Kebenaran Selalu Datangnya Terlambat

Kebenaran selalu datangnya terlambat, karena kebenaran sangat tinggi nilainya.
Tidak semua orang berani mengaku kesalahannya, bahkan ada istilah dalam masyarakat kita,…” seorang maling tidak akan pernah mengaku dirinya maling….” bahkan mereka akan meneriaki orang lain sebagai maling.

Mencari sosok idealis yang jujur di zaman sekarang memang susah, apa lagi dalam sebuah perjuangan. Semua mengaku dirinya pahlawan, padahal pahlawan yang sebenar adalah mereka – mereka yang telah menjadi syuhada.

Kebohongan akan terus berlanjut dalam komunitas hipokrit, mereka akan busungkan dada seraya berucap. Akulah pahlawan bangsa yang telah menyelamatkan kalian.
Hari ini tidak satupun yang rela hidup miskin sebagai penguasa, ini maknanya keihklasan seorang penguasa dan pemimpin itu masih harus dipertanyakan.

Semoga kita tidak termasuk dalam golongan hipokrit. 

Dilemmas of Self Determination

Dilemmas of Self-Determination
by Edward A. Kolodziej

Few principles of international law and morality are more basic than the right of a people to national self-determination. The American and French revolutions proclaimed this principle and inspired millions of people to throw off foreign rule and domination in its pursuit. Even as the European states and the United States were acquiring empires around the globe during the nineteenth century, they were also integrating their disparate populations under the banner of increasingly strident and aggressive forms of national self-assertion. Napoleonic France, which had spread the infectious virus of nationalism among the European peoples whom it conquered, contributed decisively to the creation of a united Italy and Germany. The principle of self-determination was expanded, paradoxically, not only to include the creation of new states but to underwrite claims to empire, reflected in Germany’s and Italy’s imperial designs variously manifested in Europe, Asia, and Africa in imitation of their European rivals. The failure of the Europeans to contain these virulent forms of egoistic nationalism in their own relations or to prevent their spread to the peoples of their far-flung empires finally plunged all into a world war.

World War I effectively strengthened, not diminished, the force of national self-determination in world politics. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points rested on a conception of international politics that hinged critically on the purported stabilizing effects of applying the principles more broadly than ever before. Wilson argued, and the Versailles Treaty affirmed, that World War I was caused by authoritarian governments seeking to oppress their own and foreign peoples. If previously suppressed national peoples were granted their own states, their legitimate claims for the redress of their frustrated demands for self-determination would eliminate a principal cause of war. Wilson also assumed that, once this principle was applied to the peoples of Europe, democratic government and peace would inevitably ensue. The pacific union, so much discussed today, was already well articulated in Wilson’s plan for perpetual peace after World War I.

As E. H. Carr persuasively argued in The Twenty Years’ Crisis and as experience confirmed, nothing could have been further from the truth. The Balkans and Eastern Europe continued to be a source of armed conflict among the contentious peoples of this region and a crucible for the destruction of democratic hopes and the violation of civil liberties. Nazi Germany perversely employed the principle in absorbing Austria and the Sudetenland Germans of Czechoslovakia. France was unable—and unwilling—to defend the principle in its failed security treaties with the newly created states of Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the democracies of Britain, France, Holland, and Belgium continued to suppress expressions of self-determination within their respective empires.

Virulent nationalism, which had spawned two world wars, also led inexorably to the loss of Europe’s empires and to the end of the Euro-centric world. This process of European decolonization has only recently come to an end with the collapse of the white supremacist government of South Africa. Its demise followed in the wake, successively, of the Dutch, British, French, Belgium, Spanish, and Portuguese empires. Almost fifty years were needed to implant and fully extend the principle of self-determination as a key building block of international relations, or what Hedley Bull, in The Anarchical Society: Study of Order in World Politics, characterized as the elemental principle on which the society of states comprising the current system of world order rests.

