Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Please take your positions as the event is about to commence. Before we delve into the heart of the discussion, I kindly request your attention for a moment to review the rules that will govern our discussion throughout this meeting. First, be punctual. Please join the meeting on time or a few minutes early to avoid disruption and show respect for others.
Second, dress appropriately, even though it's an online meeting. Please dress appropriately to steer clear of appearing impolite and causing any discomfort to others. Third, minimize distractions. Please find a quiet, well-lit space for the meeting and minimize background noise and distractions.
Fourth, participate actively. Engage in the discussions, contribute your ideas, and listen attentively to others. Fifth, respect other's speaking time. Avoid interrupting others while they are speaking. And please raise your hand to use the meeting.
to chat if you want to speak. Second, use natural language and tone. Please maintain a natural demeanor in your language and tone and avoid using slang or inappropriate language.
And last but not least, be patient and courteous. Be patient if there are any technical difficulties or if someone is having trouble speaking. Om swastiastu. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh.
Shalom. Namo buddhaya. May peace be upon us.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, and esteemed participants. It is my distinct pleasure to extend a warm welcome to each of you, monthly discussion on global legal affairs, organized by the Udayana Research Center for International Law in collaboration with the Student Community for International Law, discussion on from theory to practice, implementing countermeasures by non-injured state in international law. My name is Angita Maraneka and I'm committed to answering that today's conversation are both enlightening and enriching. Thank you for your kind attention and let us proceed with the utmost decorum and enthusiasm.
The enforcement of international law has traditionally relied on injured states to take countermeasures. However, recent developments recognize the vital role on injured states. in this process and this seminars explores the legal foundations practical applications and challenges of this evolving concept we will examine case studies legal justifications and potential potential obstacles to provide a comprehensive understanding of how non-indigenous states can effectively uphold international law join us as we delve to practical implications and future directions of this significant shift in this international legal enforcement.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege to introduce our esteemed speaker, Ms. Puta Ayu Eka Pratili, a Bachelor of Student at Udayana University, whose thesis related to the topic at hand promises to enlighten and inspire us today. Additionally, guiding our discussion with expertise, please join me in welcoming our facilitator, Mr. Ikusti Ngurah Parikesit Udia Teja, SAEPU LLM PhD. the lecturer of Fakulta of Law, Dayana University, whose skillful guidance will ensure a fruitful exchange of ideas throughout this event.
Let us embark on this journey together, embracing the first perspective and fostering constructive dialogue. To Mr. Parikesit, the time is yours. Thank you so much, Anggita, for the great opening statement.
It is also my pleasure, my privilege. to facilitate this occasion, this special event. And we are entering the second session of International Law Today, monthly discussion on global legal affairs. And before continuing, I'd like to greet some of online participants through Zoom who have already joined with us.
We have later will join lecturer from International Law Department. We have also alumni from Faculty of Law, Udayana University. I saw Dananjaya, I saw Ken. And we also invite a freshman or fresh student.
who are taking international law course led by Bapak Mahathir Yassir who's in this event. Hopefully later more participants will join. And yes. We have Niputu Ayu Eka Pratiwi. Good evening.
We have Niputu Ayu Eka Pratiwi who have successfully defend her thesis regarding implementing counter. measured by non-Indian states in international law. Yeah, this topic is very interesting.
Looking at the current situation in international law, because, I don't know, but I'm feeling like the situation, the global situation, when the international law is supposed to create justice. to create peace and security, but the reality is, yeah, we are currently experiencing, I think, one of the most darkest situations since, I think, compared in the last decade or two decades. For example, the number of conflicts among the states is increasing.
Yeah, one in Russia and Ukraine, and then Israel and Palestine, and border or territorial issues like... happened in south china and then other uh the tendency of international law violation will create any insecurity because yeah and it will delete with uh is going to present. For example, if a conflict involves two parties and then other party who is not actually injured, who is not directly involved in that conflict, could impose some measure.
It can be classified as counter measure. I can imagine if Israel, the conflict between Israel and Palestine, and then the Israel affiliation country will impose countermeasures. On the other hand, the Palestinian affiliation country will also impose a countermeasure. And then, yeah, it will, if it's not regulated properly, it will escalate.
the conflict itself. And of course, we don't know. We really don't want that to happen. And this is becoming interesting because countermeasure is not really about public international law. Sometimes it relates to international trade law, international humanitarian law, and yeah.
can be done in multi-phase. So hopefully after the session, after Eka is explaining her talk, we will have a fruitful discussion. But before I hand over to Eka, let me briefly read.
the curriculum vitae of She has already graduated with a praise status with cum laude, 3.69 GPA. GPA is 3.69. She went to senior high school number seven. junior high school number two then pasar and uh during her study in law school she joined alsa hcl and also student union a faculty of law university she experienced many achievements like In 2020, she was champion of SCEIL International Mood Court Training.
