the Indonesian version was only slightly
modified through the insertion of the words ‘with the approval of the
House of Representatives’. Such a formulation has raised many legal
difficulties in practice as it may be interpreted that Parliament could
be involved in all stages of the treaty-making process and that all
treaties are subject to parliamentary approval.
b. The second problem concerns the role of Parliament in treaty-
making, in view of existing constitutional practices which arises
from the first ambiguity. The practice distinguishes its functions in a
strict manner i.e. whether it is within the ambit of legislative
1 The Indonesian term DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) corresponds to the Indonesian House of Representatives (hereinafter ‘House of Representatives’). The House of Representatives is considered as the Indonesian Parliament. In this writing, the term ‘parliament’ or ‘parliamentary’ will refer to the House of Representatives.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
11
function or otherwise its oversight functions. This has created
confusion and brought up a number of versions in the
understanding of the outcome of parliamentary participation in
treaty-making. According to the Law No. 24 of 2000 on Treaties, the
parliamentary approval takes a form of ‘law/Act of Parliament
approving treaties’. The choice unintentionally tends to create the
said prescription that the determination of the domestic status of
treaties would correspond to the legal effect of parliamentary
participation. This is in particular when it comes to how one
signifies the law approving treaties as the outcome of such
participation. On the one hand, the view that parliamentary
participation in treaty-making is within the ambit of legislative
function has tended to induce the interpretation of the law
approving a treaty as a legislative product. On the other, there also
appears a view that such participation is within the ambit of the
Parliament’s oversight function, which tends to create a strong
assertion that the law approving a treaty is merely a formal
expression of parliamentary approval.
c. The third relates to the consequence that indirectly took place due to
the second ambiguity, which relates to the mode of granting the
treaty domestic validity. The choice has created a double
interpretation with regard to the law approving a treaty. On the one
hand, the view that the law approving treaties is a legislative
product has induced the idea that it constitutes a transformation
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
12
into domestic law. The other view states that the law is merely a
formal expression of parliamentary approval and has led to an
approach whereby the treaty, upon its entry into force, is considered
as adopted instead of transformed into domestic law. The entry into
force of the treaty in international law is considered identical with
its entry into domestic law.
2. POLICY OPTIONS
Since neither monism nor dualism is satisfactory, and no single
constitutional order subscribes to strict monism or dualism as well as to a
stringent mode of adoption or transformation, the idea of establishing a
constitutional order on the basis of pure monism and strict dualism is not
realistic and therefore should not per se serve as policy option. However,
the knowledge of the conceptual divide between the two theories is
considered as owing great importance towards a proper understanding
concerning the different attitudes of states in giving domestic effect to
treaties, and provides a clear perspective necessary for a starting point in
the formation of policy in the constitutions.
Various approaches in the actual practice of states illustrate that, under
both monism and dualism, the distinction between the validity of treaties
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
13
under international law and under domestic law becomes inevitable. It is
increasingly held in the actual practice that international law and
domestic law have their own standpoint in dealing with the relationship
between treaties and domestic law by which different outcomes may
arise. At this stage international law remains silent on how domestic law
should meet treaty obligations. This is because the nature of such
obligations is normally that of obligations of result, with the exception of
human rights treaties, which have been arguably seen as imposing
obligations of conduct. It is therefore not feasible to maintain a policy
which holds that the domestic validity of a treaty is dictated by
international law, as monism suggests, or to view that a treaty under
international law is completely separated from that of a treaty under
(which is transformed into) domestic law, as dualism suggests. Actual
practice of states demonstrates that both are distinguishable but
inextricable. Policy consideration shall therefore include these converging
and diverging elements of monism and dualism.
The experiences of the states under review reveal that a constitutional
regime regarding the domestic status of treaties is not supposed to change
abruptly from one doctrinal approach to another. Building up a legal
regime on the basis of the existing constitutional order is more
appropriate for Indonesia. It is therefore suggested that Indonesia
optimizes its legal regime by reconstructing the existing legal framework
rather than creating a completely new framework. The reconstruction
should clarify the vague legal constructions and fill the gap that exists in
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
14
the current order, resulting from the lack of doctrine. For this purpose
Indonesia needs to have clearer constitutional provisions and at the same
time it has to fix the existing constitutional ambiguities arising from the
distorted practice. The legal concept available at the theoretical level may
provide helpful directions.
3. PARLIAMENTARY PARTICIPATION
Indonesia is already equipped with democratic constitutional
infrastructures that may serve to build up a clearer legal regime with
regard to the question of the status of treaties in domestic law in which
parliamentary participation may be well facilitated. There exist sufficient
state organs that are basically required for a modern state, inter alia,
President, Parliament, and also the various types of judicial institutions.
The treaty-making power can be properly allocated among the state
organs.
The existing constitutional arrangement has, however, invited criticism
for its ambiguity. The simple and ambiguous provision under the
Constitution as such could be widely interpreted in a manner that
Parliament is involved in all stages of the treaty-making process and gives
consent to all treaties. The clarification made by Law No. 24 of 2000 on
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
15
Treaties which technically modified the original meaning of the provision
of the Constitution, has appeared to constitute unintentionally a quasi-
constitutional amendment and given rise to the question of
constitutionality. For a coherent system, this constitutional defect must be
fixed so that all parliamentary powers should only be given effect by the
Constitution.
The subsequent practices of treaty-making of the states under review,
in light of the proliferation of subject matters that require parliamentary
approval, have suggested that parliamentary participation should not
necessarily be determined on the basis of a distinction between its
legislative function and oversight function. The existing constitutional
setting, which tends to regard the law approving a treaty as either merely
a legislative product (within the ambit of legislative function) or
otherwise merely a formal expression of parliamentary approval, is not
helpful in describing the proper role of Parliament. The current
democratic system has prompted an extensive participation of Parliament
in all matters that are related to political and economic strategic interests
as well as matters that may affect the rights and obligations of
individuals. In this regard, the outcome of parliamentary approval, in the
form of statutory law, shall be attributed to the general function of
Parliament without necessarily referring to the distinction between those
functions. Parliamentary participation may embrace all matters within the
ambit of legislative function, oversight function as well as budgetary
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
16
function. Therefore, all functions are equally necessary and should be
attached to parliamentary participation in treaty-making.
4. CRITERIA OF TREATIES THAT REQUIRE PARLIAMENTARY
PARTICIPATION
The criteria as set out in Law No. 24 of 2000, which are on the basis of a
general description of subject matters, are no longer adequate for two
main reasons. First, the criteria should be stipulated in the Constitution
instead of the lower legislation as it stands now, since this very matter
relates to the allocation of constitutional powers which belong to the
Constitution. Second, these criteria greatly emphasize on politically-heavy
matters concerning the very existence of the state and exclude, in most
parts, matters that affect the rights and obligations of individuals which
fall under the legislative domain. As apparent from the comparative
outlook, legislative power is nowadays vested in Parliament. On the other
hand, there is a growing number of treaties intended to produce
legislative effects. It is therefore compelling to include matters that are
subject to legislation in the criteria. The inclusion of matters of legislation
into the criteria will prevent the drafting out of legislation through
backroom deals without parliamentary control. Other important matters
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
17
that carry political and economic strategic interests of the state may be
added to the criteria.
The criteria on the basis of constitutional separation of powers between
Parliament and President are apparently more feasible than making a
distinction between a political and an executive/technical nature of a
treaty. The complexity and wide range of subject matters covered by
treaties under globalization have created difficulties in drawing such
distinctions in the practice. It is not always easy to assess treaties as
technically and politically important. Therefore, other treaties which do
not fall into the category of those that require parliamentary approval
shall relate to matters that are, according to the Constitution, exclusively
under the purview of government powers.
The existing legal framework raised a problem because the subject
matters that are qualified to be embodied in a statutory law should be
according to a set of criteria, determined by Treaties Law No. 24 of 2000
and Law No. 12 of 2011 on Legislation. The former deals with criteria of
treaties that are subject to parliamentary approval in the form of statutory
law, and the latter determines what subject matters should be embodied
in statutory law. The criteria set out by the two Laws overlap and are
uncoordinated, which seemingly reflects the differences in legal thought
between experts of constitutional law and international law. They bring
about great disparities in terms of their subject matters and thus the two
laws need to be synchronized.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
18
The criteria for having a treaty approved in the form of a statutory law
need to be revised. As suggested above, it is preferable that the criteria
shall be construed on the basis of, and therefore covering, all
parliamentary functions. The first criterion concerns treaties that contain
subjects of legislative matters. Treaties regulate matters which, according
to prevailing regulations, shall be the content of a statutory law. This
must then be submitted to Parliament for approval and acquire the order
of execution in the form of statutory law. The second criterion concerns
matters that effect strategic interests of Indonesia, over which Parliament
performs the function of oversight or monitoring control. These may be
matters concerning political and economic strategic interests, the
application of which will affect the very existence of Indonesia as an
independent state. These treaties may not necessarily affect the rights and
obligations of individuals and may be outside of legislative matters. The
most frequently quoted treaties under this criterion are, inter alia,
boundary treaties; defense and security treaties; and friendship treaties.
For these treaties, the statutory law may only grant authorization to the
President to ratify them. The third criterion concerns treaties relating to
state budget. This kind of treaty generates financial burdens for which a
specific financial plan shall be allocated in the state budget. Loan
agreements or memberships to international organizations that involve
financial contribution belong to this kind of treaty as well.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
19
As envisaged from the comparative analysis, the government decision
determining that a treaty according to its subject matters requires no
parliamentary approval may be subject to constitutional dispute. It may
lead to the abuse of power and result in arbitrary decisions if the
discretion is entirely left to the government unchecked. The model of the
Netherlands, where the Parliament is empowered to decide otherwise,
would apparently prevent such abuse. Upon the submission of the list of
treaties under negotiation to Parliament, the government may indicate
that the treaties in question do not require parliamentary approval but, on
the contrary, Parliament may decide, on the basis of its own interpretation
according to the criteria that the treaties shall be subject to its approval.
5. MODES BY WHICH TREATIES ARE INCORPORATED INTO
DOMESTIC LAW
The comparative analysis offers various options concerning the modes
for granting domestic validity of a treaty where all of the options have
already been interchangeably adopted in the practice and held by scholars
in Indonesia. As a former colony of a monist state, Indonesia is not
unfamiliar with the monist-adoption mode because it had practiced this
approach in its early years of independence and therefore, in terms of
legal tradition, its legal system was rooted in a monist basis. The dualist-
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
20
transformation mode has also found its expression in the legal practices in
Indonesia. Since 1974, there has been a growing tendency which
considered the law approving a treaty as constituting transformation by
which the treaty becomes valid in domestic law. Now, there exists
another variant of the transformation mode where the law approving a
treaty is still regarded as a formal expression of parliamentary approval
but separate transformation legislation is still required for granting
domestic validity to the treaty.
Indonesia is also familiar with providing reference provisions in
domestic law by which a treaty may acquire domestic status upon its
entry into force. Despite the fact that the mode may effectively give effect
to a treaty in domestic law, the scope of this mode is still limited to
specific treaties and is not expected to provide a general rule which
applies for all treaties. This mode may, however, complement a general
mode, particularly in determining the special status of a given treaty with
regard to its hierarchical rank.
As a former colony of a monist state, the monist tradition continues to
occupy the mindset of policymakers at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Indonesian position towards the UN Human Rights Body can be
described as one that is aimed at carrying out its international obligations
faithfully at the domestic level, without giving due regard to possible
dualist barriers. Historical facts point out that dualism does not belong to
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
21
the Indonesian tradition - Indonesia was never influenced by the common
law dualist system and it was never persuaded by the dualist thinking of
Triepel or Anzilotti. Tendencies to portray a dualist posture in its
subsequent legal practices should not to be misunderstood as a proper
dualist attitude taken up by Indonesia. It is an expression of public
sentiment in Indonesia that international law is nothing but international
morality, or that this branch of law is not familiar to Indonesia. In this
regard, a dualist perspective is not only seen as unfamiliar to Indonesia
but also as not having a basis in its legal system.