The eruption of violent clashes between peoples and states in the aftermath of the Cold War raises doubts about the unrestricted application of the principle of national self-determination. Ample evidence suggests that it is as much a problem as a solution for the construction of a peaceful, ever-prosperous, and legitimate world order. The implosion of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Rwanda—to note only a few hot spots—suggests that the unrestrained application of the principle is not without heavy costs in life and property. The breakup of Moscow’s empire has given way to war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, civil war in Georgia and Russia, and tensions among almost all of the former Soviet republics. There appears to be no immediate end to the fighting between Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, and the danger is clear and present that the bloodshed may well extend to Kosovo, Albania, and Macedonia—and quite conceivably to the Balkans, Greece, and Asia Minor. More recently, unspeakable atrocities have been inflicted by Hutus and Tutsis on each other in Rwanda—a conflict that may well spread to neighboring Burundi.

This brief review of the impact of national self-determination on the explosion of new states and the implosion of once established states forms the backdrop for examining the current dilemmas posed by self-determination as an unqualified principle of international order and governance. First, in the absence of universally recognized and enforced standards or criteria for applying this principle, it will be an invitation to continued violence between states and, more significantly, to chronic civil strife and war as aggrieved groups seek greater political autonomy or independence. Most of the armed conflicts since World War II have been within states, not between them. Any disaffected group can now appeal to this principle and justify the use of violence in seeking redress of their real or imagined grievances. The principle of self-determination actually sanctions force and violence in the absence of universal and enforceable norms to assess claims in the pursuit of this principle. Since few states are ethnically, racially, or communally homogeneous and integrated, as Uri Ra’anan persuasively argues in Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, few are freed from the threat of armed conflict. A disaffected group’s assertion of self-determination, backed by violence, is sufficient to plunge a state into civil war. The examples cited above testify to these incentives. They are at the core of the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Both states rest on shaky social divisions, defined by unbridgeable religious, communal, ethnic, tribal, linguistic, and regional differences. States like Indonesia and Malaysia also rest on underlying fragile social compacts and problematically effective coercive force to constrain ethnic, religious, racial, and tribal violence.

Second, the principle of self-determination inhibits other, adversely affected states or the world community from effectively intervening in these armed conflicts to contain or resolve them. The logic of self-determination rationalizes the erosion of international norms and standards that might be relied upon to define and assess the claims of aggrieved peoples who seek a solution of their political differences through violence and political independence as well as recognition and support of their struggle. With the exception of peaceful implosions, like that of Czechoslovakia and possibly Canada, self-determination appears to be realized, as Mao Tse-tung was prone to argue, out of the barrel of a gun—through bullets, not ballots.

Third, once political independence is achieved, there is no assurance that the resulting state will be economically viable. It is not enough for a state or government to represent a socially integrated population. It is also expected to provide for their economic welfare if the state and its political regime are to be stable. The proclivity of the international system toward geopolitical decentralization and power diffusion runs counter to the growing economic interdependence of peoples and states. National independence and economic autarchy are not easily reconcilable if sustained growth is an imperative. A proliferation of states complicates the spread and preservation of a liberal trading regime and multiplies the costs of coordinating national economic policies for mutual benefit.

Fourth, self-determination does not automatically lead to democratization, and even when national self-determination and democratization may covary, peace and prosperity are not a foregone conclusion. The experience of the eastern European states and of the former Soviet republics suggests the hazards of relying on these Wilsonian assumptions. The Asian republics of Moscow’s former empire can hardly be said to have embarked on the road to democracy. Those that have—Poland, Ukraine, and Russia—are shaky, and former antidemocratic forces have regained lost ground since the independence of these states.

The heightened nationalism exhibited in Ukrainian and Russian foreign policy also advises caution about expecting an automatic movement toward the peaceful resolution of interstate differences simply because a state has embarked on a process of democratization. The transition process, by no means assured, actually contributes to international distrust, suspicion, and conflict. An authoritarian Communist regime in the Soviet Union might well have negotiated a peaceful settlement of the Sakhalin Islands problem with Japan. A weakened Russian government, buffeted by rising national intransigence, is incapable of addressing the issues although it desperately needs foreign and, in particular, Japanese investment to reform its ailing economy.