In 2022, she was the second best Memorial Correspondent in Indonesia National Round of the Pilip Jezak International Law Mood Court Competition in 2022 and other. achievement in relation to moot court competition nationally and in 2023 she was in the third best applicant memorial in Indonesian national round of the Philip Jessup International Law Moot Court in Pahrayangan Catholic University. Besides her statement, she has also experience working in some law firm or legal office in Bali, namely in HMA law office. And I think from October 2023 to January 2024, she worked at Sukarta.
and associate in bali okay i think uh that's the brief overview of our speak speaker tonight and without further delay i'd like to invite yeah i usually call her eka eka to start our presentation okay time and place are yours Thank you so much, Mr. Parikasit. Before I start, can my voice be heard clearly? Yes, pretty clear. And also your background. Thank you.
Good evening, everyone. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Mr. Parikasit and also the community of UNCIL in Udayana for extending this. incredible opportunity to me.
It's truly an honor as a speaker for today's discussion. Today's discussion is about countermeasure. How does it hold a special place in my heart? Because it was the focus of my thesis that also introduced by Mr. Partizan earlier. And today we delve into a topic that not only captivated my...
captivates me personally but also holds immense significance in the realm of international law. So without any further ado, let's explore together how non-interstate can implement countermeasure effectively. Okay, first, okay, I think the comments are probably... the role application of contributions by not it of countermeasures and it's really connected with However, we must note that there is a difference between invoking the responsibility of the state and being able to enforce responsibility before an international court or a tribunal, because the absent state concept makes it so that there is no compulsory adjudication.
I will bring up the case that already unfamiliar with us, the case between Nicaragua versus the United States of America, that familiar known as the Nicaragua case. This case in the 1980s illustrates how the enforcement legal system in international law is very challenging and very unique. Because in this case, despite the Karaguas winning the case and the International Court of Justice giving the order to the United States of America to pay for the petitions, the U.S. government manly declined the claim and refused to comply. And if this is the case, the rules of state responsibility and... the law in general can be a risk and completely ineffective.
And also, maybe the committee can be next slide. Also, the current situations that happen in the world today, for example, in Rafah, Palestine, that also exemplifies the complexities and challenges inherent in the enforcement of international law. Even Israel. actions in Rafa have been widely condemned by international communities as a violation of international law. However, obtaining binding resolutions or enforcement of responsibility has been problematic due to the lack of compulsory jurisdictions and also the political dynamics that are also involved in that case.
In that such case, we know now that countermeasure becomes a critical tool for states to respond to the breach of international law. Because countermeasure are actions that would normally be illegal but are permitted under international law when taken in response to the International Wrongful Act. The concepts of countermeasure are intended to be used to prevent the violation of international law.
to induce the offending state to comply with its international obligation and to make the state that responsible to make a reparation for the harm caused. Next slide please. And the counter measure is regulated under RCUA that RCUA is responsibility of state for international wrongful act and the legal framework of countermeasure we can be found on the second chapter of part three in this RC work that the countermeasures come the notion of countermeasure come across the notion the as is preclude under article 22 of RC well a in that the process of not international patients who are not and to the lack of constitutional observations from under our 14 to 34 of on several government the country because of how they come and deal with that that the art the answer under article 50 verse of the article uh and those articles the the uh this is because the international law committee for the fact that very likely that state practice will have to confirm I'm sorry for interrupting, Eka.
Sorry for the technical issues. Now can you guys hear my voice clearly? Pretty clear now.
Okay, sorry for the technical issues. Okay, I will continue. I also gave the case in the International Court of Justice named the Dapti Kopunagimaru case as I put in that court.
In the first place, a countermeasure must be taken in response to a previous international wrongful act of another state and must be directed against that state. As further regulated by Article 49, Paragraph 1, the countermeasure must solely aim to induce the responsible state to fulfill its obligations. Now we know that countermeasure is proposed to induce the state that responsible to make reparation for the interstates and to make the actions stop and the state that they're responsible can comply with international law.
We need to know about the requirements and the conditions for the use of countermeasures. Firstly, the state that can enforce the countermeasure must fulfill the criteria and the requirements to use the countermeasure. First, the existence of an unlawful act. Before resorting to countermeasure, the injured state or the non-injured state must ascertain that another state has committed international wrongful acts or maybe has committed a breach of international law and secondly the substantive requirements this requirement uh regulated by article 50 of RCWA that the countermeasure must consider the scope of obligations and that must not be this prohibitions of humanitarian contacts and this normal requirements that regulated by article 52 of the RCWA before undertaking a countermeasure the injured state must notify the concerned state and offer negotiations and also the countermeasure must also cease if the violation has ceased or if the dispute is under consideration by an international judicial body.