Globalization meanwhile has given rise to the need for protecting the
legal interests of domestic law in light of the pressures arising from
democratic legitimacy. The idea of democratic legitimacy finds its
expression in the current political setting where the principle of rule of
law (Rechtsstaat), democracy, as well as checks and balances are high on
the political transformation agenda. The political attitudes arising from
the current democratic transition has induced many policymakers to
pursue a dualist preference, as has been indicated by a number of cases
brought to courts, in which a greater call for shielding domestic law from
international intrusion has been expressed. The two aspects shall
therefore play an important role in the policy options by which a radical
monist as well as a strict dualist mode becomes untenable. The best mode
Indonesia could adopt may be reached by reconciling the interest of
democratic legitimacy, on the one hand, and removing unnecessary
legislative burden, on the other.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
22
The monist-adoption mode had been practiced by Indonesia in the
earliest period of independence but was then gradually abandoned in the
wake of nationalism and constitutionalist pressure that arose in the
subsequent period. The monist character of the first mode might not
impress constitutionalists in Indonesia at the present stage, at a time when
democratic values play an increasingly important role on the political
agenda. Constitutionalists developed a constitutional law during the pre-
reform regime in favour of nationalism by which they have been more
accustomed to domestic legislations than to treaty rules . The presence of
treaty rules in domestic law without the cover of domestic legislation as
envisaged by this mode will invite strong resistance from those legal
enforcers who are mostly unfamiliar with treaties that have not been
incorporated into legislation.
The dualist-transformation may look compatible to the existing legal
practice but it is not free from distorted constitutional features. The first
concerns the allocation of powers among constitutional organs that are
involved in the treaty- making. From the inception of the state, treaty-
making power in Indonesia was not under the exclusive competence of
the executive. Indonesia has therefore not subscribed to the constitutional
distinction between treaty-making by executive and treaty
implementation by legislature as is widely known in dualist states. The
application of dualist transformation in Indonesia will create a procedure
where the same organs will conclude a treaty and transform it into
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
23
domestic legislation in a separate arrangement. This procedure will be
excessive because there will be two different statutory laws for the same
treaty i.e. the law approving the treaty for ratification and the law
transforming the treaty into domestic law. In this regard, Indonesia
should not subscribe to a mode that requires it to enact two different and
separate laws devoted respectively to the conclusion and the granting of
municipal validity of a treaty. From a procedural perspective, the mode
will overburden the legislative bodies because with the same procedure
they are required to enact two different laws for a relatively similar
purpose. The two may actually be given effect by virtue of the same and a
single law. Furthermore, two different kinds of parliamentary treatment
to a treaty will create a dilemmatic question of great constitutional
importance i.e. whether Parliament, having granted the approval to the
ratification of a treaty, may reject its transformation into domestic law
through the same course of action as may occur in the South African
system.
The second problem concerns the place of transformed treaties in the
legislative structure arising from the system of Stufenbau. Indonesia
subscribes to a hierarchical legislative system based on Kelsen’s Stufenbau
that, according to the current law, is divided into eight different levels.
The complex situation of this legislative hierarchical system, if applied
consistently, will create legal difficulties in placing the transformed treaty
rightly in light of so many levels of legislation. It will bring about too
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
24
many different hierarchical ranks of treaties and give rise to a complex
relationship between them in domestic law.
From the substantive perspective, the dualist-transformation mode will
not be easily adaptable with regard to certain treaties that are concerned
with human values, such as human rights treaties, and financial interests,
such as tax treaties. These treaties possess characters that mainly impose
restrictions on the free will of the legislatures. The experiences of strict
dualist legal systems all over the world have revealed that the dualist
principles are increasingly eroded by the intrusive character of human
rights treaties in such a way that dualist states are gradually forced to
adopt remedial monist-like measures, such as consistent interpretation
(Charming Betsy doctrine), the Australian legitimate expectation doctrine
(so-called Teoh doctrine), and the British implied incorporation.
The inconsistent views expressed by the Government before the UN
Human Rights Bodies have raised significant doubt whether Indonesia is
truly applying a dualist approach in respect to human rights treaties.
Indonesia has indeed persistently argued that human rights conventions
are not self-executing and this view appears to deny their self-executing
nature by unconsciously invoking dualist arguments rather than the
merits of the provisions. However, Article 7 (2) of Law No. 39 of 1999 on
Human Rights provides a general rule which gives effect to human rights
treaties whereby the treaties become part of Indonesian law upon their
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
25
entry into force. The argument that the Convention is not self-executing,
on the one hand, and the existence of reference domestic provisions
declaring that the Convention becomes part of domestic law, on the other,
will weaken the assertion that Indonesia applies a dualist approach to
human rights treaties. In this respect, human rights treaties may form part
of Indonesian law but in the same vein this fact should not necessarily
imply that treaties have a self-executing character. This feature is closer to
the monist model of the Netherlands. However, on the basis of the same
Article, the Government in 2013 expressed a contrasting view in favour of
direct application. The inconsistent views overturned the consolidation of
either approach, and brought about the process of going nowhere.
Having visited the existing legal frameworks in Indonesia with respect
to the relations between treaties and domestic law, it is argued that
Indonesia should embrace both elements and seek a point of balance
between the two dominating approaches. The most suitable mode for
Indonesia is the mode that attempts to reconcile the two extreme
approaches and at the same time keeps the balance between an
international law-friendly attitude, on the one hand, and democratic
legitimacy on the other. From the available options offered by the
constitutional orders examined, the doctrine of the order of execution
(Vollzugslehre), one of the doctrines prevailing in Germany, would be best
suited for the Indonesian legal system. Some valid reasons may, inter alia,
justify this policy option:
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
26
a. The current practice of Indonesia suggests a mixed approach that
amalgamates two models: the German dualist model and the monist
model of the Netherlands. This is exemplified through the double
meaning given to the law approving a treaty in Indonesian practice.
The law approving a treaty was rooted in the model of the
Netherlands, which was originally intended to authorize the President
to ratify the respective treaty. In the subsequent practice, however, it
has been gradually understood by most constitutionalists as
‘transforming’ the treaty into domestic law. The amalgamation of the
two doctrines altogether will present ambiguities and raise
uncertainties pertaining to the legal status of the given treaty in
domestic law. The two prevailing models should therefore be
reconstructed in a manner that the two converge into a single coherent
approach, embracing both elements. Therefore, the precise legal
character of the law approving a treaty, which is still unclear and
ambiguous, should be clarified. In this regard, the law approving a
treaty should be assigned the function of expressing a formal approval
of Parliament (as originally envisaged by the framers of the
Constitution) and at the same time it should constitute an order of
execution of the treaty in domestic law (as demanded by the
subsequent practice).
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
27
b. The doctrine of the order of execution has encompassed all
constitutional concerns that have occupied most Indonesian
constitutionalists so far. First, the sovereignty of the state in granting a
treaty access to enter in domestic law is well preserved, because it
needs domestic authorization in the form of a national legislation. The
domestic law authority is well respected in the sense that it is the
domestic law that permits the entry of the treaty into domestic law.
Second, the role of Parliament as the popular representation in treaty-
making is secured, in which therefore, the democratic legitimacy of
the treaty could be upheld.
c. The doctrine could also ease the concern of international law experts
because it could bridge the gap between treaties and domestic law as
expected by them. International law experts would prefer this as
having a closely connected relation to a separated one thus the
domestic and external procedures, albeit distinguished, are
interrelated and form part of an integrated process.
d. The doctrine does not envisage transformation and therefore does not
need to equate treaties with the complex structure of Indonesian
legislation. The nature of the legislation as required under this
doctrine is only an order of execution, instead of a transforming
legislation, thus not all levels of legislation are necessarily assigned to
serve as orders of execution.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
28
For adopting the doctrine, there are only two fundamental features
that need to be clarified under the present Indonesian legal system. The
first feature is that of the date of the entry into force of the law approving
a treaty, which is presently distinguished from the date of the entry into
force of the treaty itself, which shall be made concurrent. Following the
German model, the date of the entry into force of the law should be
dependent upon the entry into force of the treaty in Indonesia. The second
feature concerns the character of the provisions of the treaty to be applied
in domestic law. The provisions shall be linked with the international
character of the treaty. The provisions of a treaty applied under domestic
law shall retain their character as treaty provisions and consequently the
interpretation rules shall be governed by international law.
On the basis of this mode, the domestic courts will treat treaty
provisions as having the force of law and may directly apply them in a
given case before it without the aid of ordinary domestic legislation. The
direct application of such treaty provisions could be realized insofar as
the provisions are self-executing or capable to be judicially enforced. The
question of non-self-executing provisions is not unfamiliar to the
Indonesian legislative system. The Constitution and the umbrella laws
normally provide general provisions prescribing that their application
shall be stipulated in or, implemented by, the lower legislations. Pending
the enactment of such implementing legislations, these constitutional and
statutory law provisions cannot be enforced by the courts.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
29
6. THE PLACE OF TREATIES IN THE LEGISLATIVE
HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE
In view of adopting a coherent approach consistent with the idea of
the order of execution mode, the relationship between the statutory laws
and the treaties concerned shall be reconciled by balancing the two
different views i.e. that treaties are identical with the laws approving
them, and that the two are distinguishable legal instruments. Therefore in
order to resolve the perplexity arising from the constitutional practices,
the relationship between the two shall be construed according to the
following premises:
a. Treaties remain distinct from the laws that give order to their
execution; however, the manner in which they are manifested in
domestic law should be concurrent in terms of the date they take
effect.
b. Under this term, domestic treaty-making and lawmaking are
exercised through the same constitutional procedures except in the
case of the right to submit the bill, which should remain vested in the
president.
c. The statutory laws ordering executions shall serve twofold functions
i.e. first, authorizing the president to ratify/accede to a treaty and,
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
30
second, granting domestic effect to the treaty upon its entry into force
to the state.
d. The Constitutional Court may judicially review the laws ordering the
execution of treaties. However, a specific procedure should be set out
in order to affirm that the law ordering the execution has a unique
character distinct from ordinary laws.
The precise and appropriate place a treaty should occupy in the
complex structure of the Indonesian legislative hierarchy would become a
complicated question underlying the policy option and bring about
dilemmatic problems. The use of the form of law for incorporating a
treaty and its integration into the legislative structure might likely imply
that the process constitutes a transformation mode. Furthermore, the
legislative structure under the current system consists of eight levels of
legislations, and it is untenable to have all legislations available to
perform as an order of execution of treaties into Indonesian law. A
general rule should therefore be devised in order to determine what level
of legislation is fitting enough to be used as an order of execution, as well
as what subject matters should belong to each legislation.
The question of parallel treaties, commonly known in the German
system, may arise: whether or not an order of execution in the form of a
statutory order is still required for certain treaties if their provisions have
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
31
already been contained in the existing statutory law. The konkrete Theorie
is preferable, thus these treaties require parliamentary approval and a
concrete order of execution. The reason for this is simply that the exact
parallel legislation hardly exists, even if a piece of legislation provides
mutatis mutandis provisions of a treaty, the language used in the
legislation differs from the original text of the treaties and may create
different interpretations. Parallel treaties thus require their own
legitimacy from Parliament.
