The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence
The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence (The Digest) is a double blind peer reviewed journal published by Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES), Indonesia. The Journal published bi-annual every June and Desember The Digest is intended to be a scientific and research journal for academics, legal scholars, and legal practitioners with focuses on analysis of Court Decision and legal studies. The Journal publishes contemporary articles on law and case analysis, and the Journal published within Bahasa and English both print and online version. The Digest is also intended to be Indonesia’s forum for discussion and analysis of court decision. Each issue on The digest includes insightful analysis and discussion on court decision.
Articles
10 Documents
Search results for
, issue
"Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021)"
:
10 Documents
clear
<![CDATA[Political Crisis and The Politics of Religious Divisiveness in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic ]]>
<![CDATA[Oyetunbi, Oluwaseyi]]>;
<![CDATA[Akinrinde, Olawale Olufemi]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/the digest.v2i2.48586
<![CDATA[The relationship that exists between politics and religion cannot be over-emphasized in Nigeria polity since the evolution of a sustainable democracy which has heightened the relevance of religion in our society. Religion has been identified as one of the factors that have divided the people of Nigeria who are divided already by many phenomena that are of nature. The diversities engineered by cultures, customs, traditions and values are not as potent as religion in dividing the people, ensuing conflict, creating a paradise for favoritism, generating riot and insurgence. Religious leaders have become force to reckon with in the country, many of them become politicians out of the blues because of their influence on the mindset of their members to decide as regard electioneering activities. However, politics needs to be guided by religion ideally, evidently most policies fabricated, go in line with dogmas of either Christianity or Islam before other indexes may follow. People are better divided by religion. This paper focuses on examining the influence of religion on politics in Nigeria’s fourth republic using the Boko-haram insurgence as the major yardstick to establishing the impacts of religion on the divisive Nigeria.]]>
<![CDATA[Daya Ikat Putusan Mahkamah Internasional: Analisis Penyerangan Militer dan Paramiliter Amerika Terhadap Nikaragua ]]>
<![CDATA[Fahri, Faizal]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/the digest.v2i2.48636
<![CDATA[The problem raised in this paper is that the use of military and paramilitary forces carried out by America violates state sovereignty and international law regarding state relations (America and Nicaragua). State sovereignty gives the right of responsibility to protect the sovereignty of its people, respect and fulfill the rights of its citizens and cooperate in the international community. However, in this dispute, state sovereignty is violated by internal members of the country, especially by members of the American military and paramilitaries. Although America believes the use of force by military and paramilitary members as a means of self-defense. This study was conducted by examining relevant decisions and facts from international law, customary international law, general principles of law, international treaties, conventions, declarations and decisions of international Court of Justice (ICJ). The Nicaragua case is a legal dispute that falls under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in which Nicaragua has adopted methods in accordance with international legal procedures but the United States has rejected the decision of the International Court of Justice.]]>
<![CDATA[How the Judgement Effective? The Role of United Nations in Conflict Resolution Between Palestine and Israel ]]>
<![CDATA[Millenio, Muhammad Fauzan]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/the digest.v2i2.48637
<![CDATA[The conflict that still occurred between Palestine and Israel is one of the most complicated conflicts in the world, which even until modern times and human rights are increasingly held in high esteem today, the conflict has not yet come to light and cannot be resolved. If in total, even up to millions of victims died due to the conflict both from the parties involved and even the civilian population ranging from toddlers to the elderly. This has invited the sympathy and attention of various countries in the world. However, due to complexity of the conflict, countries on the world that want to help resolve the conflict have not been able to help and contribute optimally. Even the UN, which is a world peace organization, is not yet able to work optimally. Many people accuse that the main cause is the United States. The United States considered to be the mastermind behind the conflict so that the conflict has not been resolved to date. The United States which is an ally of Israel always makes various efforts that are precisely considered beneficial to Israel. Even though they are criticized by various countries, because of their power it does not make America afraid and even stays strong so that countries that condemn American actions cannot do big things as a form of change in accordance with their wishes.]]>
<![CDATA[Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Internasional dalam Kasus Sengketa Indonesia-Malaysia Mengenai Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan ]]>
<![CDATA[Novitasari, Choirunnisa Nur]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/the digest.v2i2.48638
