Pemberian Suaka Diplomatik dalam Hukum Internasional: Dilema antara Aspek Kemanusiaan dan Tensi Hubungan Bilateral

Main Article Content

Janardana Putri
I Made Budi Arsika

Abstract

Diplomatic asylum is a practice of granting international protection outside of state territory which is often carried out based on the extraterritorial theory and the principle of inviolability possessed by a state to carry out its diplomatic mission.  In several cases, diplomatic asylum is sometimes regarded as reducing the sovereignty of a state which potentially leads to increasing bilateral tensions. However, humanity considerations as the reasons behind the granting of diplomatic asylum are appreciated by the international society. This article aims to discuss the existence of diplomatic asylum from the perspective of sovereignty and the legitimacy of diplomatic officials to grant diplomatic asylum. This article concludes that international law generally places state sovereignty and non-intervention as fundamental principles that must be respected. Both the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) do not specifically regulate the issue of diplomatic asylum, therefore, its legal basis often refers to state practices. The granting of diplomatic asylum that is not based on humanity's interest may raise a controversy under international law. Instruments of international human rights law justify for diplomatic officials to grant asylum to people in need, especially in critical situations that threaten the safety of that person.


Abstrak


Suaka diplomatik merupakan praktik pemberian perlindungan internasional di luar wilayah teritorial suatu negara yang kerap dilakukan atas dasar eksistensi teori ekstrateritorial dan prinsip inviolabilitas yang dimiliki oleh suatu negara untuk melaksanakan misi diplomatiknya. Dalam beberapa kasus, pemberian suaka diplomatik terkadang dianggap mereduksi kedaulatan suatu negara sehingga berpotensi meningkatkan tensi hubungan bilateral. Hanya saja, dalil kepentingan kemanusiaan sebagai dasar pemberian suaka diplomatik justru diapresiasi oleh masyarakat internasional. Artikel ini bertujuan untuk membahas mengenai eksistensi suaka diplomatik yang ditinjau dari perspektif kedaulatan dan legitimasi pejabat diplomatik untuk memberikan suaka diplomatik. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa hukum internasional pada umumnya menempatkan kedaulatan negara dan non-intervensi sebagai prinsip-prinsip penting yang harus dihormati. Baik Konvensi Wina mengenai Hubungan Diplomatik (1961) maupun Konvensi Wina mengenai Hubungan Konsuler (1963), tidaklah secara spesifik mengatur persoalan suaka diplomatik, oleh karenanya suaka diplomatik berkembang pada praktik negara-negara. Pemberian suaka diplomatik yang tidak didasarkan dengan kepentingan kemanusiaan dapat memunculkan kontroversi dalam hukum internasional. Instrumen hukum hak asasi manusia internasional memberikan justifikasi bagi pejabat diplomatik untuk memberikan suaka kepada orang yang membutuhkan, khususnya dalam situasi genting yang mengancam keselamatan orang tersebut.

Article Details

Section
Articles

References

Artikel, Buku, dan Laporan

Ambos, Kai. “Diplomatic Asylum for Julian Assange?” https://www.ejiltalk.org/diplomatic-asylum-for-julian-assange/, 11/9/2012. Diakses 11/10/2021.

Antara News. “RI Protes Australia Soal Visa 42 Warga Papua.” https://www.antaranews.com/berita/30520/ri-protes-australia-soal-visa-42-warga-papua, 24/3/2006. Diakses 7/10/2021.

BBC News. “Belarus Olympian Given Polish Visa After Refusing ‘Forced’ Flight Home.” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58052144, 2/8/2021. Diakses 20/9/2021.

Behrens, Paul. “The Law of Diplomatic Asylum–a Contextual Approach.” Michigan Journal of International Law, 35, 2 (2014): 319-67.

Besson, Samantha. “Sovereignty”, Oxford Public International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472?rskey=Jlyk2Y&result=1&prd=OPIL, 2011. Diakses 4/9/2021.

Corthay, Eric. “The ASEAN Doctrine of Non-Interference in Light of the Fundamental Principle of Non-Intervention.” Asian-Pasific Law & Policy Journal, 17, 2 (2016): 1-41.

Costello, Cathryn dan Michelle Foster. “Non-Refoulement as Custom and Jus Cogens? Putting the Prohibition to the Test.” Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 46 (2016): 273-327. DOI 10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_10.

Chhabra, Saroj. “Diplomatic Asylum: A Necessary Evil to the Protection of Human Rights.” International Journal of Law and Legal Jurisprudence Studies, 4, 2 (2017): 36-56.

CNN. “North Korean Defectors Arrive in Seoul.” http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/16/china.asylum/, 16/5/2002. Diakses 6/9/2021.