Other treaties that, according to the subject matters, do not require
parliamentary approval should take the form of regulations within the
ambit of executive competences i.e. presidential regulations or other
administrative regulations depending on the given subject matters and
the corresponding competent authorities. Under the prevailing law, there
are three levels of executive regulations that belong exclusively within the
competence of the President as the Head of Government i.e. government
regulations, presidential regulations and ministerial regulations, or
regulations enacted by other government organs at the ministerial level.
The form of a government regulation could not be used as an order of
execution of a treaty. This kind of law according to Law No. 12 of 2011
concerning Legislations serves only for the purpose of implementing the
provisions of a statutory law - a general nature of the provisions of the
given law needs to be elaborated or concretized in a number of detailed
provisions in the government regulations. Therefore, no government
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
32
regulation will be enacted in the absence of a clear stipulation by an
existing law. A treaty ordered by a statutory law generally does not
require that the provisions of the treaty shall be implemented by a
government regulation, because the treaty generally contains a set of
autonomous provisions for which no further domestic legislation is
necessary, apart from the law ordering the execution of the treaty. The
government regulations may however be used as implementing
legislation to the law ordering the execution of a treaty, but not within the
context of granting domestic validity of such a treaty. It will be only for
rendering them as self-executing. For example, if a treaty has been
approved through a law and requires that state parties set up a national
body for the implementation of the treaty, the government regulation
may be used to set up this national body.
The only available regulations that may serve as granting domestic
validity of a treaty below statutory law level are presidential regulations,
and ministerial or equivalent regulations. It follows that a treaty whose
subject matters are only within an exclusive authority of a ministry shall
be brought to effect by a ministerial regulation, while a treaty whose
subject matters involve the participation of various ministries shall be
given effect through a presidential regulation. The given treaty will enjoy
rank corresponding to the respective legislation according to the
legislative structure.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
33
The use of a legislative format as orders of execution of treaties shall be
construed in a manner that may fit the legal tradition of Indonesia
concerning legislations. Having inherited the legal tradition of the
Netherlands, laws and regulations in Indonesia may commonly be
identified by two characteristics i.e. the laws and regulations having
regulatory (regeling) character and those having ruling (beschikking)
character. The former contains general provisions in an abstract manner
and are known as proper laws/regulations, while the latter contains a
specific prescription to a concrete circumstance. In respect of
laws/regulations approving treaties, they serve only as domestic orders
to execute the treaty in domestic law by which the provisions remain
embodied in the treaties instead of in the laws/regulations. This order
character resembles the kind of laws/regulations that possess a ruling
(beschikking) character under which they only contain orders and do not
transform or rewrite the provisions of the treaty into the legislation.
Therefore, the laws/regulations shall be identified as having ruling
(beschikking) character instead of regulatory (regeling) character. This legal
construction will ensure that the character of the provisions remain in the
form of treaty provisions, as envisaged by the monist-adoption mode.
As the provinces and municipalities/cities are empowered to enact
their respective regulations, these regulations might be used as orders of
execution of treaties insofar as the subject matters fall into their exclusive
spheres. Nevertheless, although the subject matters are within their
exclusive powers, the central government’s regulations may
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
34
appropriately serve as the execution orders if the treaties are intended to
be applicable to the whole territory instead of specific provinces and
municipalities/cities. This is possible because these local regulations are
not exclusive and they are still subject to central government regulations.
In order to address the concern of the provinces and municipalities/cities,
there must be a mechanism allowing them to participate in the treaty-
making negotiations on matters that are exclusively under their
competences.
As has been suggested above, the laws ordering the execution of
treaties are legislative products with a distinct feature and therefore are
reasonably subjected to constitutional scrutinizing. Indonesia has a
Constitutional Court which partially resembles that of the German model.
Thus the question of the constitutionality of a treaty by virtue of the law
ordering its execution may arise, as is frequently experienced by the
German Constitutional Court. The case of the judicial review of the
ASEAN Charter which was brought before the Constitutional Court in
recent times gave rise to the need to resolve this issue. Even if Indonesia
subscribes to an adoption approach which is closer to a monist
perspective, there is no democratic reason under the present democratic
legal system why the constitutionality of the law ordering the execution
of a treaty cannot be tested. On the other hand, the decision by the
Constitutional Court that might declare a treaty unconstitutional and
therefore null and void will create unnecessary effects by which Indonesia
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
35
violates its international obligations. The constitutionality test however
should have been taken with a distinct procedure in a way that promotes
compliance to international law. The preferred solution for Indonesia is to
provide balance between the two premises that mutually negate each
other by allowing a treaty to be constitutionally tested without creating
unnecessary international obligations. This outcome could be attained by
adopting the German practice, and developing greater legal clarification
on constitutional procedures. Within this context, Indonesia should
prescribe a constitutional procedure, posing some restrictions by which a
treaty upon the enactment of the law ordering its execution may be
submitted for judicial review to the Constitutional Court within a specific
time limit. Within that limit, the President should not ratify the treaty as
yet, pending a Constitutional Court ruling on the case. Following the
lapse of the time limit, the President may proceed to the ratification and
by then no submission of judicial review would be constitutionally
acceptable.
****
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
36
TREATIES UNDER INDONESIAN LAW:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
37
BOOK REVIEW
Judul : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study
Penulis buku : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman
Penerbit : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya
Bahasa : Inggris
Jumlah halaman : 554 Halaman
Tahun penerbitan : Oktober 2014
Pembuat resensi : Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach, LL.M.
As it was the case in many other countries in the Southern
Hemisphere, Indonesia’s relation to international law has gone through
different stages after reaching independence. After a critical period when
all international law was regarded as the product of the colonial powers,
i.e. the North and West, developing countries practices gradually led to a
consolidation that marked the beginning of the next stage. In the
subsequent stage, reforms of the government system resulted in a new
orientation. While in systems of monocracy the executive was the main
actor for the conclusion of treaties, now the coordination with the
legislative power which represents the people became necessary. Like in
many other states, this change takes place without any important changes
of the text of the constitution..
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
38
The book aims at extracting criteria according to which the future
development might take place from comparative legal studies. For that
purpose the author examines Indonesia and four other legal orders
namely the People’s Republic of China, as an aspiring country that plays
an important role in international economic relations and thus faces
similar challenges; the Republic of South Africa, as a state that is similar
to Indonesia in facing the task of placing its international treaty practice
on a new basis after dealing with profound internal turmoil; the
Netherlands, as the legal order from which Indonesian law has developed
with respect to some essential elements; and, finally, as a contrast, the
Federal Republic of Germany which is similar to the Netherlands for
having abundant practices and scientific knowledge, but follows a
different model.
II
The Book is divided into six chapters: (1) An introduction chapter,
describing the Indonesian parameter, the problem and outlining the
methods used; (2) a theoretical chapter on general theories of the domestic
validity of international law; (3) an overview of the Außenstaatsrecht (law
pertaining to the international relations of a state) of the five legal orders
under review; (4) a comparative description of these legal orders
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
39
according to six different parameters, (5) an appraisal of the material
presented and (6) conclusions for future Indonesian practices.
(1) The introduction gives an account of the different stages of Indonesian
constitutional development. The first stage took place from 1945/1949
until 1966, marked by a hostile attitude towards international law. They
include the nationalization of foreign assets, the unilateral claim to the
Indonesian archipelagic waters in contradiction to contemporary
international law of the sea and Indonesia’s withdrawal from the United
Nations. The second stage (1966-98) was marked by the motto of ’making’
instead of ‘breaking’ of international law (p. 12). This period is
characterized by the attempt to use and influence international law for
Indonesia’s interests, referencing the appeal to the International Court of
Justice for the settlement of a dispute with Malaysia and the so-called
Asian Values Debate. The third stage begins in 1998 end stretches until
today; itis characterized by notable changes ensuing democratization on
the internal level, and globalization on the external level to put into
motion a reform process that has reallocated the weight within the
internal part of the process of the conclusion of treaties. Another factor is
the new Charter of the ASEAN Community that creates new international
obligations with respect to the internal constitutionalization of its
members. Another condition for the Indonesian state system are
centripetal powers that show the necessity to decentralize state
administration and possibly to provide subordinate levels of authority
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
40
with more competences (see p. 24) due to the heterogeneity of the
population.
The author elucidates his approach in the second part of the introduction.
He departs from the dichotomy between monism and dualism in order to
extract criteria for the classification of the different settings of the
constitutional debate. Despite the known objections against these theories
and their validity, the author still aims at using them as an analytical
framework. It will be demonstrated that there are specific features in the
Indonesian legal system that might account for these differences. In the
last part the author justifies the choice of the four legal orders under
review in greater detail and very convincingly and further offers an
overview of the following chapters.
(2) In the beginning of chapter two, the dispute between monism and
dualistm and its development through the ages is discussed. Essentially,
the obvious question is whether international law and domestic law are
one single legal sphere, resulting in the fact that international law is only
left to be applied domestically, or whether they are two separated legal
orders, resulting in the necessity of an implementing act of international
law for the purposes of domestic law. This discussion has been
considered obsolete for a long time now since both positions have moved
very close to each other. However, as they played an important role for
the formation of national constitutions, knowledge of this debate is
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
41
necessary in order to understand the differences in various systems. It
should not be overlooked that the debate between both sides often
continues within the framework of written constitutions if they can be
interpreted according to both theoretical approaches. According to the
author, monism in particular has received new impulses by the
development of international human rights (p. 51). This view is possible;
especially since this concerns mainly legal norms that can be directly
applied in domestic law and since their content is similar to that of
constitutions. After this general introduction concerning the dispute,
dualism is introduced and is ascribed via Heinrich Triepel and Dionisio
Anzilotti to Bodin (p. 57). As a phenomenon that might be better
explained by dualism than by monism, the immunity of states is
particularly emphasized beside the sovereignty of states in the 19th
century. This argument does not convince me completely since the
reciprocal inviolability of states before national courts is based on the co-
ordination of the subjects of international law that might just as well be
explained by means of monism. What speaks against dualism is that state
sovereignty has eroded increasingly since Word War II. According to the
author, the development of international criminal law and objective order
phenomena such as peremptory law has proven it in particular. On the
other hand, dualists could argue in their favor that individuals have not
yet become subjects of international law, a fact that would speak against a
single legal order (p. 64). It is known that the reciprocal objections have
resulted in the fact that both theories no longer occur in pure, but in a
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
42
moderate form, attempting to incorporate counterarguments. Thus a third
way has developed in literature, especially influenced by Gerald
Fitzmaurice, that denies the importance of the entire debate and
recommends solving problems pragmatically without taking the theories
into account.
The pair of terms of monism and dualism corresponds to the terms of
adoption and transformation. From the point of view of the monism and
dualism theories, they relate to the corresponding domestic act. While
adoption merely designates the application of international law as such,
transformation is an act that transforms the character of international law
in domestic law and exchanges the addressees of the obligations (states
against individuals and domestic authorities). The author does not
overlook that laws approving treaties and orders to apply treaties can be
interpreted from both theories. However, according to the author there
are still numbers of factors where they would lead to different results.
One of those is the official language (p. 97 et seq.) because if monism is
applied strictly the official language cannot be applied if it is not an
authentic treaty language. One could add that the methods of
interpretation of international law in general must be taken into stronger
account, including, in particular, the later treaty practice of parties and of
arbitral or other tribunals. Another differentiating factor is the importance
of challenges of their validity as they arise from constitutional objections
that are evaluated differently by the theories; this, however, is disputable.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
43
Further, the author dwells intensively on the question of so-called self-
executing treaties (p. 98 et seq), i.e. treaties that are directly applicable due
to their nature. It may seem obvious to interpret them in the sense of
monism, however, it is not a cogent conclusion. The question whether
such treaties have domestic effect ultimately depends on the national
legal order. It should be noted that the case law with respect to GATT
quoted by the author could be more updated (p. 114). But the author
rightly notes that this debate does not advance a dispute. What is
interesting is the notion whether the increasing importance of democracy,
particularly in countries of the Southern Hemisphere, rather suggest a
dualist stance, as it tends to favor the engagement of parliament. The
author also contemplates whether the phenomenon of
constitutionalization and pluralism has put an end to the debate. The
author sees this differently because under these circumstances the states
still can and must decide upon the status of treaties, even if, admittedly,
that the freedom to accept treaties has been restricted in particular by
constitutionalization and international human rights. This issue remains
controversial. For the court practice, both tendencies to international law
and national sovereignty are possible. Therefore, the author does not
want to choose one side or the other and the results remain relatively
open.