<![CDATA[Disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia in the International Court of Justice on the issues of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan continued to roll throughout the year until 1997 both countries raised this issue in international law. The two islands which are located in the center of Indonesia, precisely in the Makassar Strait, were finally won by the Malaysian side on December 17, 2002 The Court finally decided that Malaysia is the party that has full sovereignty over Sipadan Island and Ligitan Island. In its decision. The court made the doctrine of "ejfectivites" the main consideration for declaring Malaysian ownership of the two islands. According to the Court, the conventional Indonesian title claim and the OlY Malaysia chain of title claim are as weak as they cannot provide legal evidence that can support their respective ownership claims in the two disputed islands. The Court also believes that there is no authentic documentary evidence that can be sure that the two disputed islands belong to the Dutch or British territories. after various international legal channels taken by these two countries because it is based on several factors, namely: continuous presence, effective occupation, management and preservation of nature. This was confirmed in the Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August-31 July 2012, the decision of the International Court of Justice was carried out through bargaining led by presiding judge Gilbert Guillaume from France who established Malaysia as having sovereignty over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. Thus Malaysia has the right to draw a base line as its boundary to the outer points of Sipadan Island and Ligitan Island. As a friendly country, diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Malaysia were disrupted at that time due to the overlapping claims between Indonesia and Malaysia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, which emerged since 1967, but as we know, based on The Hague's two conventions on resolving international disputes this, the countries (members) make maximum efforts to resolve international disputes peacefully. For this purpose, as long as the situation still permits or permits, the parties agree to submit their dispute to good services, mediation or the commission of inquiry to settle their dispute (diplomatic means) therefore a peaceful path is pursued by the two countries cannot do big things as a form of change in accordance with their wishes.]]>
<![CDATA[The Territorial Limitation Dispute and Its Settlement Between Peru and Chile ]]>
<![CDATA[Rosita, Fitria Ida]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Fakultas Hukum Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/the digest.v2i2.48641
<![CDATA[In a country usually consists of an area in the form of land, an area in the form of oceans, and airspace. Sometimes these areas must be directly adjacent to other areas of the country, with this the State should have responsibility regarding the boundaries of its country to determine and claim that the position and boundaries are the property of its country, and are required to register the territory with the United Nations. The sea border dispute that occurred between Chile and Peru began when the two countries were adjoining territories after Bovilia surrendered its maritime territory to Chile resulting from losing the Pacific War in 1883. Then in 1947 Peru and Chile stated in their own way that sovereignty over the sea, which is 200 miles along the coast of each of the Chilean and Peruvian countries. The Peruvian president denies that the maritime zone between Chile and Peru has never been based on legal agreements. But on the other hand Chile claims that both parties have agreed to limits in the sea zone measured from the shoreline that runs along parallel latitudes]]>
<![CDATA[Political Crisis and The Politics of Religious Divisiveness in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic ]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/digest.v2i2.48586
<![CDATA[The relationship that exists between politics and religion cannot be over-emphasized in Nigeria polity since the evolution of a sustainable democracy which has heightened the relevance of religion in our society. Religion has been identified as one of the factors that have divided the people of Nigeria who are divided already by many phenomena that are of nature. The diversities engineered by cultures, customs, traditions and values are not as potent as religion in dividing the people, ensuing conflict, creating a paradise for favoritism, generating riot and insurgence. Religious leaders have become force to reckon with in the country, many of them become politicians out of the blues because of their influence on the mindset of their members to decide as regard electioneering activities. However, politics needs to be guided by religion ideally, evidently most policies fabricated, go in line with dogmas of either Christianity or Islam before other indexes may follow. People are better divided by religion. This paper focuses on examining the influence of religion on politics in Nigeria’s fourth republic using the Boko-haram insurgence as the major yardstick to establishing the impacts of religion on the divisive Nigeria.]]>
<![CDATA[Daya Ikat Putusan Mahkamah Internasional: Analisis Penyerangan Militer dan Paramiliter Amerika Terhadap Nikaragua ]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/digest.v2i2.48636
<![CDATA[The problem raised in this paper is that the use of military and paramilitary forces carried out by America violates state sovereignty and international law regarding state relations (America and Nicaragua). State sovereignty gives the right of responsibility to protect the sovereignty of its people, respect and fulfill the rights of its citizens and cooperate in the international community. However, in this dispute, state sovereignty is violated by internal members of the country, especially by members of the American military and paramilitaries. Although America believes the use of force by military and paramilitary members as a means of self-defense. This study was conducted by examining relevant decisions and facts from international law, customary international law, general principles of law, international treaties, conventions, declarations and decisions of international Court of Justice (ICJ). The Nicaragua case is a legal dispute that falls under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in which Nicaragua has adopted methods in accordance with international legal procedures but the United States has rejected the decision of the International Court of Justice.]]>