Current Time. “EU Blasts Minsk For ‘Brutal Repression’ in Trying to Force Critical Olympian Home, Lauds Poland for Providing Visa.” https://www.rferl.org/a/tsimanouskaya-belarus-olympic-tokyo-asylum-germany-austria-lukashenka-/31388516.html, 2/8/2021. Diakses 8/11/2021.

Gil-Bazo, MarÍa-Teresa. “Asylum as a General Principle of International Law.” International Journal of Refugee Law, 27, 1 (2015): 3-28. DOI: 10.1093/ijrl/eeu062.

Ginodia, Raghav dan Arushi Poddar. “Understanding the Nuances of Diplomatic Asylum.” https://tclf.in/2020/06/13/understanding-the-nuances-of-diplomatic-asylum/, 13/6/2020. Diakses 8/1/2022.

Hughes-Gerber, Laura. Diplomatic Asylum: Exploring a Legal Basis for the Practice Under General International Law. Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2021.

Human Rights Committee. “Ninety-Ninth Session, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant, CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3.” https://undocs.org/en/CCPR/C/ISR/CO/3, 3/9/2010. Diakses 8/9/2021.

Human Rights Council. “Opinion No. 54/2015 concerning Julian Assange (Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland), A/HRC/WGAD/2015.”
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions2015AUV/Opinion%202015%2054_Sweden_UK_Assange_AUV.pdf, 22/1/2016. Diakses 6/10/2021.

Kim, Seunghwan. “Non-Refoulement and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: State Sovereignty and Migration Controls at Sea in the Europe Context.” Leiden Journal of International Law, 30, 1 (2017): 49-70. DOI: 10.1017/S0922156516000625.

Krustiyati, Atik. “Kebijakan Penanganan Pengungsi di Indonesia: Kajian dari Konvensi Pengungsi Tahun 1951 dan Protokol 1967.” Law Review, 12, 2 (2012): 171-92.

Kusriyati, Atik. “Ecuador’s Decision to Grant Asylum to Julian Assange: The Manifestation of Human Security?” Indonesian Journal of International Law, 10, 3 (2013): 217-30. DOI: 10.17304/ijil.vol10.3.366.

Lepard, Brian D. Customary International Law: a New Theory with Practical Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Milewski, Pawel. “Tweet.” https://twitter.com/MilewskiP/status/1422164649261158402, 2/8/2021. Diakses 6/10/2021.

Molnár, Tamás. “The Principle of Non-Refoulement under International Law: its Inception and Evolution in a Nutshell”. Corvinus Journal of International Affairs (COJURN), 1, 1 (2016): 51-61.

Pitaloka, Diva. “Pemberian Suaka Diplomatik Berkaitan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional.” Unizar Law Review, 4, 1 (2021): 145-60.

Podiotis, Panagiotis. “The Case of Julian Assange: In the Context of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3721315, 27/5/2019. Diakses 3/10/2021.

Przydacz, Marcin. “Tweet.” https://twitter.com/marcin_przydacz/status/1421908856377065474, 2/8/2021. Diakses 8/11/2021.

Pryzydacz, Marcin. “Tweet” https://twitter.com/marcin_przydacz/status/1421908856377065474, 2/8/2021. Diakses 6/10/2021.

Raska, Jan. “1968: Pier 21 and the Prague Spring Refugees.” https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/fifty-years-on-pier-21-and-the-prague-spring-refugees, 21/8/2020. Diakses 6/9/2021.

Reuters. “Belarus Athlete Enters Poland’s Embassy in Tokyo After Refusing to Return Home.” https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/belarus-athlete-in-hands-authorities-ioc-2021-08-02/, 2/8/2021. Diakses 6/10/2021.

Reuters. “Jailed for Protesting, Belarus Basketball Star Speaks Out for Political Change.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belarus-election-basketball-idUSKBN27D1QS, 28/10/2020. Diakses 7/10/2021.

Shidarta. “Putusan Pengadilan sebagai Objek Penulisan Artikel Ilmiah.” Undang: Jurnal Hukum, 5, 1 (2022): 105-42. DOI: 10.11437/ujh.5.1.105-142.

Syahrin, M. Alvi. “The Implementation of Non-Refoulement Principle to the Asylum Seekers and Refugees in Indonesia.” Sriwijaya Law Review, 1, 2 (2017): 168-78. DOI: 10.28946/slrev.Vol1.Iss2.41.pp168-178.

Taylor, Savitri. “Australia’s Diplomatic Asylum Initiative at the United Nations: Comparing International Law Rhetoric with Foreign Policy Practice.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, 73, 4 (2019): 376-96. DOI: 10.1080/10357718.2019.1622648.

The Foreign Affairs Trade and Integration Ministry. “Statement of the Government of the Republic of Ecuador on the Asylum Request of Julian Assange.” http://www.grocjusz.edu.pl/Materials/_archiwum/archiwum2012/pd_sem_1312_B.pdf. Diakses 12/10/2021.