And lastly, it's about the time limitations that govern under Article 53 of the RCWA that countermeasure must be temporarily and reversible. The state employing the countermeasure must promptly cease its action if the offending state has fulfilled its obligations. And these conditions and requirements ensure that countermeasures are in accordance with international legal norms. So if the state that imposed the countermeasure fulfills or satisfies these requirements, the countermeasures that taken is permitted under international law. Okay, next slide.
Okay, now as we know that the countermeasure under RCWA only tell us that implicitly the only injured state that can input the countermeasure. However, others... state beside the interstate may also have the right to enforce responsibility under the condition set out in Article 48 of the RCWA. These states have a rightful interest in ensuring that the responsible state respects its international obligation, especially when those obligations protect collective interests. This is notably the case when the International Wrongful Act It's continuing and consists of a serious breach of an ergo omens obligation under predatory norms of general international law.
Next slide. And the injured state, now we know that why not injured state should be entitled to restart countermeasure. The injured state is entitled to protect its rights. by resorting to countermeasure.
But in such a situation where all other states are entitled to resort to countermeasure, to add pressure and responsible states and bring about an end to the serious breach sooner. Of course, a meta-principle such as situation could justify sanctions by the United Nations Security Council. But what if the Security Council...
Adoika, are you still there? it seems that you are disappeared from the screen uh sorry everyone uh now maybe i have a connection issue here Now, can you hear my voice? Yeah, it is clear.
Okay, sorry for technical issues again. Okay, I will continue. Okay, as we know that if only injured state that can invoke the countermeasures, how if the situations when the UN Security Councils... use their facial to a draft resolution to condemn the violations or the international obligations that the state do.
And if genocide or ethnic is blocked because they use their faith, must the rest of the world pay the least service to the prohibition of genocides and human rights and then do nothing? standing and by watching on the face of it it does make sense allow non-industry to put pressure with non-perceivable confirmations on the state responsible for the most serious rage okay now in the next slide we we beat the end of game about uh the rules of by non-Indian state under the RCWA. Article 54 of the RCWA is governed about the confirmation by non-Indian state but this article is very controversial to the international commissions and this This article, sorry, one of the primary controversial in this article is because whether a non-interstate has the legal authority to invoke the countermeasures. Article 54 does not explicitly address these issues because in their... making process of ARSIWA, there are some many controversial on the international commission members.
And this leading to varying interpretation among legal schoolers and practitioners in the prison. And to answer and to know about does the Article 54 can prohibited non-Indian states to enforce countermeasures. I go to reviewing the process of formulating countermeasures by non-Indian states within the RCWA through the Trapak Preparatoire or the documents that involve examining discussions and simulations conducted by international commissions from 1963. until the final drafting. I found after reviewing the process of the RCLA, the non-injured states are permitted to employ countermeasures as stipulated under Article 48, Paragraph 1a and b that referencing obligation erga omnes and also Article 48, Paragraph 2 grants the right to states entitled to aim the responsibility under paragraph 1 to demand cessation of the breach and assurance to revitations and reparations.
And this article also asserts that the requirements for claiming responsibility by the interstate apply equally to other states entitled to claim responsibility in accordance with Article 48, Paragraph J. Regarding Article 54 of the RCWA, it is argued that this provision fundamentally does not diminish the right of non-Indian states to take lawful measures against the responsible for the cessation of the breach and operation for the interstate interest. The ILC employees use the phrase lawful measures instead of countermeasures. It deliberately allow for, it deliberately allow for ambiguity and broader interpretations. And despite the drafting process, initially aiming to incorporate the use of countermeasure as proposed by James Crawford, this language was rather to include rather a right of measures.
However, in the presence of 54 normally used by states to influence countermeasures into state responsibility. Okay, next slide. When the International Law Commission codified the rules of countermeasures by non-indigenous states, it drew upon state practice that had developed over time.
These practices reflect the principles and norms of customary international law, which are fundamental sources of international law, according to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Parliament. These articles identify customary international law as an evidence of general practice of theft. For instance, the first case, the sanctions against South Africa. In 1990, several countries implemented measures against South Africa that exceeded the sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. These cuts took additional steps to exert pressure on the South African government to end its apartheid regime.
The measure included the trade restrictions, ban on new investment, and the severance of financial ties. And these restrictions were taken independently by states such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and various European nations, reflecting a collective stance against apartheid even before the international community reached a consensus through the UNHC. Understated.
case is raising of Iraqi asset and trade embargoes on in 1990. This case is about following Iraq infection of Kuwait in 1990 that the United States and European Union member states froze Iraq asset and imposed trade embargoes prior to the extensive sanctions letter by the UNRC, letter imposed by the UNRC. And this proactive stance aims to weaken Iraq economically and pressure it into withdrawing from Kuwait. And this measure demonstrates how non-Indian states can take independent actions to uphold international peace and security in anticipation of further international sanctions. And for the current situation also that the sanctions imposed by United States of America against Russia.
