Article Sidebar

Submitted
October 15, 2018
Published
January 17, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 536 Download : 975

Main Article Content

Abstract

Theterm  "Direct  Participation  in  Hostilities"  is  a  term  contained  in  the  1949  Geneva  Conventions  and Additional  Protocols  of  1977,  which  gave  rise  to  various  legal  interpretations.  The  two  international agreements do not provide a definition or further explanation. The problem that arises from this obscurity of interpretation is how judges conduct an analysis of whether someone can be considered as participating in an act of hostility in an armed conflict in war crimes. This research is normative with an analytical descriptive approach  towards  primary  and  secondary  legal  materials  obtained  from  literature  studies  and  analyzed qualitatively based on international humanitarian law. This research aims to identify the interpretation used in the  final  verdicts  of  international  court  on  "direct  participation  in  hostilities."  The  results  show  that  in overcoming the lack of understanding of the term, the ICRC issues an "Interpretive Guidance" that is not legally binding. Although it creates controversy and is not a legal document, the approach adopted in the "interpretive guidance" turns out to have been used as a discussion material making verdicts, but has not been fully used by the judge as a binding legal basis in war crimes.

Keywords

Humanitarian law direct participation in hostilities ICRC interpretive guidance

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Permanasari, A. (2019). Penafsiran Hukum tentang “Partisipasi Langsung dalam Permusuhan” dalam Kasus-kasus Kejahatan Perang. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 25(3), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol25.iss3.art5
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Buku
  2. Bernard Arief Sidharta, “Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Analisis Penelitian Filosofikal dan Dogmatikal”, dalam Sulistyowati Irianto & Sidharta, Metode Penelitian Hukum. Konstelasi dan Refleksi, Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia, Jakarta, 2013.
  3. I Made Pasek Diantha, Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif dalam Justifikasi Teori Hukum, Prenada Media Group, Jakarta 2017.
  4. Schmitt, Michael N., Charles H. Garraway & Yoram Dinstein, The Manual on the Law of Non-International Armed Conflict with Commentary, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo, 2006.
  5. Melzer, Nils, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneve, May 2009.
  6. Putusan Pengadilan
  7. Ghaleb Nassar Al-Bihani vs. Barack Obama, Case No. 09-5051, U.S. Court of Appeals, 5 Januari 2010.
  8. Kreß, Claus, “Aerial Drone Deployment on 4 October 2010 in Mir Ali / Pakistan” (Targeted Killing in Pakistan Case), Case No. 3 BJs 7/12-4, Germany Federal Prosecutor General, 23 July 2013.
  9. Prosecutor v. Akayesu Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Putusan 2 September 1998.
  10. Jurnal
  11. Bailey, Christopher E., “Cyber Civilians as Combatants”, Creighton International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2017.
  12. Boothby, Bill, “And for such times as”: The Time Dimension to Direct Participation in Hostilities”, Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 42, 2010.
  13. CetInkaya, Lokman Burak, “The ICRC’s Formulation of the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Legal Analysis”, Law & Justice Review, Year 7, Issue 12, Juni 2016.
  14. Corn, Geoffrey S., “Bringing Discipline to the Civilianization of the Battlefield: A Proposal for a More Legitimate Approach to Resurrecting Military-Criminal Jurisdiction over Civilian Augmentees”, University of Miami Law Review, Vol. 62, 2008.
  15. Corn, Geoffrey S., “Unarmed but How Dangerous? Civilian Augmentees, the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Search for a More Effective Test for Permissible Civilian Battlefield Functions”, Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Vol. 2, 2008.
  16. Dinstein, Yoram, “The Recent Evolution of the International Law of Armed Conflict: Confusions, Constraints, and Challenges”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 51, 2018.
  17. Delerue, François, “Civilian Direct Participation in Cyber Hostilities”, Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, IDP Revista de Internet, Derecho y Politica, No. 19, Octubre 2014.
  18. Hays Parks, “Part IX of the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Study: No Mandate, No Expertise, and Legally Incorrect”, Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 42, 2010.
  19. Jenks, Chris, “Law from Above: Unmanned Aerial Systems, Use of Force, and the Law of Armed Conflict”, North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 85, 2009.
  20. Kreps, Sarah & John Kaag “The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis”, Polity, Vol. 44, No. 2, April 2012.
  21. Lotrionte, Catherine, “Targeted Killings by Drones: A Domestic and International Legal Framework”, Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2012.
  22. Melzer, Nils, “Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities”, Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 42, 2010.
  23. Schmitt, Michael N., “The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis”, Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 1, 2009.
  24. Schmitt, Michael N., “Deconstructing Direct Participation in Hostilities: The Constitutive Elements”, Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 42, 2010.
  25. Sehrawat, Vivek, “Legal Status of Drones under LOAC and International Law”, Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs, Vol. 5, Issue 1, War in the 21st Century and Collected Works, 2017.
  26. Van der Toorn, Damien, “Practical Road Test of the International Committee of the Red Cross’s Guidance through Afghanistan”, Australian International Law Journal, Vol. 17, Issue 1, 2010.
  27. Watkins, Kennet, “Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Interpretive Guidance”, Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 42, 2010.
  28. Wenger, Andreas & Simon J.A. Mason, “The civilianization of armed conflict: trends and implications”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 90, No. 872, December 2008.
  29. Yip, Ka Lok, “The ICRC’s interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities: sociological and democratic legitimacy in domestic legal orders”, Transnational Legal Theory, Vol. 8, No. 2, 4 July 2017.
  30. Hasil Penelitian
  31. Crawford, Emily, “Tracing the Historical and Legal Development of the Levée en masse in the Law of Armed Conflict,” Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 17 / 10, Sydney Law School, 2017.
  32. Internet
  33. CAMP, “Understanding FATA”, http://www.understandingfata.org/about-u-fata.php, diakses tanggal 24 Mei 2018.
  34. Harwood, Catherine, “A Matter of Distinction: ‘active’ and ‘direct’ participation in hostilities and the war crime of using child soldiers”, Spreading the Jam. International Law, International Criminal Law, Human Rights and Transitional Justice, https://dovjacobs.com/2014/07/14/guest-post-a-matter-of-distinction-active-and-direct-participation-in-hostilities-and-the-war-crime-of-using-child-soldiers/, diakses tanggal 25 Maret 2018.