The Guardian. “Julian Assange Granted Asylum by Ecuador–as it Happened.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange-ecuador-embassy-asylum-live, 16/8/2012. Diakses 8/11/2021.

The Guardian. “Julian Assange Rejects Police Request to Surrender for Breaking Bail Terms.” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jun/29/julian-assange-police-surrender-bail, 29/6/2021. Diakses 6/9/2021.

The Irish Times. “Julian Assange: 24-hour Police Watch at Ecuador Embassy Ends.” https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/julian-assange-24-hour-police-watch-at-ecuador-embassy-ends-1.2388674, 12/10/2015. Diakses 12/10/2021.

United Nations. “Yearbook of the International Law Commission: Documents of the Twenty-Fifth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly Volume II”, A/CN.4/SER.A/1973/Add.l, https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/english/ilc_1973_v2.pdf, 1975. Diakses 8/9/2021.

University College London. “Inter-American Court of Human Rights Request for an Advisory Opinion Concerning the Scope and Purpose of the Right of Asylum in Light of International Human Rights College London Law, Inter-American Law and International Law.” https://www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/observaciones/oc25/30_uni_london.pdf. Diakses 2/10/2021.

UN General Assembly. “Question of Diplomatic Asylum: Report of the Secretary General, UN Doc. A/10139 (Part I).” https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1303626?ln=en, 2/9/1975. Diakses 9/10/2021.

UN General Assembly. “Question of Diplomatic Asylum: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/10139 (Part II).” https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1303612?ln=en, 22/9/1975. Diakses 9/10/2021.

UN Human Rights Committee (HRC). “General Comment No. 31 [80], the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.” https://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html, 26/5/2004. Diakses 22/1/2022.

Veçoso, Fabia. “International Law, Diplomatic Asylum and Julian Assange: a Changing Interpretation of Complex International Laws and Diplomatic Treaties Ended the WikiLeaks Founder’s Nearly Seven-Year Stay in the Ecuadorian Embassy.” https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/international-law-diplomatic-asylum-and-julian-assange, 14/4/2019. Diakses 8/1/2022.

Waheed, Ahmed Waqas. “State Sovereignty and International Relations in Pakistan: Analysing the Realism Stranglehold.” South Asia Research, 37, 3 (2017): 1-19. DOI: 10.1177/0262728017725624.

Wilson Center. “Revisiting Canada’s Contribution to Resolving the Iranian Hostages Crisis.” https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/revisiting-canadas-contribution-to-resolving-the-iranian-hostage-crisis, 8/4/2005. Diakses 5/9/2021.

Zatucki, Kryzysztof. “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law.” International Law Review, 17, 4-5 (2015): 403-12. DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341312.

Peraturan dan Putusan Hukum

Human Rights Committee. “Forty-Eight Session: VIEWS Communication No. 470/1991. Kindler v. Canada, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991.” http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/dec470.htm, 11/11/1993. Diakses 10/9/2021.

Human Rights Committee. “General comment No. 31 [80], th.e Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.” https://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html, 26/5/2004. Diakses 22/1/2022.

International Court of Justice. “Advisory Opinion: Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights.” https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/100/100-19990429-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf, 29/4/1999. Diakses 28/8/2021.

International Court of Justice. Colombian-Peruvian asylum case, Judgment of November 20th, 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950.

International Court of Justice. “Judgment: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).” https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/91/091-19960711-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, 11/7/1996. Diakses 08/09/2021.

International Court of Justice. “Judgment: Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).” https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20051219-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, 19/12/2005. Diakses 8/9/2021.

International Court of Justice. “Judgment: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America).” https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf, 27/6/1986. Diakses 25/8/2021.

Judiciary of England and Wales. “District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, the Government of the United States of America v. Julian Paul Assange.” https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf, 4/1/2021. Diakses 3/10/2021.

The High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division Administrative Court. “Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, Case No: CO/150/2021 Between the Government of the United States of America and Julian Paul Assange.” https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/USA-v-Assange-judgment101221.pdf, 10/12/2021. Diakses 22/1/2022.

United Nations. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963.

United Nations. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.

United Nations. “Official Records Volume II: Annexes Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Final Act Optional Protocols Resolutions, UN Doc. A/CONF.25/C.2/L.29.” https://legal.un.org/diplomaticconferences/1963_cons_relations/docs/english/vol_2.pdf , 4/3/1963 – 22/4/1963. Diakses 13/10/2021.

United Nations General Assembly. “Resolutions Adopted on the Reports of the Sixth Committee.” https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf, 1970. Diakses 5/9/2021.

United Nations General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. “General Comment No. 15: the Right to Water (Arts. 11 and 12 of the Covenant).” https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d11.pdf .

Organization of American States. Convention on Diplomatic Asylum. Concluded at Caracas on 28 March 1954.