3. The third chapter introduces the chosen legal orders with respect to
their ‘Außenstaatsrecht’ (constitutional law pertaining to international
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
44
relations) in an overview. For every one of these states the author
describes the background of the existing constitutional rules, the
competences for the conclusion of a treaty, the underlying meaning of the
term of treaty and possible idiosyncrasies. The description of German
law is, generally speaking, correct. The part about Indonesia, that for
obvious reasons is the most detailed one, takes up much of what is stated
in chapter one. This holds true in particular with regard to the division of
the different phases. The first phase lasted from 1945 to 1960 when
treaties were concluded on the basis of the Constitution that resulted from
strong Dutch and Japanese influence. In the second period (1960 until
2000) the conclusion of treaties was regulated by a Letter of the President.
In the third period there is now a law governing international treaties.
The constitutional basis, however, has remained, with short interruptions
and minor changes, the same. What is interesting is that there was no
distinction made between the conclusion of a treaty and the ratification.
This corresponds to the heavy weight the executive of the
‘Außenstaatsrecht’ (law pertaining to international relations) has;
however, it does not fit with the parliament clause which was introduced
later (p. 234). What is confusing is the difference in terms of terminology
stemming from Dutch law between “treaty”, on the one hand, and
“agreement”, on the other hand. This applies both in political practices
and in theory, which are satisfactorily explained. Ultimately, it remains
unclear what is meant with the phrase a treaty should be ‘governed by
international law’. What seems particularly contestable is whether that
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
45
includes treaties under private law (p. 244). Apparently this problem
arises with respect to loan agreements. All of this results in the fact that
the internal competences have remained quite uncertain.
4. Chapter four compares the five legal orders with respect to two aspects
that are important for treaties namely the distribution of competences in
the treaty-making power and the status of international treaties in
domestic law. With regard to the treaty-making power the author
describes the different categories of treaties that require parliamentary
participation. What connects them is the fact that the parliament is only
competent for certain and more detailed treaty categories. Moreover, the
author points out in particular those legal norms that are familiar with the
engagement or competence of sub-ordered (autonomous) entities, such as
Germany (Art. 32 GG), China (Hong Kong, Macao) and, within strict
limits, Indonesia (Papua and Aceh p. 261).
The segment on the domestic status of international treaties takes up
again the debate between monism and dualism. Apparently mixed forms
occur everywhere. In China, for instance the traditional monist view has
been restricted by growing practices in the sense that certain treaties,
especially within the framework of human rights and commercial law,
require transformation. It seems obvious to assume that these are types of
treaties that may be in tension with the prevailing doctrine. (p. 283). South
Africa, like many other common law countries, is a dualist state.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
46
However, for self-executing treaties that allow for adoption it is adequate
according to the monist mode. The situation with regard to the German
Basic Law is correctly described, including contradictions that are
reflected in the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court. The author
has not overlooked other interesting details such as the qualification of
ordinary law that may restrict or exclude the possibility of direct
application of international treaties. The special status of the European
Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) is correctly described. Finally in the
Netherlands, it is understood as a model of monist systems where the
courts may decide if treaties are directly applicable or not (see p. 340).
Contrastingly in Indonesia, domestic status was of no importance. Thus
the questions of implementation, the rank, the parliamentary process and
the form of the act of approval have been debated. Gradually, however,
practices have developed that result in the form of the law having the
character of an act of transformation. However, some factors of the state
practice may be interpreted in the sense of monism. With regard to the
case law as well, which is surprisingly extensive and outlined in great
detail, it has not resulted in clarity. Mostly international law only plays a
role mediated through national law. A clear statement on the relation of
both, however, cannot be made (p. 395 et seq).
5. The fifth Chapter has an analytical character and is meant to bring
together the findings of Chapter 4. First, there is a general part
establishing that there are no models that strictly keep up monism or
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
47
dualism only. The German system is in most regards rightly described as
hybrid and ambiguous (p. 429). It seems plausible to me that both systems
play a role (p. 430), especially in South Africa and Germany. There are
other good observations made in this Chapter. It is certainly true that the
question of the domestic status of treaties has played a major role only
since World War II (p. 415), since the conclusion of treaties and the
creation of international organizations have increased in a way that is
unparalleled in history. Moreover, it is rightly observed that states which
have overcome a dictatorship tend to be more open towards international
law (p. 435) and that international law and constitutional law increasingly
penetrate each other (p.439). Additionally, the author determines three
common features in the five legal orders under review; first, that all
treaty-making power has developed in the course of time, from executive
heavy archaic privileges towards stronger parliamentary participation,
which was often resulting in a state of uncertainty with respect to the
interpretation of the participation of parliament, as it is unclear whether
this primarily serves controlling the executive or legislative purposes (p.
430). Second, in all legal orders under review, not all but only certain
treaties require the approval of parliament. Here the German model that
describes categories very abstractly differs from the other legal orders
because other legal orders designate treaties that require approval
according to the content they regulate. In every case, however, it seems to
be of importance that legislative competences should not be wrongfully
restricted by the competence of the government to conclude treaties.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
48
Third, the author concludes that the involvement of subordinate entities is
rather a historic phenomenon, as for instance in Germany and China and
that it does not occur necessarily in a systematic manner in federal states,
as can be seen in the case of South Africa.
The following part that deals with the models of treaty validity takes up
again the never-ending monism-dualism debate. The points that matter in
this respect are, according to the author, the relation between the date of
the entry into force of treaties and direct applicability. With regard to the
rank within the domestic pyramid of norms, monism tends to rank them
high, as can be seen in the case of the Netherlands (p. 462). However, one
might use the example of the US as a counterargument as they are
understood as a monist system in general, but do not accord treaties a
clear, or at least not necessarily a high, rank. In its closing, the author
concludes that the problem of self-executing treaties is not necessarily
correlating to this issue; the different approaches do not indicate a clear
concept (463). In the end stands a conclusion that has not found a clear
attitude with respect to a number of issues raised for China and
Indonesia. This is true even for the status of human rights (p. 468).
6. Chapter six infers from the previous five chapters for future Indonesian
treaty practice:
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
49
- The text of the constitution is outdated, ambiguous and
inadequate with respect to the problems that occur. It is particularly
unclear with respect to the function of the law approving treaties,
resulting in controversy (p.475 et seq).
- Neither Dualism nor Monism alone offer satisfying solutions.
According to the author, Indonesia should follow the example of other
countries and ensure a gradual process of change on the basis of the
existing order.
- The dichotomy of both function of the act of approval between
control and legislation should be brought to an end. The criteria of both,
that is particularly the regulation concerning the approval of treaties and
the legislative process intended by constitutional law should be adapted
to each other. Moreover it must be clarified to which treaties these new
coherent procedures should apply. According to this, the competence of
the constitutional organs should be determined when it is a (state) treaty
and when it is an (administrative) agreement. Parliament should have the
right to step in into the procedure by its own initiative.
- The recommended generic approach favors a careful continuation
of the monist tradition stemming from Dutch law that has the advantage
of being international law friendly. On the other hand dualism might be
more democratic, because with the requirement of an act of
transformation, in most cases a statute, it justifies the competences of
parliament. The middle way would be Vollzugs theory (p. 485). Further,
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
50
the question of the entry into force of a treaty and its connection with the
law approving a treaty could be clarified on this basis.
- The rank of the treaty should follow the act introducing it in
domestic law. However, it should not, as sometimes discussed, form an
independent category. The Indonesian Constitutional Court should have
the competence to examine if laws approving treaties are in conformity
with international law.
III
The Author has submitted a well founded study using a lot of material, in
which he describes the character of the legal orders under review – at
least the German one - very adequately and nuanced, considering he is a
jurist who has not grown up in this system. Despite the fact that the
dichotomy between monism and dualism is overemphasized, in my
opinion, the author has succeeded in extracting criteria that structure the
depiction. Parts of the thesis are excessively detailed and there are some
redundancies. However, the author has reached a number of a very
interesting and remarkable theories and results. One of these is the
correlation between the affirmations of a constitutional order of a
particular system with regard to the domestic status of international
treaties with the respective arrangement of the balance of powers. The
author has demonstrated so with respect to Indonesia, South Africa and,
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
51
with reservations, for China as well. The historical example from which
this idea is deducted is the antagonism between crown and parliament in
Great Britain that has led to a specific form of dualism. Another
interesting factor is the tension between both parliamentary functions of
the legislation and the control that is reflected in the law of approval and
which in some constitutional orders requires a resolution. The final
conclusions drawn with respect to Indonesia seem modest. However, it
must be granted that a proposal aiming at influencing political practices
must not lose sight of what is feasible.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
52
REVIEW BUKU
Judul : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study
Penulis buku : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman
Penerbit : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya
Bahasa : Inggris
Jumlah halaman : 554 Halaman
Tahun penerbitan : Oktober 2014
Pembuat resensi : Professor Simon Butt, B.A. LL.B., Ph.D.
Indonesia’s legal system has, since the declaration of
independence in 1945, laboured under a major shortcoming: no law has
established the precise status of international law within the domestic
legal order. Over the decades, Indonesia has signed more than 4000
international agreements, yet their precise legal effect - that is, the extent
to which they bind Indonesian officials and institutions, including judges
in courts - has been uncertain. One result appears to have been
inconsistency, with some officials and courts being willing to apply and
enforce international law ‘directly’ and others refusing to do so without a
direct act of ‘transformation’ – that is, the adoption of the subject matter of
an international agreement within an Indonesian legal instrument, or at
least a declaration of ratification within such an instrument.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
53
For most commentators, my self included, the reason for this lack of
clarity has been somewhat of a mystery. How can the world’s fourth
largest nation, and an active participant in international affairs, provide
no clear guidance to its own institutions and citizens about the rights and
obligations that arise when Indonesian officials sign an international
agreement? Happily, this mystery has now been solved, or at least
explained, in an excellent new book: Treaties under Indonesian Law: a
Comparative Study by Dr Iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman, SH. MA.
According to Dr Agusman’s convincing explanation, before Suharto’s fall
in 1998, the role of international law within the domestic legal system had
not been considered a particularly important issue by previous
administrations. Under the ‘Old Order’ of Indonesia’s first president,
Soekarno, international law was treated with some disdain and largely
ignored. After all, it had been mostly created by western powers, many of
which had colonised the developing world, including Indonesia. Why,
then, should Indonesia submit to the rules of the West – this time by
choice? For some Indonesians, international law was also irrelevant to
their concerns to build a strong nation. Indonesia even withdrew from the
United Nations (UN) in 1965, arguing that it was ‘blatantly against our
colonial struggle’ and ‘against the lofty principles and purposes of the UN
Charter’. Nevertheless, international law was taught and studied in law
faculties across Indonesia. But it was treated as a separate discipline,
entirely divorced from the study of Indonesia’s domestic legal system. It
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
54
emerged almost as a body of theory rather than a body of law that had
practical implications for citizens and government alike.
