Penafsiran Hukum Hakim Dalam Menangani Sengketa Antara Iran Vs Amerika Serikat (Studi Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Internasional 6 November Tahun 2003)

Putri, Riani (2019) Penafsiran Hukum Hakim Dalam Menangani Sengketa Antara Iran Vs Amerika Serikat (Studi Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Internasional 6 November Tahun 2003). Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text Riani Putri.pdf Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

In various important fields the International Court of Justice has contributed a lot in determining the existence and form of certain fundamental legal norms of the international community. Given the increasingly complex legal problems facing the world in the era of interdependence in globalization today, especially in the use of force as a form of self-defense, the judges of the International Court are expected to play a more important role in decision making, besides the support and cooperation of the state the state against world legal institutions and adequate international legal products. The main problem in this research is how the judge's legal interpretation of the international court authority in dealing with disputes between Iran and the United States (study of the international court ruling 6 November 2003) based on the UN Charter and how the international court judges interpreted the dispute between Iran vs. the United States (study of the international court ruling 6 November 2003) within the framework of substantive justice. This research was made using normative research methods and was descriptive. Therefore, using materials obtained through literature means that research uses secondary data sources, then will be given a clear and systematic detailed description of the main research problems. The results obtained from this study are the way the judges in making decisions in this case invite many questions about the use of force as self-defense because there is no limitation of explanation in the UN Charter. The judge's legal interpretation based on the decision did not make the two parties to the dispute get the justice they expected because it was limited to merely procedural decisionmaking processes.

Actions (login required)

View Item