Finally, the principle of self-determination seriously hampers intervention by other states or the world community, acting through regional security organizations or the United Nations, to address human rights violations. Authoritarian states like China can claim that no universally recognized human rights exist. These are purportedly determined by culture, history, and national political exigencies, and these differences are protected by the principle of self-determination. Even where such violations are widely recognized as having been committed, there is little incentive among the peoples and states of the world to challenge this principle and to assume the burden of rectifying these transgressions when they seem to be acting against a fundamental principle of international law and morality.

The aim of this all too brief analysis is not to condemn or reject the principle of self-determination. It cannot be dismissed out of hand, because it has served too many good causes and provided too many people with a powerful vehicle to free themselves from oppression at home or from abroad. These positive benefits of self determination, however, should not stand in the way of facing squarely the dilemmas that unqualified, unreserved, and violent application of the principle poses for the peace, prosperity, and legitimacy of a new world order. The world society of states has now reached a new and challenging evolutionary stage in its development that warrants reexamining its prevailing norms to determine whether they should be retained, modified, or surmounted. The principle of self-determination is clearly up for reevaluation to determine its limits and how well it can serve the needs of the six billion people of the emerging world society.

Edward A. Kolodziej is a research professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and a co-founder of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security. He is the author or editor of ten books and more than a hundred articles and reviews on the role of force in international relations and on regional security systems, and he is one of the leading American experts on French arms and security policy. His recent research appears in a book comparing Western nuclear deterrence policies, and in an edited volume on managing regional conflict. His current research looks at solutions to the problems of order, welfare, and legitimacy in the emerging world society.

89th Plenary Meeting

Effective implementation of

international instruments on human

rights, including reporting obligations

under international instruments on

human rights

Printer-friendly version

The General Assembly,

Recalling its resolution 46/111 of 17 December 1991, as well as its other relevant resolutions,

Reaffirming that the effective implementation of United Nations instruments on human rights is of major importance to the efforts of the Organization, pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Reaffirming its responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of treaty bodies established pursuant to instruments adopted by the General Assembly and, in this connection, also reaffirming the importance of:

(a) Ensuring the effective functioning of systems of periodic reporting by States parties to these instruments;

(b) Securing sufficient financial resources to overcome existing difficulties with the effective functioning of treaty bodies;

(c) Addressing questions of reporting obligations and financial implications whenever elaborating any further instruments on human rights,

Recalling the conclusions and recommendations of the second meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, held at Geneva from 10 to 14 October 1988, and the endorsement of the recommendations aimed at streamlining, rationalizing and otherwise improving reporting procedures by the General Assembly in its resolution 46/111 and the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1992/15 of 21 February 1992,

Taking particular note of the conclusions and recommendations of the third and fourth meetings of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, held at Geneva from 1 to 5 October 1990, and from 12 to 16 October 1992, respectively,

Expressing concern about the increasing backlog of reports on implementation by States parties to United Nations instruments on human rights and about delays in consideration of reports by the treaty bodies,

Taking note of the reports of the Secretary-General on progress achieved in enhancing the effective functioning of the treaty bodies,

Recalling the study on possible long-term approaches to enhancing the effective operation of existing and prospective bodies established under United Nations instruments on human rights, prepared by an independent expert, and aware of the need to update the study,

Welcoming the decision taken at the Fourteenth Meeting of States Parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination on 15 January 1992 to amend paragraph 6 of article 8 of the Convention and to add a new paragraph, as paragraph 7 of article 8, by which the members of the Committee established under the Convention shall henceforth receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as may be decided by the General Assembly,

Welcoming also the decision taken at the Conference of the States Parties to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, on 9 September 1992, to delete paragraph 7 of article 17 and paragraph 5 of article 18 of the Convention, to insert a new paragraph, as paragraph 4 of article 18, by which the members of the Committee established under the Convention shall receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as may be decided by the General Assembly, and to recommend that the Assembly take action for the implementation of the proposed amendment at its forty-seventh session,

Welcoming the reports of the Secretary-General examining the financial, legal and other implications of providing full funding for the operation of all human rights treaty bodies,