Indonesia’s second President, Suharto, sought deeper international
engagement than had Soekarno and, therefore, participated in
international lawmaking fora. (Yet, as Dr Agusman notes, Indonesia’s
participation was sometimes directed towards bucking principles of
international law, including in the law of the sea.) However, like many
countries, Indonesia adopted areas of international law that suited its
interests and avoided those which did not. International agreements that
were in Indonesia’s interests – such as those that sought to promote trade
– were often readily endorsed by Indonesian officials without much
controversy. By contrast, Indonesia preferred not to sign up to many
human rights agreements.
In the post-Suharto era, the Indonesian government has, according to
Agusman, found itself under greater pressure, both domestic and
international, to adopt legal standards based on international norms.
Accordingly, Indonesia has signed up to a wide variety of international
agreements, including the human rights treaties that previous
administrations had avoided. Many domestic Indonesian laws were then
amended or replaced to incorporate many norms of international law as
their own. Perhaps the most conspicuous adoption of international norms
was the insertion, in 2000, of an extensive Bill of Rights into Indonesia’s
Constitution, which draws heavily from the major international human
rights declarations and conventions.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
55
However, a fundamental question has remained: if Indonesia signs an
international treaty, does that treaty automatically come into force in
domestic law (the so-called ‘monist’ position), or does it require some
form of ‘transformation’ (the ‘dualist’ view), that is, an enactment of
domestic law to bring it into force? Applied to the Bill of Rights, for
example, if Indonesia had already ratified the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights would it need the Bill of Rights? In other
words, would the human rights norms of the two Covenants have already
formed part of Indonesian domestic law once ratified? Or was
‘transformation’ – in this case, inclusion of the rights contained in the
Convention in the Constitution or some other legal instrument –
necessary for those norms to become part of Indonesian law?
This question is still unanswered in Indonesia, which is one of the only
countries in the world that does not specify, in its Constitution or some
other law, or through judicial practice, the precise status of international
law within its domestic legal system. The result is the emergence of
various interpretations and inconsistent practices, resulting in uncertainty
about the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law. It is quite
surprising that during the overhaul of Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution
across four amendment rounds (1999-2002), the issue was not decided, let
alone raised as an issue for serious discussion. However, uncertainties
about the precise status of international law have certainly not stopped
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
56
Indonesia’s executive from entering into international agreements, and
Indonesia’s national Parliament from ratifying them.
The value of Treaties under Indonesian Law: a Comparative Study is not
merely, as the title suggests, its discussion of the status of treaties within
domestic Indonesian law. It also provides excellent coverage of highly
theoretical and difficult material: the various theories that have evolved to
explain the reception of international law within legal systems and the
domestic rules for the formulation of treaties. Dr Agusman discusses
monism and dualism, engaging with very sophisticated and scholarly
debates across legal traditions and long periods (Chapter II). One of the
book’s other strengths lies in its use of comparative analysis – in
particular, comparing the treaty-making powers and the status of treaties
in China, South Africa, Germany, the Netherlands and, of course,
Indonesia. Chapter III discusses treaty-making powers in these domestic
legal systems, in an effort to ascertain whether ‘there is a correlation
between the structure of a treaty-making power and the question of
domestic status of treaties’ (p. 44). Chapter IV covers the relationship
between treaties and domestic law, again using these countries as case
studies.
Chapter IV’s coverage of the inconsistencies in the domestic treatment of
international law that have emerged in Indonesia is excellent. It provides
information and analysis that was not previously available, significantly
advancing debate about whether Indonesia tends towards monism or
dualism. For example, the author discusses a draft of the Treaties Law,
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
57
which required national legislation to implement an international treaty if
that treaty would have had the effect of amending or replacing existing
legislation or creating norms that did not previously exist under domestic
law. Agusman describes the treatment of international law in statutes and
in judicial practices (including Supreme Court and Constitutional Court),
cataloguing many cases, not discussed in previous Indonesian
scholarship, in which Indonesian courts appear to have directly applied
international law without implementing legislation. As for reform, Dr
Agusman wisely argues that Indonesia should build up a legal regime to
clarify the status of international law on basis of existing constitutional
order rather than changing it abruptly. In Dr Agusman’s words, ‘The
reconstruction should clarify the vague of legal constructions and fill the
gap that exists in the current order, resulting from the lack of doctrine’.
This wonderful and timely book attempts to grapple with this
fundamental issue and many related to it. Given Indonesia’s increasing
engagement with the international community, the importance of this
work to Indonesia’s legal development cannot be overstated. Not only
does it cover an issue of critical importance, it is also a highly scholarly
work that contributes significantly to Indonesian doctrine on international
law. Although it does not – and in fact cannot – solve the problem is that
it raises, this is not through lack of analysis and scholarly rigour. In short,
this must rank as one of the best books derived from a doctoral
dissertation written by an Indonesian legal scholar. It is all the more
impressive because it is based on work produced while the author was
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
58
simultaneously working as the consul general of the Republic of
Indonesia in Frankfurt.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
59
REVIEW BUKU Judul : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study Penulis buku : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman Penerbit : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya Bahasa : Inggris Jumlah halaman : 554 Halaman Tahun penerbitan : Oktober 2014 Pembuat resensi : Abdulkadir Jailani
Not many legal books are able to convey information beyond
what is written inside. Such books would undoubtedly be a great
scholastic work that not only descriptively presents the normative
aspect of a legal issue, but also critically examines the philosophical,
historical and political aspects of that legal issue. Through such
books, we are able to acquire deeper understanding on the legal
traditions of various international legal scholarships.
This is the impression I had after reading Treaties under
Indonesian Law: A Comparative Studies written by Dr. Iur Damos
Dumoli Agusman, S.H., M.A. The book is a published dissertation
written by Dr. Iur Damos and defended at the Goethe University of
Frankfurt, Germany in 2014. It is therefore unsurprising that the
main ideas are unequivocally expressed and profoundly analyzed.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
60
Encouraged by the author’s everyday work experiences as a
diplomat, the book attempts to revive one legal issue that has long
been abandoned in the ruins of Indonesian legal scholarship. It also
represents the concern of the author that Indonesian legal discourse
has not really addressed the discourse on the juxtapose of
international and national law.
Although the title of the book only indicates treaty related
issues, one of its important aims is to provoke readers to rethink the
dynamic relationship between international and national law. Not
only do the readers gain theoretical insight on the status of treaties
in national law, they are also invited to have a closer look at the
basic concepts of international law both philosophically and
historically. The origins and significance of the sovereignty concept
in international law is also a central issue gaining special attention.
Analysis in the book begins with a discussion on the
dynamic views and attitudes of Indonesia towards international
law in the course of its history. In this part, we get a taste of Critical
Legal Studies (CLS). We will be shown that international law is not
perceived as neutral, autonomous and far from being objective. The
meaning of international law is a embodiment of social construction
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
61
which is inseparable from power relations. Therefore, Indonesia’s
attitude towards international law changes dynamically according
to the political situation and context from one era to another. The
lesson learnt from such dynamic and shifting attitude towards
international law is that an Außenstaatsrecht’ (constitutional law
pertaining to international relations) that can preserve co-existence
between domestic law and international legal order may be
pragmatically more desirable for Indonesia.
The book tries to encapsulate in greater detail how a political
context in Indonesia has shaped the country’s attitude towards the
treatment of international law in Indonesia. In the early years of its
independence, Indonesia tended to resist international law by
debunking the imperialist nature of international law. International
law was perceived as the law justifying subjugation of the people of
Asia and Africa. Antagonism against international law gradually
turned to apathy when Indonesian political orientation move closer
to align with the Socialist Block. During the New Order Era,
Indonesia’s attitude to international law has shifted to become more
friendly. Indonesia’s stance on international law focused on the
endeavor to strike a balance between the interest of developing
countries and the sanctity of the existing international obligations.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
62
When it came to Era Reformasi, the book moves away from his initial
approach emphasizing the significance of the political context to
Indonesia’s official stance in various international legal discourses.
It only signifies that the ignorant attitude towards international law
is a result of the fact that this branch of law is neither well–
understood nor particularly interesting to a wider community of
international legal scholars in Indonesia. It also stresses that the
teaching of international law has been undertaken in isolation from
national law. The way the book points out this notion as if the
problem is an exclusive phenomenon of the Era Reformasi.
Once we dig deeper into the book, we will encounter an
overly extensive conceptual analysis on the relationship between
international and national law. Although we have taken a whiff of
the CLS perspective in the beginning of the book, the whole
construction of its argument is entirely built upon the two
conventional theories of Monism and Dualism which flourished
under legal formalism tradition. The exclusive and excessive
application of the two theories implies the persistent assumption
that Monism or Dualism is a self-contained doctrine which
provides absolute rules and legal criteria, with universal validity,
for determining the relationship between international and national
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
63
law. In light of this, the author insists the continuous relevance of
Monism and Dualism, despite globalization having significantly
affected the very foundation of both theories.
The book does mention that there is the so-called “third
approach” which attacks the heart of Monism and Dualism.
However, the assumption on the validity of both theories remains
intact. Although acknowledging the criticism against both theories,
the book argues that such criticism fails to provide feasible
alternative theories as their legal narratives seems to be imprecise
without the help of Monism and Dualism. Moreover, the book also
contends that the “new perspective” as offered by legal pluralism
may only be applicable to the European context. It hardly creates
practical value for non-European countries. All these standpoints
are actually prone to various critical challenges.
In spite of the insistent assertion of the relevance of Monism
and Dualism, the book does not oppose the paradigm shift from the
two theories to the “new perspective” on the divide between
international and national law. Many lines in the book allude that
Monism and Dualism have lost their relevance as theories. On the
basis of an empirical comparison review of several countries, it
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
64
clearly maintains that neither Monism nor Dualism can
satisfactorily explain the State practices on the status of treaties
under their domestic laws. In one way or another it agrees that both
fail to grasp the (post) modern problem at the international level
and the complicated interconnectedness between international and
domestic law. The outcome of the overview suggests both Monism
and Dualism have mutually influenced each other and resulted in
some converging elements. States practices examined in the book
show that the two theories have become undistinguishable.
Therefore, neither absolute integration of all legal orders (monism)
nor absolute separation between international and national legal
order can be sustained.
Having said that, it is safely inferred that the outcome of the
analysis in the book even confirms the arguments of “the new
perspective”. The relevance of a theory should be determined on
the basis of how it is applied in practice and whether it can cope
with all the problems that it needs to solve. It is undisputed that the
practical application of the two theories are unsatisfactory and they
do not help in solving legal issues. Therefore, maintaining the
relevance of Monism and Dualism as a doctrinal or theoretical
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
65
notion in explaining the relationship between international and
national law is logically unattainable.
The suspicion that the “new perspective” fails to provide
feasible legal narrative is also problematic. It is not surprising that
conventional legal theorists contest the new narrative of legal
pluralism by highlighting its inability to provide “positive legal
narrative” – a narrative that provides a practical solution to the
conceptual issues of the relationship between international and
national law”. There are at least two contending arguments against
this view. First, many academical legal works establish that legal
pluralism is the best alternative to Monism and Dualism. Legal
pluralism is not just a critical legal reasoning without any practical
presence and relevance. Second, it is also arguable whether a
“positive legal narrative” is necessary for defending legal
pluralism. Many argue otherwise. It is actually better to have a
“negative legal narrative” which accurately depicts a legal theory
and generates profound insight (such as legal pluralism) than to
have a utopian theory which sounds inspiring but fails to take a
realistic and and critical look at the theory in question. For that
reason, the expectation to have a “positive legal narrative” should
itself to be questioned.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
66
It is very true that the legal narrative proposed by the “new
perspective” always requires the assitance of Monism and Dualism
in order to present a precise solution. If we wish to apply a strategy
of deconstruction for debunking Monism and Dualism, we will
necessarily reverse all the arguments from defending the two
theorists to advancing the plausibility of the “new perspective”. In
the sense of simple logical metaphor, we will only be able to explain
the grey color of every detail, if we have critical understanding on
the concept of “black” and “white”. Therefore, the fact that legal
pluralism needs the help of Monism and Dualism in explaining the
relationship between international and national law does not mean
that the relevance of the latter remains irrefutable
The argument which maintains that the “new perspective” as
offered by legal pluralism may only be applicable to European
context is also questionable. The book makes the claim without
being supported by an adequately convincing argument.
