Explore publications.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) occupies a central position in the maintenance of international peace and the adjudication of disputes between states. Yet, its authority often collides with the enduring principle of state sovereignty, creating a persistent tension that shapes its effectiveness and legitimacy. This paper critically interrogates this delicate balance,examining how sovereignty constrains the ICJ’s jurisdiction, influences its decision-making, and undermines the enforcement of its judgments. Using an interpretive methodology grounded in Critical Legal Studies, International Relations Theory, and Postcolonial Theory, the study analyses treaties, case law, and scholarly commentary to explore the Court’s structural and political limitations, particularly in cases involving powerful states. The findings reveal systemic challenges (including the absence of compulsory jurisdiction, selective compliance, and political resistance) that weaken the ICJ’s authority. The paper concludes by proposing normative and institutional reforms aimed at enhancing state compliance and reinforcing the Court’s credibility and relevance within the international legal order. In doing so, it contributes to the broader discourse on global justice and the future of international adjudication amid enduring concerns over state sovereignty.

With regulations regarding human rights that have been regulated, norms and institutions should be able to protect humans and their rights to life so that they do not live under threat. Mainly, because the crime of genocide has been regulated by various international human rights instruments like the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the 1948 Genocide Convention, and to 1988 Rome Statute on International Criminal Court. But facts show that cases regarding the crime of genocide are still happening. The Criminal Code as a law adopted from the Dutch-herited Criminal Code requires an appropriate codification between the awareness and legal needs of the Indonesian nation, thus requiring a new criminal arrangement to replace the old regulation. The 2019 RKUHP then emerged as a solution, but there are still many ambiguous article formulations that make the 2019 RKUHP still have to be reviewed. An example is the article regarding the crime of genocide in Article 598 of the 2019 RKUHP. Some of the weaknesses of the article are in things such as the fall of authority over the implementation of a crime and one of its regulations that the convict gets a pardon or amnesty written in Article 140. If the crime of genocide remains in the 2019 RKUHP, then a number of revisions must be made by reviewing the Rome Statute so that there is no expansion of the meaning in the article regarding the crime of genocide.

The Trisakti Semanggi I and II (TSS) occurred in 1998 and 1999 during the reformation movement towards democracy upholding in Indonesia. Several students and people have been killed and injured in those days. The National Commission on Human Rights (KOMNAS HAM) has investigated the case and concluded that the case has a gross human rights violation aspect. The documents have reached the General Attorney of the Republic of Indonesia. However, there are obstacles faced by the victims and their families, the legal debate on whether the TSS can be classified as a gross violation of human rights or not. The Attorney General stated this doubt in their meeting with the Indonesian House of Representatives. The government's political will has been examined through the Indonesian Constitution in this matter. This article explores the burden of sufficient proof to conclude the gross human rights violation in the TSS case. Under the thorough independent investigation done by KPP HAM, the Trisakti Semanggi I and II (TSS) fulfills the elements of past gross violation of human rights known as a crime against humanity. The TSS case has met elements ruled under the ICTY and ICTR Statute 14, such as Article 7 of the Rome Statute 15. The article will also provide current discourse in a legal argument between national institutions regarding the case and what should be done afterward. The research uses a qualitative method with case studies related to the crimes against humanity at the national and international levels.