The United States and also the European Union took a series of measures against Russia following its alleged involvement in the crisis in Ukraine and the annexations of Crimea in 2014. These measures include asset freeze, travel bans, and restrictions on financial transactions with Russian entities. These sanctions were aimed at deterring further Russian aggressions and supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. These actions were taken independently of the UNEC.
demonstrating a unified Western response to receive violation of international law. And this case illustrates how non-Indian states can play a proactive role in the international legal system by implementing confirmation to address breach of global order. Okay, the measure taken as an aim to first exert economic and diplomatic pressures the sanctions and asset freeze are designed to create uh create economic difficulties and diplomatic isolation for the target state that reach obligation of international law and encouraging compliance with international norms and secondly these sanctions aim to human rights and human rights principles. Because many countermeasures aim to help human rights abuses and protect civilians'populations, as seen on the case that I stated earlier from South Africa and Russia. And lastly, these countermeasures aim to uphold international peace and security by acting independently.
Non-injured states can address urgent threats to peace and security, as in the case of Iraq and Ukraine, sometimes anticipating or complementing UNHCR. And this action reflects a commitment to upholding international law, not even in the absence of direct injuries to the state, implementing countermeasures. and also to underscoring the principle of collective responsibility in international communities. Next slide.
So now we need to discuss more about the implications of countermeasures in international enforcement when the non-Indian state or maybe Indian state invoke the countermeasures to the target state. it can be an impact to the international law enforcement. First, it's about the consequence of human rights that can be raised if the countermeasure taken by the state is disproportionate.
And secondly, the importance of ensuring compliance with international human rights standards under UTHR. ICCPR and ICECR. And secondly, the implications for international relations stability. The countermeasure can be caused by the domino effect to international relations stability and increased likelihood of external intervention or global conflict.
And lastly, even though it can be It can be impact of negative, but also it can be positive impact also. The countermeasures can be alternative actions in response to failure of international law enforcement mechanism. When international law enforcement mechanism fail to effectively address violations of international law, the non-injured state can be compelled to take the actions. Okay, I think that's all for me to tell you about the legal notions of confirmation by non-interstate. I bring back to the Mr. Parkisit to more discuss to the participants about the concept of confirmation by non-interstate.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much, Eka, for the nice and inspiring presentation. I think your presentation now will give more than your thesis defines, right?
Because I recognize some explanation you can explain in more detail, in clearer compare. to do your Texas examination last time. You include more cases, more current cases, and then some explanation about how the countermeasures are regulated under existing international law, especially under Article on Responsibility.
of international wrongful internationally wrongful act or archiwa okay what i can summarize from your presentation is that yeah the countermeasure is actually regulated under international law and it countermeasure by injured state is permitted with some condition And Article 54 explains, although it doesn't expressly state it about non-indigenous states, but the language measures taken by states other than indigenous states means that if some particular country feels that their interests, their national interests, although they are not involved in... the direct conflict, then they can impose like a measure that can be classified as a contour measure. And yeah, I think this is a good starting point to discuss, to reflect what has been regulated under current international law and what is actually happening.
in the current circumstances and before opening yeah before opening discussion i i'd like to greet some participants who have already joined i have been informed that bapak putra ariana already joined good evening bapak putra thanks for joining and also some alumni from faculty of law who Diana have already joined like Bapak Aldo, Bapak Aldo Geraldi yeah the previous long time no see Bapak Aldo so because it was I don't remember exactly but it's around 2010 right when you serve as a leader and also we have also Dananjaya and Ken who have already joined and yeah it will create any connection between the lecturer between the alumni between the just created student, four years student, three years student and then also the new student also joined today. And yeah, if you don't mind Eka, would you like to share the slide to the other participants? So it's like this discussion is like another important class for international law students. So if you don't mind, then you can share the slide presentation to the other LTS.
And for those who want the slide presentation, then you can directly contact either Eka or Okay, let's begin. So I'd like to invite first for Danan to give like a brief overview of brief statement about the international flow issue in general. And of course, I hope that you can comment with what Eka already said. Are you still there?