1. Endorses the conclusions and recommendations of the meetings of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies aimed at streamlining, rationalizing and otherwise improving reporting procedures, and supports the continuing efforts in this connection by the treaty bodies and the Secretary-General within their respective spheres of competence;

2. Expresses its satisfaction with the study by the independent expert on possible long-term approaches to enhancing the effective operation of existing and prospective bodies established under United Nations instruments on human rights, which contains several recommendations on reporting and monitoring procedures, servicing and financing of supervisory bodies and long-term approaches to human rights standard-setting and implementation mechanisms, and which was presented to the Commission on Human Rights for detailed consideration at its forty-sixth session, and, in the light of the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the fourth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, requests that the report of the independent expert be updated for submission to the Commission at its fiftieth session and that an interim report be presented to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session and be made available to the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to give high priority to establishing a computerized database to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the functioning of the treaty bodies;

4. Again urges States parties to make every effort to meet their reporting obligations and to contribute, individually and through meetings of States parties, to identifying and implementing ways of further streamlining and improving reporting procedures as well as enhancing coordination and information flow between the treaty bodies and with relevant United Nations bodies, including specialized agencies;

5. Welcomes the emphasis placed by the meetings of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies and by the Commission on Human Rights on the importance of technical assistance and advisory services and, further to this end:

(a) Endorses the request of the Commission to the Secretary-General to report regularly to it on possible technical assistance projects identified by the treaty bodies;

(b) Invites the treaty bodies to give priority attention to identifying such possibilities in the regular course of their work of reviewing the periodic reports of States parties;

6. Endorses the recommendations of the meetings of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies on the need to ensure financing and adequate staffing resources for the operations of the treaty bodies and, with this in mind:

(a) Reiterates its request to the Secretary-General to provide adequate resources with regard to the various treaty bodies;

(b) Requests the Secretary-General to report on this question to the Assembly at its forty-eighth session;

7. Calls upon all States parties to meet fully and without delay their financial obligations under the relevant instruments on human rights, and requests the Secretary-General to consider ways and means of strengthening collection procedures and making them more effective;

8. Emphasizes that any administrative and budgetary measures shall be taken without prejudice to the duty of States parties under United Nations human rights instruments to meet all their current and outstanding financial obligations pursuant to such instruments;

9. Endorses the amendments to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To take the appropriate measures to provide for the financing of the committees established under those conventions from the regular budget of the United Nations, beginning with the budget for the biennium 1994-1995;

(b) To take the necessary measures to ensure that the two committees meet as scheduled until the amendments enter into force;

10. Requests the Secretary-General to take the appropriate steps in order to finance the biennial meetings of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies from the resources available from the regular budget of the United Nations;

11. Also requests the Secretary-General, in the light of the views expressed at the forty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights and the thirty-seventh session of the Commission on the Status of Women, to submit to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session a report examining the conclusions and recommendations of the fourth meeting of persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies, held in October 1992;

12. Decides to give priority consideration at its forty-eighth session to the conclusions and recommendations of the meetings of persons chairing human rights treaty bodies under the item entitled “Human rights questions”.

Human Rights Treaty Sytem

Introduction to the UN Human Rights

 Treaty System

Printer-friendly version

The U.N. treaty system definitively establishes the legitimacy of international interest in the protection of human rights. It is undisputed that sovereignty is limited with respect to human rights. International supervision is valid and states are accountable to international authorities for domestic acts affecting human rights. The treaty standards are the benchmark for assessment and concern.

Over the last decade ratifications in the treaty system and acceptance of communication procedures have risen exponentially. What began as an assertion of a few, is now a global proclamation of entitlements of the victims of human rights abuse. Furthermore, this participation by states has been voluntary. The obligations of the human rights treaties have been freely assumed. It is the legal character of these rights which places them at the core of the international system of human rights protection. For these rights generate corresponding legal duties upon state actors, to protect against, prevent, and remedy human rights violations.

