Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2019 - 2024
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Penelitian Politik Indonesian Journal of International Law
Faudzan Farhana, Faudzan
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
MEMAHAMI PERSPEKTIF TIONGKOK DALAM UPAYA PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA LAUT CINA SELATAN Farhana, Faudzan
Jurnal Penelitian Politik Vol 11, No 1 (2014): Problematika Isu Perbatasan
Publisher : Pusat Penelitian Politik

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (296.473 KB) | DOI: 10.14203/jpp.v11i1.196

Abstract

Ulasan buku ini adalah tentang sudut pandang Tiongkok terhadap perkembangan isu sengketa kewilayahandi Laut Cina Selatan (LCS). Sebagai salah satu aktor kunci dalam sengketa ini, sangatlah penting untuk memahamipandangan Tiongkok agar dapat memprediksi kebijakan politiknya terkait dengan upaya penyelesaian sengketasecara damai dan pengembangan kerja sama di kawasan. Tiongkok mengklaim kedaulatannya atas keempat grupkepulauan di LCS dan lautan di sekelilingnya berdasarkan tiga hal: (1) hak-hak historis yang mencakup penemuan,penamaan, penggunaan nama yang berkelanjutan, dan tindakan protes dan perlawanan terhadap invasi asing, (2)penyelenggaraan kekuasaan administratif yang berkelanjutan, serta (3) adanya pengakuan atas kedaulatan Tiongkokdari komunitas internasional dan bahkan juga dari beberapa negara pengklaim lainnya. Sementara itu, dalam upayapenyelesaian sengketa ini disarankan agar seluruh pihak dapat bekerjasama dalam menemukan resolusi damaiberdasarkan empat prinsip: (1) pengelolaan laut secara damai, (2) upaya selangkah-demi-selangkah, (3) pembagiankeuntungan yang adil dan seimbang, serta (4) pengeksplorasian yang ramah lingkungan.Kata Kunci: perspektif Tiongkok, Laut Cina Selatan, sengketa wilayah, kerja sama regional.
Consistency and Predictability in International Tribunals Decision on Maritime Delimitation Cases From 2009 to 2019 Farhana, Faudzan
Indonesian Journal of International Law
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (1263.127 KB)

Abstract

The rules of maritime delimitation are of paramount importance in the law of the sea because coastal states will not be able to effectively exercise their legal uses of the sea without definite boundary. However, as customary law, Articles 15, 74 and 83 of UNCLOS did not provide much guidance in any particular delimitation case. Meanwhile, concluded bilateral agreements had not created enough practice of law to qualify as customary law. Thus, it is left to the international tribunals to form the delimitation rules. However, cases decided by the international tribunals show a lack of consistency in applying two main methods based on relevant provisions of UNCLOS. Both equidistance and the equitable principle has been used on plenty of occasions, as well as other criteria. This study aims to examine whether the approach of international tribunals to maritime delimitation cases has become more predictable and consistent during 2009-2019. Limited to the cases decided by the ICJ, ITLOS, and PCA, the study found that there is no significant deviation from the application of Article 15 UNCLOS within the proceedings of the cases. However, the unpredictability of the decision in the Ghana/Cote d’Ivoire case shows that the Court is more focus on the consistency of methodology than principle matter. In applying Article 74 and 83 UNCLOS, the Tribunals also put more effort into ensuring a consistent methodology. However, plenty of discretion also available for the Tribunals. Although such discretion is crucial, it needs to utilise carefully to maintain the consistency and predictability of the law. Without the consistent interpretation and predictable translation of UNCLOS from the International Tribunals, it is impossible to preserve the Law of Maritime Delimitation.
Co-Authors