Yeah, I'm still here. Thank you very much. I'm so sorry I cannot turn on my camera because there is some situation that I need to adjust to join this Zoom meeting. First of all, I'd like to thank Barik Azit for hosting this very beautiful seminar. So we can gather here as you have already mentioned, the alumni, students, lecturer are gathering here to...
discuss about international law issues. Second of all, I would like to thank ECA for the amazing presentation. It was a very nice presentation and very detailed on the issue that we're talking on the non-injured state countermeasures. So for the context, that issue was brought in just up 2023. It was one of the problems that we discussed for the competition and Yeah, it was. Giving the solution to the problem of Ukraine and Russia conflict, where the European Union gave sanction to Russia because of the invasion, very nice because it not only extends to that problem but also how we're talking about genocide and crimes against humanity which are the collective responsibility of international community.
However, there is one thing that I would like to ask because this is very crucial when it comes to law. We cannot judge that something is done before there is a court decision, for example. So when we're talking about genocide or crimes against humanity, I think it has a very big burden for us to prove that that action is happening right now before giving the issue to the International Criminal Court.
court or international court of justice to decide whether that action happens. But if the states, especially non-Indian states, impose countermeasures before the court even gives the decision, would that be okay in international law? Or is there any criteria or parameters that we need to follow just to make sure that the legality of the countermeasure?
I think overall, the discussion is very engaging and very nice but um we need to enlighten on that issue so the law characteristic will not be forgotten in this discussion thank you very much thank you so much uh danon for nice and also critical and important analysis yeah and for this information danon's can be considered as a coach for many low court competitions, right? So he has trained many low school students to be able to compete in some moot court competitions, not just moot court, I think. And yeah, we are lucky that Danan is still here and then still.
want to interact and give his knowledge to the younger generation of the faculty of Udayana University. And definitely he is going to be the next speaker, not just in this event, but also in any academic event across Udayana University. Okay, thank you once again, Danan.
And I also want to greet Ken. Are you still there, Ken? Would you like to give some thoughts about international law issues or countermeasure issues? Ken are you still there or yeah I will I will I will call you later I will give chance maybe in the in the before the closing statement okay thanks for your patience and cooperation for all participants it's time to me to open the discussion and this is relaxing and friendly gathering.
Don't feel under pressure. Even if you can't express in English, you can still express in Bahasa Indonesia. For those who want to raise a question. So this is not under pressure meeting. So I'd like to invite some participants if you...
have a question just raise your hand oh they are already true Audrey and Laetitia maybe based on the letters I will choose Audrey okay okay excuse me can I be heard clearly yeah it's clear Okay, first of all, I would like to apologize in advance about the camera. I am unable to turn it on right now, but I am very intrigued with Kaka Eka. Something I wanted to ask is being a relatively new person in law, especially international law, I would like to ask regarding how...
the actual concrete examples of this per se act against genocide and things like that because one thing that I've noticed being Gen Z is that social media shows a lot of how people are trying to fight for it because they know that the government does not really care. We actually talked about this in Papadikas'class about how nations have political correlations to each other, obviously, and they might not be willing to sacrifice this connection that they have, because obviously it gives them benefits economically and politically. So I would like to ask how, one, we as, you know... people with per se no power in this dynamic can actually do something? And two, how does that actually show that people can still care about international law without having to be in positions of power?
Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Audrey. Would you like to answer very clearly, Eka?
Yeah, yeah. Okay, so I will answer for the first question by Kak Danan. It's about what is parameter for the non-interstate info confirmations before the international court of justice or maybe tribunal giving the decisions about that conflict. So the first, as I stated earlier in my presentation, there are some requirements that also imply to the non-English state when they invoke the countermeasures.
First, we need a must know that the international obligations happen. And second, the state that invoke the countermeasures must not violate the international law such as not greet the sovereignty of the states. For example, the United States of America imposed the sanctions, the restriction sanctions to Russia through their domestic legal systems. That sanctions is not targeted.
apply beyond their jurisdictions. So that sanctions only in their jurisdiction's territory. And thirdly, the countermeasures cannot breach the human rights law as set out in the ICCACR and ICCPR.
And the countermeasures by state uh by non-interstate also can be justified uh through the um article 21 of uh of uh trade word organizations uh treaties the gatt treaties that can permit the state to uh their trade if uh situations to respond to international law conflicts or bridge international law obligations. And lastly, the important requirement to not interstate in terms of the countermeasure is the countermeasure must be proportionate. The proportionate countermeasure is not um not um violate the rules of international law in general and also um the requirements um like uh the counter measures must be seen already since their actions so if that requirements satisfied the state not probably the sovereignty of uh it's not uh violate the international human rights law and international law in general and also the counter measure is proportionate the the counter measure in folk by non-indian states can be permitted it can be uh justified uh i think that's all for the questions by kadanan i hope it can be answered and And for the second question, how can we react about the genocide actions by the state as a person without any power? I think the thing that we can do is... Being a law student, we can help to make a publication to research about what happened in that case.
