Law

Following the step down of President Soeharto in 1998, Indonesia has to take necessary measures to settle gross violation of human rights. Pressure on the promotion of human rights through legal regulation concerning human rights has shown a rewarding result. This is a positive impact on the spirit to respect and promote human rights.
One of the results is the enactment of Law No. 26/2000 concerning Human Rights Court which mandate to establish the Truth Commission. This mandate clearly stipulate in Article 47 (1). Four years later, the House of Representative issued Law No.27/2004 concerning Truth and Reconciliation Commission which dealing with gross human rights violation in the past. In this context, the settlement of human rights violation in the past not only focused on accountability through the court but also through a non-legal mechanism (reconciliation!).
In other hand, the enactment of this law produces a serious debate among various groups whether inside or outside parliament. Outside parliament, there are two camps in civil society when they dealt with this issue. First camps said Indonesia would be better to strengthen the role of human rights court than using the instrument of truth commission. They believe that justice can be only achieved by bringing the perpetrator to justice. Second camps think that the establishment of truth commission will provide an opportunity for victims to tell about their past experiences, and this way is believed to be able to promote the process of reconciliation. In short, the existence of the commission is to supplement human rights court in Indonesia.
Indonesia’s commitment to settle some gross human rights violation cannot be separated from some claims by some groups of community. They are the victims of human rights violations in Aceh, Papua, 1965 Communist Coup and other victims who claim for a justice. There are two things containing in the laws in Indonesia concerning this matter. Firstly, justice shall be implemented through court mechanism, and secondly through reconciliation mechanism.

Payment for Environmental Service (PES) is a relatively new environmental regulatory issue in Indonesia. In Indonesia, PES has not been much discussed. PES has become a way or a mechanism of stakeholders to maintain and manage the environment by providing economic incentives/compensation from users to providers of environmental services. In Aceh, this mechanism is not new as during 2007-2009 carbon trading was implemented in the ecosystem of Ulu Masen. The scheme was but a part of the PES transaction scheme. In its development, regulations concerning PES in Indonesia have yet to be given serious attention from stakeholders. Even if there were regulations in place.

South Asia, as one of the most polarized and poverty ridden regions in the world, is grappling with violations and abuses of human rights. on the one hand, governments in this region lack effective initiatives in fulfilling their obligation to respect, protect and promote human rights. They have refused to address the regional political situation, illiteracy and poverty, which are some of the root causes of impunity, and lack of good governance and transparency prevalent in South Asian countries.The paper highlights perspectives,challenges and approaches regarding establishment of a robust regional human rights mechanism in South Asia.

Nepal is a country with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious people and diverse Culture. This vast diversity is the most unique feature of Nepal as a country. Of total inhabited communities, there are 61 groups belonging to indigenous/ethnic communities. Again, 61 indigenous /ethnic groups comprise of minor populated groups like Bankariya, Kusunda, Chhierotan, Kushabadiya, Raute, Surel and groups having more than million populations, for example, Magar, Tharu, Tamang, etc . The majority of indigenous people and ethnic groups are weak and marginalized in terms of economic condition, social status, educational level and political involvement. The gap in their level of development is still very significant. In such a situation, it is crucial for the country’s all-round development that each community and ethnic group has the opportunity to progress in a balanced and appropriate manner. The special features which make the ethnic groups distinct from other sections of society are an asset to the nation. In turn, the equitable and sustainable development of the nation will only be possible through the realization of their specific needs and rights.  The paper explores the situation of indigenous nationalities of Nepal and role of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal in responding the human rights violations and abuses during the internal armed conflict of Nepal.

It considers how these concepts are refl ected in international human rights law and how they have been applied in Hong Kong domestic law. It concludes that legal reforms are necessary for Hong Kong to fully implement its obligations to ensure inclusive education and substantive equality under the CRPD.

This article considers whether room exists within the current system of national regional autonomy (NRA) in China to accommodate Tibetan aspirations for "genuine autonomy" under PRC sovereignty. It examines the legal framework for NRA in China, as well as Chinese government policy and practice toward autonomous areas, in terms of the limitations and possibilities they imply for realizing Tibetan aspirations for autonomy, highlighting specific areas of concern, opportunities and constraints. It explores the development of political and legal approaches toward autonomy since the 1930s, the nature of the current existing framework and how recent legal and political developments interact with that framework. It looks at options for autonomy under the Chinese Constitution and national legislation, particularly the self government of nationality (minority) autonomous areas as well as Article 31 of the Constitution which has provided the basis for the establishment of special administrative regions (SARs).

This article reviews developments in the understanding of a right to self-determination under international law in terms of the right's applicability and potential for resolving the Tibetan people's claims for self-government or independence. While a right to self-determination could likely justify Tibetan independence or secession from China, especially in light of continuing human rights abuses in Tibet, current political realities and global trends toward an expansion of "internal" options for realising selfdetermination within existing states make secession unlikely. Less radical solutions, such as greater autonomy, federal political structures and an improved minority rights regime, could provide more realistic mechanisms for settling the Tibetan question. Successful resolution, however, ultimately depends on the level of genuine international concern as well as the extent to which the Chinese Government is willing to accept greater democratic participation and consider more flexible notions of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The material in this Working Paper reflects analysis (and our interpretation of that analysis) from over a decade of other authors' work. In some cases, the data we present are over a decade old (though the only data available). We write this paper as a spur to discussion rather than as a definitive consulting report. The reader may not rely on any of the data or analysis in this paper and should do their own analysis (and reach their own conclusions). Some results may even contradict our own or others' previously published findings. This working paper serves as an input into a more definitive analysis which should appear in 2014. We hope you find this paper useful, informative. Contents Overview of Recommendations.