The Goals

The primary aims of the treaty system are to:

• encourage a culture of human rights
• focus the human rights system on standards and obligations
• engage all states in the treaty system
• interpret the treaties through reporting and communications
• identify benchmarks through general comments and recommendations
• provide an accurate, pragmatic, quality end product in the form of
• concluding observations for each state
• provide a remedial forum for individual complaints
• encourage a serious national process of review and reform through
• partnerships at the national level
• operationalize standards
• mainstream human rights in the UN system and mobilize the UN community to
• assist with implementation and the dissemination of the message of rights
• and obligations

The Standards

The human rights treaty system encompasses seven major treaties:

the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
(in force 4 January 1969)

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)
(in force 23 March 1976)

the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(in force 23 March 1976)

the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women
(in force 3 September 1981)

the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(in force 26 June 1987)

the Convention on the Rights of the Child (in force 2 September 1990)

the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
(in force 1 July 2003).

The Treaty Bodies

The seven treaties are associated with seven treaty bodies which have the task of monitoring the implementation of treaty obligations. Six of the seven treaty bodies meet primarily in Geneva, and are serviced by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). These are:

• the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
• the Human Rights Committee (HRC)
• the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)
• the Committee Against Torture (CAT)
• the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW).

One treaty body meets in New York and is serviced by the UN Division for the Advancement of Women:

• the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The treaty bodies are composed of members who are elected by the states parties to each treaty (or through the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in the case of CESCR). In principle, treaty members are elected as experts who are to perform their functions in an independent capacity.

The Functions of the Treaty Bodies

Meeting periodically throughout the year, the treaty bodies fulfill their monitoring function through one or more of three different methods.

First, all states parties are required by the treaties to produce state reports on the compliance of domestic standards and practices with treaty rights. These reports are reviewed at various intervals by the treaty bodies, normally in the presence of state representatives. Concluding observations, commenting on the adequacy of state compliance with treaty obligations, are issued by the treaty bodies following the review.

Second, in the case of four treaties individuals may complain of violations of their rights under the treaty (the Civil and Political Covenant, the Racial Discrimination Convention, the Convention Against Torture, and the Women’s Discrimination Convention). These complaints are considered by the treaty body which expresses a view as to the presence or absence of a violation.

Third, in the case of CAT and CEDAW, their work includes another procedure. This is an inquiry procedure which provides for missions to states parties in the context of concerns about systematic or grave violations of treaty rights.

In addition, the treaty bodies contribute to the development and understanding of international human rights standards through the process of writing General Comments or Recommendations. These are commentaries on the nature of obligations associated with particular treaty rights and freedoms.

The National Level

Significantly, the international system has had implications at the national level. A multitude of domestic legal systems have been affected by the treaties. The treaties form the basis of a significant number of the world’s bills of rights. There are also numerous instances of legal reform prompted by the treaties. Non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions have invoked the treaty standards in relation to proposed government legislation and policies. Legislative committees have used treaty standards as reference points. The treaties have sometimes been incorporated into national law, had direct application through constitutional provisions to national law, and been used to interpret domestic law through judicial intervention.

Self Determination

Umur Kita dan Umur Dunia

Buat apa kita mengejar dunia, sementara akhirat sudah semakain jauh kita tinggalkan. Bukankah tujuan akhir yang menjadi destinasi hidup ini adalah akhirat…..?

Usia dunia semakin usang, kiamat sudah semakin dekat.
Pertanda kiamat telahpun kita saksikan, seperti halnya apa yang terjadi diakhir 2004.

Gempa bumi dan tsunami dasyat pada pagi minggu 24 Desember 2004, yang menggegarkan ujung pulau Sumatera ( Acheh ) adalah sebuah gambaran awal dari pada kiamat. Apakah kita belum cukup sadar dengan berbagai kejadian yang menimpa kita..?

Sudah tiba masanya bagi kita untuk meninggalkan hasrat untuk mengejar duniawi. Karena harta yang melimpah, popularitas mendunia tidak akan mampu menolong kita dari kiamat kecil ( kematian ) dan kiamat besar.

Hello world!

Selamat Sejahtera