And we can give the opinions and therefore it can be a community that can help bring a knowledge that that case is a... very important to know and also as a social uh as a social media is very wide now and it's very important now i think we can express our opinion and speak up also also speak up for or maybe we can donations or uh giving uh permissions to that case so i think as a regular person you The only thing that we can do is, especially as a law student, we can write the paper to research about that case. Therefore, we can bring other persons'knowledge about that case. And also, we can do also participate to express our voice to the world.
the case is very important to know. I think that's all for me, Bapak. Okay, Eka.
Thanks for a great answer. And my apology to Danan because I'm not mentioning your question. And then thanks for Eka for your reminder.
Yeah, it is quite debatable. whether when we want to make any great justification to impose countermeasures, do I need to wait for the international court decision before conducting some measure? Or, or? do I can unilaterally impose countermeasures without any legal justification.
And this is also reflected in the current situation when the ICC wants to call the Prime Minister of Israel and then the leader from the Hamas and then Definitely, they don't want to be called. They just collect support from their affiliation to ignore, to assume that ICC has no legitimate. has no legitimate measure to call the prime minister. So once this practice is not managed properly in the future, many countries will neglect the existence of international criminal court. So, yeah, this is...
still a great issue to be discussed and it will definitely affect how the international law should be enforced. And for the second question from Audrey, for the actual example for genocide for example or act against genocide. If you know the story, the past story when international law had not been exist, we know the story of genocide in Mussolini Hitler era and this has become the the reason why ICCPR was issued, why Geneva Convention was issued, because at the time, to respond to the gross violation of human rights, then some states created international convention. I think my understanding is if state has no power, how can they impose countermeasure?
I think I'm not mistaken. Yeah, this is also a tricky question. Yeah, if a small country doesn't have any influence in political and economic, for example, and do they still have any power to impose countermeasures? Yeah, in theory, there is a rule about that.
But in practice, it is still difficult for small countries to impose countermeasures. example case in relation to international trade law if you if you type gambling cases between us and antigua antigua antigua case versus us under wto gambling cases yeah the the panel and then the appellate body decided that the US violated the WTO rule because discriminatory measures in prohibiting gambling, online gambling, online gambling has been exist. a 40-year-old kid. And the US wants to prohibit, wants to ban online gambling based on Antigua. Antigua is tiny, it's not that small, it's a tiny country in the South or in the American continent.
But the US didn't. comply fully with the WTO decision. And Antigua actually has a right to impose countermeasures.
But the reality, because the situation and then the condition of Antigua, which is a small country, it wasn't able to impose that kind of measure. that's a story i just i just uh remember that story because yeah There was a story when a small country can build a big country under the BDTO, but when the big country didn't impose the countermeasures, then yeah, because the situation and then the condition, that country wasn't able to. to impose the measure. Okay, do you have any more comment Eka?
No, thank you. And how about Audrey before giving to other students or participants? Do you want to clarify or discuss more? Audrey, are you still there? Yes, sir.
Thank you for the answer. It was very satisfactory. Thank you juga, Kak Eka. And for the next one, I saw Laetitia. Laetitia, where are you?
You might start now. Okay, thank you so much, Pak Arikasit. And also thank you, Kak Eka, for the very brilliant...
presentation. My name is Leticia or you can also call me Leah. I'm so sorry if my voice is quite sore.
If I need to maybe repeat my question, maybe Barikasit and Ka'eka can ask me to repeat it again. Okay, so my question is that, okay, so my question is actually At start, it was the same as what Kadanan has questioned, whether there must be a judgment first of a state having conducted a violation before any state can conduct a countermeasure. However, as KAEK has also answered it very clearly, I will only just add to that question.
So if we see the current case, the case of the Kadanan case, the case on what happened to Palestine and very recently on Rafah, which previously Ka'eka has also mentioned in the presentation. I wonder if that gap in international law on the controversy on whether there must be a judgment first before conducting a countermeasure might be one of the reasons on why this problem still exists. because personally, I think it is quite sad that this case has been going on for so long, the case in Palestine and maybe also the war on Russia and Ukraine too. Do you personally, if it is one of the reasons on the thing, the genocide on Palestine and Rafah, Do you personally think that this is a gap hole in international law? And probably because it's also a matter of ergo omnes, which definitely will be something urgent and serious.
Is this also one of your concerns on why you are writing your thesis on this? And lastly, are there any cases? in international law where a state individually or states collectively has conducted a countermeasure before a judgment has been adopted yet?
So that's my question. Thank you so much. Yes, you may respond, Eka.
and it's still on mute okay sorry um yeah yeah this is one of my inspirations when i written my thesis because i i see the international law enforcement is is very unique because one state that is not have a consensus to um to make a conflict resolution, to stop the conflicts. It's very unique because this work must have the same state. What I mean is that all the states in the world... have the same thought that, for example, that happens in Palestine, that the Palestinians must have a right to their territory.