Conversely, it can be argued that the legal pluralism perspective is
very suitable for developing countries with a very dynamic attitude
towards international law (such as Indonesia). The new legal
perspective offers a dynamic interplay between international and
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
67
national law as it will provide broader spaces and greater
opportunities for developing countries to promote international law
development from below.
With a view to coping with the intricate controversy of
Monism and Dualism, the book tries to offer a middle approach.
This is done by modifying and adjusting the theories in such a way
that they can fit with the practical realities and vindicate the
mutually negated premises. Accordingly, the theories need to be
condensed into a more practical construction by which the basis
premises of this theories have been put aside. At the same time,
their relevant characteristic modified so that they fit the practical
purposes.
Although the the middle approach potentially offers a very
promising practical solution, it is indeed a “newly invented theory”
which is conceptually neither Monism nor Dualism. As a matter of
fact, this creative attempt substantiates that Monism and Dualism
are not self-contained and stable theories which are able to provide
absolute rules and legal criteria with universal validity. Both
theories do not release a single theological meaning, but a multi-
dimensional one in which a variety of alternative narratives may
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
68
flourish. The introduction of such middle approach indeed
indicates that Monism and Dualism should cease to exist as
doctrinal and theoretical notions for addressing the relationship
between international and national law. Beyond what is written,
such a creative middle approach brings to light the incredulity
towards the metanarrative of Monism and Dualism.
The last part of the book on the conclusion is quite thought
provoking. The author mainly concludes that the status of treaties
in Indonesian law is unclear and ambiguous. It has resulted in legal
uncertainty of the precise effect of treaties under Indonesian law.
According to the book, this condition is caused by a number of
factors, including:
a. The formulation of Article 11 of the 1945 Indonesian
Constitution (whose text originally derived from the Meiji
Constitution of the ancient Japanese Empire) is overly simple
and insufficient to explain the status of treaties in Indonesia;
b. The provisions of Law Number 24 of 2000 on Treaties was so
poorly drafted that it also failed to address the problem ;
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
69
c. Legal discourse on the status of international law among
Indonesian legal scholars is not supported by adequate
theoretical and conceptual understanding;
d. Constitutional practices related to treaties tends to be
inconsistent.
For that reason, the author recommends amendment of
Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution. Such amendment needs to
provide a clear provision on the status and position of treaties in
the Indonesian legal system.
Although the root of the problem does evidently rest on
Article 11 of the 1945 Constitution, amending the Constitution as
recommended by the book is neither easy nor risk-free. It concludes
that one factor of the problem is the lack of theoretical
understanding and inconsistency in the constitutional practices.
This very conclusion would actually make the attempt to amend
the Constitution less plausible. Without adequate theoretical
understanding and consistent constitutional practices, the
amendment process may end up with unintended outcome.
Therefore, the recommendation of amending Article 11 of the 1945
Constitution is merely a typical legal formalism solution which
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
70
requires extra careful and thorough consideration of all related
aspects, especially its political and sociological aspects.
Last but not least, it is not an exaggeration that the book is a
must-read for Indonesian legal scholars, especially those from the
constitutional and international law circles. The information
conveyed is very enlightening and even beyond what the readers
hope when opening the first page of the book. By reading this book,
the readers will discern that any system of rules on the domestic
status of treaties is not more than a rhetorical style on how States
treat international law within its national order in accordance with
the political preference of that particular State.
While this book is not perfect, the sharpness in analysis and
the strength of the legal reasoning compensate what the book lacks.
A shortage and recommendation that the author may consider is to
republish in the Indonesian language.
***
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
71
REVIEW BUKU
Judul : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study
Penulis buku : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman
Penerbit : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya
Bahasa : Inggris
Jumlah halaman : 554 Halaman
Tahun penerbitan : Oktober 2014
Pembuat resensi : Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho
Comprehensive and well structured, those are the two words to
describe the book titled Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study. The Author, Dr. iur Damos Dumoli Agusman, is not a stranger in
Indonesian international law community. He was once the Director for
Treaties for Economic and Social Cultural Affairs, and currently the
Secretary for the Directorate General for Legal and Treaties Affairs of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia. This book is based on his
doctoral dissertation at the Goethe University of Frankfurt, where he
obtained the predicate of magna cum laude. Diplomat with a legal
background, the author expresses not only his expertise in the subject
matter but also the reality of the real world practice.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
72
From Indonesian legal literature perspective, the book managed to
explain the history of the Indonesian legal approach with regard to
treaties, as well as the practice throughout Indonesian history. It then
successfully concludes by describing the current practice in Indonesia, its
positive and negative side, and carefully framing the main question:
where is the rank of treaties in the Indonesian legislative structure.
Reading this book makes us not to only understand Indonesia treaty law,
but Indonesian legal system context is nicely elaborated to provide a
better understanding of other areas of Indonesian law. The author
explains the struggle that Indonesia is going through since its
independence to construct its own legal system. Generally, the division of
the era in this book, Independence/Old Order, New Order, and
Reformation Era, are generally accepted division of Indonesian history.
Most importantly, it successfully explains the transformation of the
Indonesian’s government structure. Those are important factors in
understanding how Indonesian treats international law, and why such
treatments are given.
Then comes the big topic: the debate between a dualist and monist
approach to international law in domestic legislation. Everyone who
studied law would consider this as a nightmare. This book does not fall in
the complication in answering this question. It explained the two
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
73
concepts, and carefully discusses theoretical backgrounds of the two
approaches, which serves as foundation in assessing what kind of
approach that is practiced by states. It further explains the other
theoretical concepts of adoption and transformation, as well as direct and
indirect effects of treaties. The book then briefly describes the
development of these theories as practiced by States.
The bread and butter of this book actually lays in the comparative study
with four other legal systems, which demonstrate how theories are being
applied. The States that under reviewed are China, South Africa,
Germany, and most importantly the Netherlands, the former colonial
power of Indonesia who gives big influence in Indonesian legal system.
Each of the legal systems are discussed sufficiently, in order to give ideas
where Indonesian stands in regard to its approach to treaties. Though the
selection of the States in the comparative study is generally civil law
system, the discussion of the direct-indirect effects (self executing - non
self executing) approach, in particular in the United States system, gives a
nuance of the common law system.
Unlike the general notion that most countries will inherit the legal system
from their former colonial power, Indonesia did not adopt the entirety of
the Netherlands system but rather struggle to develop its own. This book
is very honest in [revealing the answer of the main question], as there is
not a definite answer with regard to the position of treaties in Indonesian
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
74
legal system. However, the elaboration in this book helped to understand
the Indonesian approach with regard to treaty, and how it will be treated
in Indonesian system. It covers not only the structural discussion with
regard to treaties in Indonesian legal system, but also the behavior of the
judicial organs.
With the development of international communities, the subject of
relation between international and domestic law are no longer exclusively
the domain of international law subject. With the journey of time, treaties
are more influential to individual activities in one State. Historically, it
started with human rights related treaties; nowadays it developed to
international trade related treaties, whereas more and more individuals
are affected directly with the provisions of international law. This
development should be understood not only to international lawyers, but
all legal practitioners including those who are advising the parliament as
well as the governments. This book will provide the reader with the
necessary information in order to understand the relation between
international law and the Indonesian domestic system.
This book has added an important piece in Indonesian legal literature. On
one side it helps the outside world to understand Indonesian treaty
practice, and on the other hand it opens the eyes of the Indonesian legal
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
75
community on the struggle of the Indonesian legal system in its approach
with regard to treaties. Such understanding is necessary even since they
are studying law so by the time they graduated they are equipped with
thorough knowledge of the intertwine between domestic and
international law, because it have to be acknowledge that exclusive
separation between domestic and international law in real practice does
not exist. Therefore, without a doubt, I highly recommend this book for
students, international and domestic legal practitioners, as well as for
those who works for government and the parliament.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
76
REVIEW BUKU
Judul : Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study
Penulis buku : Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli Agusman
Penerbit : PT. Remaja Rosda Karya
Bahasa : Inggris
Jumlah halaman : 554 Halaman
Tahun penerbitan : Oktober 2014
Pembuat resensi : Prita Amalia, S.H., M.H
Masalah implementasi perjanjian internasional di suatu negara
sampai saat ini selalu menjadi menarik untuk didiskusikan. Begitu juga
dengan pelaksanaan perjanjian internasional di Indonesia, sebagai sebuah
negara yang aktif melakukan kegiatan dengan negara lain baik dalam
bentuk bilateral, regional dan multilateral. Permasalahan yang mungkin
timbul adalah terkait apakah suatu perjanjian internasional yang sudah
diratifikasi suatu negara dapat langsung dianggap sebagai bagian hukum
nasional ataupun mengenai status perjanjian internasional di suatu
negara.
Sebut saja mengenai judicial review Undang-undang No. 38 Tahun 2008
tentang Pengesahan Piagam ASEAN oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
77
Undang-undang pengesahan pada dasarnya hanya berisi ketentuan yang
menegaskan meratifikasi atau mengesahkan Piagam ASEAN dan berisi
Piagam ASEAN tersebut yang menjadi lampirannya. Dengan
dilaksanakannya judicial review tersebut apakah hal ini juga sama saja
dengan Indonesia melakukan judicial review terhadap Perjanjian
Internasional dan apakah Perjanjian Internasional memiliki status yang
sama dengan Undang-undang Republik Indonesia pada umumnya.
Masalah implementasi perjanjian internasional juga terkait dengan
apakah setelah suatu negara meratifikasi perjanjian internasional harus
dibuat peraturan pelaksana (implementing legislation) untuk
melaksanakan kewajiban internasional yang melekat dalam perjanjian
internasional tersebut, atau proses ratifikasi sudah memiliki akibat
hukum bahwa kewajiban internasional harus sudah dapat dilaksanakan
tanpa atau adanya peraturan pelaksana (implementing legislation). Suatu
kasus yang sudah cukup lama terkait dengan pelaksanaan dari
Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award
(New York Convention 1958) yang oleh salah satu hakim di Indonesia
pada saat itu, berpendapat bahwa walaupun konvensi ini sudah
diratifikasi Indonesia melalui Keputusan Presiden No. 34 Tahun 1981,
bukan berarti langsung dapat dilaksanakan sehingga diperlukan
peraturan pelaksana lainnya. Pada akhirnya dibuatlah Peraturan
Mahkamah Agung No.1 Tahun 1990 tentang Tata Cara Pengakuan dan
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
78
Pelaksanaan Putusan Arbitrase Asing.
Permasalahan selanjutnya yang sangat ramai didiskusikan adalah
mengenai ketentuan Pasal 85 Undang-undang No. 7 Tahun 2014 tentang
Perdagangan. Dalam pasal tersebut mengatur bahwa Pemerintah
Indonesia memiliki kewenangan untuk membatalkan perjanjian
internasional yang diratifikasi oleh Indonesia baik melalui Undang-
Uundang maupun Peraturan Presiden, pada saat perjanjian internasional
tersebut merugikan kepentingan nasional. Diskusi mengenai
permasalahan ini juga merupakan hal yang menarik, apakah memang
dibenarkan bahwa suatu negara dapat memiliki kewenangan untuk
membatalkan perjanjian internasional atau suatu negara hanya dapat
menarik diri dari perjanjian internasional pada saat merugikan
kepentingan nasional. Tentu saja pembatalan perjanjian internasional dan
penarikan diri dari perjanjian internasional memiliki akibat hukum yang
berbeda.