<![CDATA[How the Judgement Effective? The Role of United Nations in Conflict Resolution Between Palestine and Israel ]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/digest.v2i2.48637
<![CDATA[The conflict that still occurred between Palestine and Israel is one of the most complicated conflicts in the world, which even until modern times and human rights are increasingly held in high esteem today, the conflict has not yet come to light and cannot be resolved. If in total, even up to millions of victims died due to the conflict both from the parties involved and even the civilian population ranging from toddlers to the elderly. This has invited the sympathy and attention of various countries in the world. However, due to complexity of the conflict, countries on the world that want to help resolve the conflict have not been able to help and contribute optimally. Even the UN, which is a world peace organization, is not yet able to work optimally. Many people accuse that the main cause is the United States. The United States considered to be the mastermind behind the conflict so that the conflict has not been resolved to date. The United States which is an ally of Israel always makes various efforts that are precisely considered beneficial to Israel. Even though they are criticized by various countries, because of their power it does not make America afraid and even stays strong so that countries that condemn American actions cannot do big things as a form of change in accordance with their wishes.]]>
<![CDATA[Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Internasional dalam Kasus Sengketa Indonesia-Malaysia Mengenai Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan ]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/digest.v2i2.48638
<![CDATA[Disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia in the International Court of Justice on the issues of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan continued to roll throughout the year until 1997 both countries raised this issue in international law. The two islands which are located in the center of Indonesia, precisely in the Makassar Strait, were finally won by the Malaysian side on December 17, 2002 The Court finally decided that Malaysia is the party that has full sovereignty over Sipadan Island and Ligitan Island. In its decision. The court made the doctrine of "ejfectivites" the main consideration for declaring Malaysian ownership of the two islands. According to the Court, the conventional Indonesian title claim and the OlY Malaysia chain of title claim are as weak as they cannot provide legal evidence that can support their respective ownership claims in the two disputed islands. The Court also believes that there is no authentic documentary evidence that can be sure that the two disputed islands belong to the Dutch or British territories. after various international legal channels taken by these two countries because it is based on several factors, namely: continuous presence, effective occupation, management and preservation of nature. This was confirmed in the Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August-31 July 2012, the decision of the International Court of Justice was carried out through bargaining led by presiding judge Gilbert Guillaume from France who established Malaysia as having sovereignty over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan. Thus Malaysia has the right to draw a base line as its boundary to the outer points of Sipadan Island and Ligitan Island. As a friendly country, diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Malaysia were disrupted at that time due to the overlapping claims between Indonesia and Malaysia over the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, which emerged since 1967, but as we know, based on The Hague's two conventions on resolving international disputes this, the countries (members) make maximum efforts to resolve international disputes peacefully. For this purpose, as long as the situation still permits or permits, the parties agree to submit their dispute to good services, mediation or the commission of inquiry to settle their dispute (diplomatic means) therefore a peaceful path is pursued by the two countries cannot do big things as a form of change in accordance with their wishes.]]>
<![CDATA[The Territorial Limitation Dispute and Its Settlement Between Peru and Chile ]]>
<![CDATA[ The Digest: Journal of Jurisprudence and Legisprudence Vol 2 No 2 (2021): The Digest (December, 2021) ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[Universitas Negeri Semarang ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.15294/digest.v2i2.48641
<![CDATA[In a country usually consists of an area in the form of land, an area in the form of oceans, and airspace. Sometimes these areas must be directly adjacent to other areas of the country, with this the State should have responsibility regarding the boundaries of its country to determine and claim that the position and boundaries are the property of its country, and are required to register the territory with the United Nations. The sea border dispute that occurred between Chile and Peru began when the two countries were adjoining territories after Bovilia surrendered its maritime territory to Chile resulting from losing the Pacific War in 1883. Then in 1947 Peru and Chile stated in their own way that sovereignty over the sea, which is 200 miles along the coast of each of the Chilean and Peruvian countries. The Peruvian president denies that the maritime zone between Chile and Peru has never been based on legal agreements. But on the other hand Chile claims that both parties have agreed to limits in the sea zone measured from the shoreline that runs along parallel latitudes]]>