But international law enforcement cannot do that because there is a organization name is the United Nations that have a body UNAC the state only can propose the draft resolution to stop Israel elections through their body to through that body the poor however the UNAC have a power to veto and and it is very and the test is really hard because it cannot be stopped because the power of the state, the P5, the draft resolution to stop that action by Israel. And yeah, I think even though this confirmation is one of the tools that can be used to help the injured state to stop the breach of the responsible state. If the community, the international community in general is not organized and not together, impose the contra-measure. For me it's like if the only one state that impose the contra-measure, it cannot be effective because we don't know that the states that have a power, have the same power to stop that actions by the responsible states. And yeah, I think this, even though there is an option that countermeasures, again, it is an international law.
The approach is coordinative. Every state has a sovereignty and every state can be judged itself. Therefore, it's very hard to stop one of. state that reaches the international obligations because we need every state to have every state is in one position. Therefore, yeah, I think the countermeasures is only the alternative way, it's only options but against this mechanism of international law enforcement against.
by the UNACs because all the states have agreed under the United Nations Charter that giving the UNAC power to stop the breach of international obligations under Article 20. five of the UN, the United Nations Charter. And yeah, I think that is the key. If this prison can amend the United Nations Charter or remove the UN EC-FED, so I think it can be different. I think it will be more... effective in international uh enforcement to imply i think uh that's all for me maybe about prerequisite we have some suggestions or maybe answers the questions thanks eka for the answer and yeah maybe i just add some point Yeah, pretty good.
And yeah, back to the nature of international law, ECA said it's coordinated. That's right, because comparing, if we can compare with national law, for example, within national law, everything clearer. Who is drafting the law, which is the legislative who is the implementing the law which is uh executive and then who is enforcing the law that's judicative or we can refer to the uh trias yeah we call it trias politica from montesquieu everything is divided in based on rule and If someone just break the rule, they will know the consequences and then there will be independent body to enforce, to give punishment.
But in international law, the situation is quite different. International law actually based on the consensus. That's why when we refer to the theory of Hans Kelsen, for example, The nature of international law is bind by Paktasun Serpanda, for example, or by the common consent theory. All states, all countries agree to build international law, but behind the agreement, behind the consensus, every agreement, every consensus. contain any, because each country, they will bring their national interest, and then its national interest never be the same in each country.
And what is happened, what was happening is that they did a negotiation. Negotiation means that compromise, they have to compromise, they have to give up some national interest. And then because international law built from the compromise, from the political consensus particularly, then you know why.
For example... the member of security council under United Nations divided into fixed, non-fixed, permanent, non-permanent member, why some particular country have veto right and others didn't. It is based on the compromise and that's the drawback. I can see this is the drawback of the international law. And then it will affect, it will impact the implementation and the enforcement because the international law itself is built from the political component.
And the political factors under international law is bigger compared to national law. If it's national law, there is also political compromise, political negotiation. But usually they have a base point. They have like a minimum benchmark under its constitution. Every state must have like a constitution, either written or unwritten.
And then every... negotiation every political compromise should be based on the constitution. There is a rule, there is a minimum benchmark.
For example, why the United Nations Constructors consist of several countries and usually they their country because the reason why international law exists cannot be separated from the political negotiation or political compromise behind them. So why, for example, why the US always silent when Israel, for example, conduct any indication of violation. And why, for example, the U.S. is so aggressive when Russia tries to invade some part of Ukraine? Or the U.S. seems to be aggressive when...
China, if you ever hear that China product in US have been discriminately filtered, like the phone product from China that cannot be entered US market. Yeah, that's a kind of situation, the dynamic under international law. color the current situation do you have any follow-up question a bit um so thank you uh previously thank you for the answer i have a bit of a follow-up question a bit more like a confirmation actually so That means that in international law itself, until now, there has been no countermeasure that a state or some states did before there was a judgment or maybe a resolution from UN.
Maybe the Nicaragua case that Kaika mentioned earlier was that a... countermeasure or is it something else yeah you may respond yeah and it's still unmute the countermeasure It's still on and off. Maybe could you repeat it's still on and off?
It's not stable. Could you repeat again? Yeah.
Could you try to speak? Is my voice clear now? Yeah, it's better.