Berdiskusi mengenai implementasi perjanjian internasional tidak terlepas
dari bagaimana hubungan antara Hukum Internasional atau Hukum
Nasional. Apakah sebuah Hukum Internasional merupakan sistem
hukum yang sama dengan hukum nasional atau Hukum Internasional
memiliki sistem hukum yang berbeda dengan hukum nasional. Terkait
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
79
hal ini maka diskusi mengenai teori monism dan dualism dalam hukum
perjanjian internasional sangat menarik untuk dibahas.
Beberapa masalah yang kami coba sampaikan di atas, menunjukkan
bahwa diskusi permasalahan dalam hukum perjanjian internasional
merupakan suatu permasalahan yang menarik untuk didiskusikan dan
memerlukan beberapa sumber untuk mendapatkan jawabannya.
Kehadiran literature-literature terkait hukum perjanjian internasional
sangat diperlukan, khususnya buku-buku yang secara khusus mengkaji
hukum perjanjian internasional baik secara praktik dan teori.
Dr. Iur.s Damos Dumoli Agusman, S.H., M.A. merupakah salah satu ahli
hukum yang sangat memiliki perhatian terkait Hukum Perjanjian
Internasional lebih khusus mengenai Teori Monisme dan Dualisme baik
dari segi praktik maupun teori. Penulis sehari-harinya beraktifitas di
Kementerian Luar Negeri Republik Indonesia sejak tahun 1988, dan
bertugas di Direktorat Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional, yang tentu
saja selalu terlibat dalam diskusi-diskusi dan pekerjaan yang terkait
dengan perjanjian internasional dimana Indonesia menjadi pihak dalam
perjanjian internasional tersebut. Berbekal aktifitas sehari-harinya di
Direktorat Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional ini, semakin melengkapi
pribadi penulis yang menurut hemat saya memiliki jiwa akademisi
seperti mengajar dan meneliti. Buku ini Treaties Under Indonesian Law:
A Comparative Study. merupakan intisari dari disertasi pada Doctoral
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
80
Degree di Goethe University of Frankfurt, Jerman pada 2014, yang secara
lengkap berjudul “The Legal Status of Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A
Comparative Study of China, South Africa, Germany and The
Netherlands”. Penulis mengambil Doctoral Degree bersamaan dengan
ketika beliau mendapat tugas untuk menjadi Konsulat Jenderal Republik
Indonesia di Frankfrurt. Dapat dilihat dari karya-karya penulis
sebelumnya merupakan karya-karya yang secara linear membahas
Hukum Perjanjian Internasional sejak beliau menulis Skripsi untuk gelar
Sarjana dan Thesis untuk gelar Master dari University of Hull pada tahun
1991.
Buku ini merupakan buku mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional
yang kedua yang ditulis penulis, setelah buku yang pertama telah
beberapa kali diterbitkan ulang. Buku tersebut berjudul Hukum
Perjanjian Internasional: Teori dan Praktik Indonesia, diterbitkan oleh
Refika Bandung pada tahun 2010. Buku pertama ini cukup banyak
diminati oleh para mahasiswa dan pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian
Internasional, sehingga telah mengalami cetak ulang untuk memenuhi
permintaan pembaca.
Kehadiran buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study,
sepertinya akan melengkapi dan sangat memberikan pengetahuan serta
wawasan bagi para pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian Internasional,
khususnya bagaimana perjanjian internasional diimplementasikan di
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
81
Indonesia, dan di beberapa negara untuk menjadi bahan perbandingan.
Penulis menggambarkan bagaimana perjanjian internasional berkembang
di Indonesia dan beberapa negara, yang pada akhirnya menghasilkan
suatu analisis dari hasil studi banding mengenai bagaimana status
perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum nasional masing-masing
negara, tinjauan mengenai hukum perjanjian internasional di beberapa
negara dan yang terpenting adalah bagaimana hubungan antara hukum
perjanjian internasional dengan hukum nasional di negara tersebut..
Buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative Study yang
memiliki 554 Halaman, membahas Hukum Perjanjian Internasional
dalam Enam Bab yang terdiri dari sub bab- sub bab yang saling
mendukung. Sebagaimana yang telah disampaikan sebelumnya bahwa
buku ini merupakan hasil penelitian disertasi penulis yang telah
disesuaikan, sehingga dalam penulisannya penulis menggunakan Bahasa
Inggris. Penggunaan Bahasa Inggris menjadi bahasa dalam penulisan
buku ini merupakan hal yang baik, mengingat buku ini dapat dinikmati
oleh semua pembaca tidak hanya pemerhati Hukum Perjanjian
Internasional yang berasal dari Indonesia, namun juga pemerhati Hukum
Perjanjian Internasional dari luar negeri. Perlunya bagaimana Hukum
Perjanjian Internasional di Indonesia untuk dapat diketahui oleh dunia
internasional, merupakan hal yang cukup penting, sebagai contoh dalam
praktik penanaman modal di Indonesia dengan negara mitra yang biasa
terjalin melalui Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs), untuk melaksanakan
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
82
BITs tersebut negara mitra ataupun investor negara mitra perlu
mengetahui bagaimana praktik hukum perjanjian internasional di
Indonesia, mengingat BITs merupakan perjanjian internasional yang juga
tunduk pada Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties 1969.
Enam bab ini terdiri dari Pendahuluan, Status Hukum Perjanjian
Internasional berdasarkan Hukum Nasional berdasarkan Perbandingan
Praktik Negara, Tinjauan mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional di
Cina, Afrika Selatan, Jerman, Belanda dan Indonesia, Hubungan antara
Perjanjian Internasional dan Hukum Nasional di Cina, Afrika Selatan,
Jerman, Belanda dan Indonesia, Analisis Komparatif serta Kesimpulan.
Pada Bab Pertama yang merupakan Pendahuluan, bab ini terbagi lagi
menjadi 4 sub bab yang terdiri dari Pengantar, Sejarah Hukum
Internasional di Indonesia dalam beberapa tahun, Kebutuhan akan
kejelasan mengenai Hukum Internasional di Republik Indonesia dan
Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan buku ini. Pada sub bab
pengantar penulis menjelaskan mengenai Hukum Internasional dan
Hukum Nasional di Indonesia. Dalam Sub Bab ini penulis
mengungkapkan mengenai masih terdapatnya perdebatan mengenai
bagaimana hubungan di antara dua hukum ini, khususnya mengenai
teori monism dan dualism dan juga mengenai teori “adoption” dan
“transformation”. Begitu banyak penelitian yang menulis mengenai
perdebatan ini, dan juga menulis bagaimana beberapa sistem hukum
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
83
menggunakan kedua teori ini untuk pelaksanaan perjanjian internasional.
Dalam bab ini penulis membahas Indonesia sebagai salah satu contoh
khususnya sebagai negara yang merdeka dan bebas dari negara
kolonialnya. Pada dasarnya negara bekas koloni akan mengikuti
pendekatan tradisional dari negara koloninya terkait dengan hubungan
antara hukum internasional dan hukum nasional. Namun demikian,
menurut penulis, hal ini tidak berlaku bagi Indonesia, karena status
perjanjian internasional dalam hukum nasional Indonesia belum dapat
ditentukan.
Permasalahan hubungan antara perjanjian internasional dan hukum
nasional di Indonesia menjadi masalah yang cukup penting. Hal ini dapat
dilihat dari latar belakang yang mungkin sesuai untuk memeriksa
bagaimana pandangan Indonesia mengenai hukum internasional
khususnya hukum perjanjian internasional. Penulis mengutip pendapat
Ko Swan Sik, yang berpendapat bahwa permasalahan mengenai akibat
hukum dari Hukum Internasional dalam kaitannya dengan hukum
nasional sangat terkait dengan sejarah atau pengalaman negara-negara
tersebut di dunia internasional. Dalam sub bab ini penulis juga mencoba
memaparkan bagaimana perkembangan permasalahan hubungan hukum
internasional dan hukum nasional di Indonesia sejak lepas dari negara
koloni sampai dengan era reformasi dan saat ini. Dapat disimpulkan
bahwa perkembangan status hubungan hukum internasional dan hukum
nasional di Indonesia sampai dengan saat ini belum dapat ditentukan.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
84
Permasalahan mengenai hubungan hukum internasional dan hukum
nasional di Indonesia semakin tajam khususnya apabila terdapat tekanan
internal dan tekanan eksternal. Sebagai contoh dari tekanan eksternal
adalah globalisasi, yang mengakibatkan batas antar negara menjadi tidak
ada batas. Pembahasan selanjutnya adalah mengenai bagaimana
Indonesia dan Hukum Internasional terbagi menjadi 3 fase yaitu fase
Perang dan Kemerdekaan, Fase Orde Baru dan Fase Era Reformasi
sampai dengan sekarang.
Bagian terpenting dari Bab Pendahuluan ini adalah sub bab mengenai
pentingnya untuk mendapatkan kejelasan mengenai Hukum
Internasional dalam sistem hukum Internasional. Penulis menjawab
kebutuhan akan kejelasan hukum internasional ini dari beberapa segi di
antaranya sebagai konsekuensi sistem hukum demokrasi, adanya
kewajiban untuk tunduk pada hukum internasional termasuk di
dalamnya mengenai standar internasional, dan adanya sistem
desentralisasi, dimana kewenangan Pemerintah Daerah terpusat dari
Pemerintahan Pusat.
Pada bab kedua dari buku ini, yang berjudul Analysis of General
Theories: The Legal Status of Treaties under domestic law with reference
to contemporary state practice. Penulis membahas mengenai teori-teori
yang terkait dengan hukum perjanjian internasional khususnya dalam
hubungannya dengan hukum nasional. Dibahas dalam bab ini adalah
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
85
perbedaan antara beberapa aliran terkait implementasi hukum perjanjian
internasional di suatu negara, seperti teori dualism dan monism, teori
adoption dan transformation, serta mengenai non self dan self executing
treaties. Pada bagian terakhir dari bab ini, terdapat pembahasan yang
menarik terkait pengaruh globalisasi yang memberikan pengaruh
mengenai pendekatan hubungan antara hukum internasional dan hukum
nasional, khususnya karena pada masa globalisasi batasan antara satu
negara dengan negara lain menjadi tidak terlihat.
Metode yang digunakan dalam buku ini adalah metode perbandingan.
Penulis melakukan perbandingan dengan beberapa negara dan termasuk
di dalamnya Indonesia. Negara-negara yang menjadi objek perbandingan
penulis terkait dengan tinjauan umum mengenai hukum perjanjian
internasional di negara tersebut, yaitu di antaranya Cina, Afrika Selatan,
Jerman, Belanda dan pada akhirnya Indonesia. Bab yang diberi judul
Overview of the Law of Treaties: China, South Africa, Germany, The
Netherlands and Indonesia merupakan Bab ketiga dari buku ini. Pada
umumnya yang menjadi objek pembanding dari negara-negara tersebut
terkait dengan Hukum Perjanjian Internasional adalah terkait bagaimana
konstitusi dari negara tersebut mengatur mengenai Perjanjian
Internasional, bagaimana hukum dari negara tersebut secara khusus
mengatur hukum perjanjian internasional sesuai dengan hukum nasional
yang digunakan. Perbandingan juga dilakukan dengan meninjau
bagaimana hukum nasional dari negara tersebut memberikan batasan apa
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
86
yang dimaksud dengan perjanjian internasional termasuk mengetahui
terminologi perjanjian internasional yang digunakan treaties atau
international agreements. Hal yang sangat penting yang menjadi objek
perbandingan negara-negara ini adalah terkait Treaty Making Power,
yaitu lebih tepatnya untuk mengetahui bagaimana suatu perjanjian
internasional dapat disepakati atau dibuat oleh negara-negara, terhadap
lembaga atau badan mana yang memiliki power untuk membuat atau
menyetujui perjanjian internasional di negaranya. Pembahasan treaty
making power juga terkait dengan bagaimana aspek politik dan ekonomi
mempengaruhi di suatu negara. Khusus untuk Indonesia, Penulis
membahas treaty making power dilihat dari sejarahnya berdasarkan
konstitusi terdahulu sampai dengan sekarang, bagaimana akhirnya
perjanjian internasional dibuat secara bersama antara Presiden dan DPR.