Okay, so in Nicaragua, Nicaragua attend the U.S. embargo and withdrawal of aid amounted to interventions as work for our state. When you use the Nicaragua case, for example, the case of counterfeiter is not not uh it's not um example of the countermeasures directly but we can use the piece to uh know that uh the countermeasure that used by state is uh intervention or not so it can be when we use because in that chance of the US go which are we also when state that used to contribute as when I answered when the state used to contribute to responsibilities responsible to international law the sanctions or maybe the state used the economic sanctions that sanctions cannot violate the sovereignty of the state. Therefore, some criteria to know is that the sanctions is violating the sovereignty of the state or not, we can use the Nicaragua case for no standard that the sanctions is not violating the duty of non-intervention, for example. So the Nicaragua case is not It's not a countermeasures examples, but I can give you another example that a state use the countermeasures without the UNHCR resolutions such as the and when in now try to not giving the military aid to the Israel and also imply to the Russia, Ukraine, the US, the Canada, the United Kingdom also impose the sanctions without the UNEC resolutions. I think that's all for my answer for Leah's questions.
hopefully it can be answered the questions. Maybe if it's not regulated or maybe other audience or participants have arguments or answers the layer questions, I think it will be good because it's even in discussions so everyone has a right to speak up. Is it right? Yeah that's right it has been regulated under Article 28 of our constitution, everyone can speak freely, speak in this event.
But yeah, other than what Eka has said, I have a trend when the country actually imposes a countermeasure, but They don't want that the measure classified as countermeasure because some reasons. For example, like this, the government of Indonesia never expressively said that Indonesia doesn't agree. or fight against what Israel did in Rafah, right? There is no formal statement about that. But there is a movement, there is a movement from maybe from NGO, from influencer to not buy any product.
that meat from Israel. And the government secretly facilitated it. But of course, Indonesia doesn't want to be in the position.
to support Palestine because China and also with happen if you saw some YouTube content creator there's some time campaign that okay this is the list of the product from Israel and then amazingly the product is the product is very popular yeah it's like KFC Burger King etc yeah and And if you support for the Palestinians, don't buy this kind of product. But the government doesn't want to be in the position to expressively support the movement, but facilitate, just facilitate. And that's quite interesting. And also because we also had any experience about the embargo. Maybe Eka has said as well about the military embargo, because some military equipment for Indonesian forces had been blocked for almost 10 years.
That's why the situation of Indonesian army is a bit late, the advancement, the technology is a bit late compared to the next-board-hard country like Singapore and Malaysia because of the embargo that was imposed. This is pretty interesting and this also reflects how the dynamic international law is always happening and it become from this presentation I hope it will inspire and it will also open a new opportunity to all participants who are attending now to yeah this is always a novelty issue that need to be deeply yeah observed by you, there is an open opportunity to make a proposed thesis or we call it a description. There is always a new issue to be discussed, to be explored on international law concerns.
I think that's all my brief comment. how about you Laetitia yes thank you so much it was very clear now I know that boycott does not need countermeasure does not need to be explicit it can be implicit I think that's what I also get so thank you very much it is very understandable Okay, I will open for, I think we still have around 15 minutes, maybe one more question, the final question, or maybe if you just want to add new information or to share information, yeah, it is also very fine. And again, don't feel under pressure in this friendly gathering. Okay, who'd like to be the third?
Okay, would like to be the third? okay If there is no more questions, I'd like to say thank you, Oreca, for nice and fruitful presentation. Your final thesis defense actually. And yeah, this also happened in the...
In the previous meeting, when Tata also presented about the cyber warfare, and then she presented well, even better than the final dissent. Defense, maybe because in this situation there is no pressure, there is no fresh confidence or sidang, so it feels... when students are in a difficult situation and there is no pressure, then usually they can express their ideas smoothly and better. Once again, thank you Eka and thank you to all participants who are attending on this special night.
this discussion will give you any insight not just about the issue about international law particularly about countermeasure but you can also see the content of final thesis students especially who take specialization in international law and international business law. So there will be no, no, what I want to call, no, no worry, no, like over react or overthinking about making a good final thesis. Yeah.
Because if you have supervision, intensive and continuous supervision. Everything is under control and can be handled in a timely manner. And also for organizing committee. Thanks for making this discussion possible. And we will continue this discussion next month with other students from Faculty of Law, Udayana University.
I think Ayu Sriundari will be the next presenter to express her idea. Okay, that's all my brief comment and my apology if there is inconvenience happening during this event. Now I will hand over the event to Angita.
Thank you. Thank you so much to Mr. Parikesit and Ms. Ayo Eka Pratibi for an amazing discussion session. Your dedication to facilitating meaningful dialogue is greatly appreciated.
Ladies and gentlemen and distinguished participants, we invite you to fill out the attendance link as you may access the certificate of appreciation by the end of the forum. Our team will send the link through the chat box. As we draw to a close, I extend my deepest gratitude to each participant for their valuable contributions to today's discussions.
On behalf of the organizing team, thank you for your active participation and we look forward to welcoming you to future events. Until our next online encounter, stay safe and connected. Om Santi Santi Santi Om. Wassalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Shalom, Namo Buddhaya, may peace be upon us.