Penulis membahasnya tentu saja dengan meninjau ketentuan Undang-
Uundang No.24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional.
Apabila pada Bab III penulis melakukan studi perbandingan dengan
beberapa negara terkait dengan hukum perjanjian internasional, Maka
pada bab selanjutnya atau Bbab IV penulis melakukan perbandingan
dengan negara yang sama, namun pada bab ini perbandingan dilakukan
terkait dengan hubungan antara perjanjian internasional dan hukum
nasional. Seperti yang telah dijelaskan di muka bahwa hubungan antara
hukum perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional atau dalam hal ini
hukum internasional dengan hukum nasional selalu menjadi topik
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
87
diskusi yang menarik terkait dengan apa pun, khususnya mengenai
bagaimana sikap negara memberikan status perjanjian internasional
dalam hukum nasionalnya. Negara-negara yang menjadi objek studi
perbandingan penulis masih sama dengan bab sebelumnya yaitu negara-
negara China, Afrika Selatan, Germany, Netherlands, dan tentunya
Indonesia. Pembahasan Bab IV ini yang diberi judul The Relationship
Between Treaties and Domestic Law: China, South Africa, Germany,
Netherlands, and Indonesia. Hubungan antara perjanjian internasional
dan hukum nasional dibahas oleh Penulis dengan memaparkan beberapa
hal, di antaranyayaitu, kerangka konstitusi di masing-masing negara
terkait perjanjian internasional dan hukum nasional, status perjanjian
internasional khususnya dalam hukum nasional suatu negara, praktik
non self dan self executing treaties di suatu negara, bagaimana hierarki
peraturan perundang-undangan berdasarkan hukum nasonal mengakui
perjanjian internasional, dan yang tidak kalah penting terkait dengan
bagaimana sikap pemerintah terhadap perjanjian internasional,
khususnya terkait kewenangan pengadilan suatu negara untuk
melakukan judicial review terhadap perjanjian internasional. Di
Indonesia diskusi terkait bagaimana status perjanjian internasional dalam
hukum nasional masih terus berkembang, bahkan perdebatan di antara
para sarjana pun masih terus terjadi.
Sesuai dengan judulnya A Comparative Study, maka setelah dua bab
penulis menggambarkan hasil dari studi perbandingan di beberapa
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
88
negara baik terkait perjanjian internasional maupun hubungan hukum
antara hukum internasional dan hukum nasional, pada bab lima dari
buku ini dibahas mengenai analisa dari studi perbandingan tersebut
(Comparative Analysis). Hasil studi perbandingan tersebut dikerucutkan
oleh penulis menjadi beberapa hal penting terkait dengan keterlibatan
atau partisipasi parlemen dalam hal perjanjian internasional,
mengidentifikasi kriteria dari perjanjian internasional yang harus
mendapatkan persetujuan parlemen, khususnya terkait dengan proses
ratifikasi dari perjanjian internasonal, mengidentifikasi perjanjian
internasional yang terinkorporasi secara langsung dalam hukum
nasional, hierarki atau tata urutan perjanjian internasional berdasarkan
hukum nasional dan permasalahan mengenai non self executing treaties.
Terkait dengan hierarki perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum
nasional di Indonesi, penulis berpendapat bahwa hierarki mengenai
perjanjian internasional di Indonesia masih belum mendapatkan
kepastian, karena tidak adanya rezim hukum yang pasti untuk
menentukan dimana status dari perjanjian internasional tersebut. Hal ini
salah satunya terkait perdebatan dan perbedaan pendapat di antara
penganut paham monism dan dualism. Ketidakjelasan mengenai hierarki
perjanjian internasional dalam hukum nasional di Indonesia, sama hal
nya dengan mengenai permasalahan non self executing treaties di
Indonesia.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
89
Pada akhir dari buku Treaties Under Indonesian Law: A Comparative
Study penulis menutupnya dengan Bab Kesimpulan atau conclusion dari
penelitian dan studi perbandingan yang telah dilakukan. Penulis
memberikan beberapa hal untuk kesimpulan terkait dengan perjanjian
internasional berdasarkan Hukum Indonesia. Suatu kritikan dan
pendapat penulis terkait dengan perjanjian internasional di Indonesia,
adalah bahwa masih terdapatnya peraturan di Indonesia khususnya
dalam bentuk konstitusi yang masih bersifat ambiguity terkait dengan
perjanjian internasional berdasarkan hukum nasional. Dapat
ditambahkan bahwa ketidak jelasan ini juga termasuk bagaimana sikap
pemerintah memberikan status terhadap perjanjian internasional. Selain
itu catatan juga diberikan oleh penulis terkait dengan policy options,
yang seharusnya ditentukan oleh Indonesia. Sebagai penutup, penulis
juga memberikan kesimpulan atau catatan terkait keterlibatan parlemen
dalam perjanjian internasional, kriteria dari perjanjian internasional yang
memerlukan keterlibatan parlemen dikaitkan dengan Undang-Uundang
No. 24 Tahun 2000 tentang Perjanjian Internasional, metode terkait
perjanjian internasional yang terinkorporasi dalam hukum nasional dan
status perjanjian internasional dalam hierarki peraturan perundang-
undangan.
Pembahasan mengenai Hukum Perjanjian Internasional dalam buku ini
serta dalam bentuk penyajian perbandingan dengan beberapa negara
terkait praktik perjanjian internasional, membuat buku ini memiliki nilai
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
90
lebih untuk dapat dibaca oleh semua kalangan baik akademisi,
mahasiswa, praktisi dan Pemerintah, khususnya bagi Pemerintah
Republik Indonesia yang sering terkait dengan praktik pelaksanaan
perjanjian internasional atau yang terlibat dalam pembuatan perjanjian
internasional dimana Indonesia menjadi pihak.
***
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
91
GLOSSARY
Rebus sic stantibus:
Legal doctrine in public international law which allow treaties to become
inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. This
clause is an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda. Some
aspects of rebus sic stantibus is codified in Article 62 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. Clausula rebus sic stantibus does not
apply if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurence of the
changed circumstance. It only relates to the changed circumstances that
were never contemplated by the parties.
Jus cogens:
Jus cogens is a fundamental, overriding principles of imternation law,
form which no derogation is ever permitted. In practice, jurists attempt to
classify certain rules, rights and duties as jus cogens or peremptory norms
have not met with success: while there is near-universal agreement for
existence of the category of jus cogens norms, there is far less agreement
regarding the actual content of this category.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
92
Let Justice be done though heavens will fall.
- William Murray, 1st Baron Mansfield -
“
”
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
93
TENTANG PENULIS
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kadelbach
Beliau adalah Profesor pada Faculty of Law Johann Wolfgang Goethe – University Frankfurt semenjak tahun 2005. Kini beliau menjabat sebagai Chair of Public Law, European and International Law dan Co-Director of the Wilheim Merton Centre for European Integration and International Economic Order.
Prof. Simon Butt, B.A. LL.B., Ph.D.
Profesor Simon Butt adalah ARC Australian Postdoctoral Research Fellow pada Sydney Law School. Sebelumnya Penulis menempuh program pendidikan Law School (di University of Sydney. Beliau kemudian memperoleh gelar PhD di University of Melbourne, dan memutuskan untuk bergabung dengan almamaternya, University of Sydney sebagai Associate Director pada Centre for Asian and Pacific Law.
Abdulkadir Jaelani, S.H., M.H., M.A. Penulis adalah lulusan Fakultas Hukum Unair dan meraih gelar Master of European Law and Policy di Portsmouth University pada tahun 2002. Saat ini beliau menjabat sebagai Direktur Perjanjian Ekososbud di Direktorat Jenderal Kementerian Luar Negeri, jabatan yang dipangkunya semenjak tahun 2012. Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho S.H., L.L.M. Dr. Haryo Budi Nugroho bergabung dengan Kementerian Luar Negeri Indonesia pada tahun 2007 setelah sebelumnya bekerja sebagai pegawai magang sejak tahun 2005. Saat ini ia bertugas di Direktorat Perjanjian Politik, Keamanan dan Kewilayahan. Dr. Haryo memperoleh gelar Sarjana Hukum dari Universitas Indonesia, dan Master of Laws (LL.M.)
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
94
serta Doctor of Juridical Science (S.J.D.) dari University of Virginia School of Law di bidang hukum laut. Prita Amalia, S.H. MH. Prita Amalia adalah lulusan S2 Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjajaran pada tahun 2009. Saat ini beliau mengajar di bidang Hukum Perdagangan Internasional sekaligus menjabat sebagai Lektor Fakultas Hukum Universitas Padjajaran.
JURNAL OPINIO JURIS Vol. 17 Januari – April 2015
95
Jurnal Hukum dan Perjanjian Internasional
OPINIO JURIS
Jurnal Opinio Juris menerima tulisan dengan tema hukum internasional, perjanjian internasional, diplomasi, hubungan internasional, dan isu-isu dalam negeri yang memiliki dimensi hukum dan perjanjian internasional. Ketentuan Penulisan:
1. Panjang tulisan 10—20 halaman kertas A4 (termasuk abstraksi, isi, catatan kaki, dan daftar pustaka), format MS Word, spasi satu setengah, font Times New Roman ukuran 11. Untuk catatan kaki, spasi satu dan font Times New Roman ukuran 10;
2. Tulisan dapat dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia atau bahasa Inggris; 3. Setiap naskah harus disertai abstraksi maksimal 1 halaman A4. Untuk tulisan
dalam bahasa Indonesia, abstraksi dibuat dalam bahasa Inggris dan untuk tulisan dalam bahasa Inggris, abstraksi dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia. Jumlah kata abstraksi sekitar 100 kata.
4. Rujukan dibuat dalam bentuk catatan kaki (footnote); 5. Tulisan harus asli dari penulis, belum pernah diterbitkan, dan tidak sedang
dikirimkan ke penerbit lain; 6. Untuk setiap naskah yang masuk, redaksi berhak mengedit dengan tidak
mengubah maksud dan isi tulisan; 7. Apabila diperlukan, redaksi akan memberikan masukan dan rekomendasi
kepada penulis tentang tulisan yang dikirim; 8. Setiap naskah yang dikirim harus disertai daftar riwayat hidup singkat
penulis (curriculum vitae) yang setidak-tidaknya terdiri dari pekerjaan, pendidikan, alamat, dan nomor telepon yang bisa dihubungi;
9. Setiap naskah yang disetujui untuk diterbitkan akan mendapatkan kompensasi finansial;
10. File naskah beserta kelengkapan lainnya dapat dikirim ke email Redaksi. 11. Keputusan untuk menerbitkan atau menolak penerbitan suatu naskah
berada pada redaksi dengan tidak dapat diganggu gugat.
Sekretariat Direktorat Jenderal Hukum dan Perjanjian Interansional Kementerian Luar Negeri
Jalan Taman Pejambon No. 6 Jakarta Pusat Telp: +62 21 3846633 Fax: +62 21 3858044
Email: [email protected] http://pustakahpi.kemlu.go.id/