loading...
Preseden Genosida Politik (Politicide) 1965-1966 dan Urgensi Amandemen Konvensi Genosida 1948Di Posting Oleh : Berita Dunia (Ibrahimdera)
Kategori : Genosida 1965-1966 genosida politik Hak Asasi Manusia Hukum Internasional Konvensi International political genocide politicide politisida
Di dalam Konvensi Internasional Genosida dan Statuta Roma disebutkan bahwa genosida hanya mencakup pembasmian terhadap 4 kategori yakni genosida/pembasmian terhadap kelompok etnis, ras, agama dan kelompok bangsa/nasional. Dalam hal ini mendasarkan konvensi yang berlaku Majelis Hakim IPT 65 menyebutkan Genosida terjadi terhadap kelompok bangsa/nasional. Sementara ada pandangan bahwa Genosida 1965 sesungguhnya lebih tepat dikategorikan sebagai pembasmian terhadap suatu kelompok politik tertentu walau hal ini belum terakomodir dalam konvensi ini. Beberapa kalangan juga memandang preseden Genosida Politik (Politicide) di Indonesia bisa menjadi salah satu dorongan lagi untuk revisi Konvensi Internasional ini.
Dalam publikasi ini kami menelusuri beberapa karya ilmiah/artikel/pernyataan yang lugas menggunakan terminologi Genosida Politik (Politicide/Politisida) untuk peristiwa 1965-1966. Selain kami sajikan terjemahan Konvensi Genosida 1948 dan Statuta Roma, menelusuri literasi yang menjelaskan kenapa kelompok politik dikeluarkan dari usulan konvensi, sekaligus argumen adanya urgensi untuk memasukan kelompok politik dan kategori kelompok-kelompok khusus lainnya.
Putusan akhir pengadilan rakyat internasional atas kejahatan kemanusiaan periode 1965 di Indonesia atau International People’s Tribunal (IPT) 1965 menyebutkan, Indonesia harus bertanggung jawab atas 10 tindakan kejahatan hak asasi manusia (HAM) berat pada 1965-1966.
Salah satu dari 10 kejahatan HAM itu ialah genosida atau tindakan sengaja untuk menghancurkan sebagian atau seluruh golongan penduduk tertentu. Kejahatan genosida ini dialami anggota, pengikut dan simpatisan Partai Komunis Indonesia (PKI), serta loyalis Presiden Sukarno dan anggota Partai Nasional Indonesia (PNI)
Dipetik dari CNN Indonesia – Putusan Pengadilan Rakyat 1965: Indonesia Lakukan Genosida
Fakta-fakta yang dihadirkan di Sidang Tribunal oleh penuntut termasuk tindakan-tindakan yang disebutkan dalam Konvensi Genosida. Tindakan-tindakan tersebut dilakukan untuk melawan bagian substansif negara Indonesia atau kelompok nasional, sebuah kelompok yang dilindungi dalam konvensi genosida. Tindakan tersebut dilakukan dengan maksud khusus untuk menghancurkan atau membinasakan kelompok tersebut secara bagian atau keseluruhan. Hal ini juga berlaku pada kejahatan yang dilakukan pada kelompok minoritas Cina. Indonesia terikat pada ketentuan Konvensi Genosida tahun 1948 di bawah hukum internasional.
Dipetik dari Laporan Akhir Pengadilan Rakyat Internasional 1965
Kerugian Nasional Akibat Genosida Politik1965-1966
Bonnie Triyana - Historia
Penyintas 1965 Meminta Negara Jamin Keamanan dan Kebebasan
Namun Reza optimis, simposium yang akan datang tetap dapat dijadikan momentum pengungkapan kebenaran, bahwa tahun 1965-1966 telah terjadi kejahatan kemanusiaan dan genosida politik yang sampai sekarang masih terjadi.
Mechanics of Mass Murder: A Case for Understanding the Indonesian Killings as Genocide - Jess Melvin
Since the time of the 1965–66 killings, Indonesian and foreign commentators have debated the appropriate language with which to label them.1 The scale of the killings— believed to have claimed up to a million lives—along with the killers’ stated aim to “exterminate to the roots” (menumpas sampai ke akar-akarnya) an unarmed civilian group has led many to ask whether the 1965–66 killings constitute a case of genocide. Since the early 1980s, key genocide scholars have argued that the 1965–66 killings appear to meet the definition of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention. The biggest difficulty in substantiating this claim has been proving military intent behind the killings and corroborating the argument that the military’s target group can be understood as a protected group under the Convention.
This article provides an overview of new key evidence from Aceh province that is able to address this “evidence problem.” It will demonstrate, using the military’s own records, how the killings were initiated and implemented as part of a deliberate campaign by the military. It will also show how the military explicitly identified its target group as extending beyond the confines of a “political group”— excluded from protection under the Convention—to identify this target group as belonging to an ideologically constituted national group (Indonesia’s “communist group”) and as members of a religious group (as “atheists”).2 In doing so, it argues that the 1965–66 killings can indeed be understood as a case of genocide.
While genocide refers to an attempt at liquidating members of a distinct national, ethnic, racial or religious group, politicide describes the mass murder of political opponents drawn from a political grouping, and the killing of communists and suspected communists in Indonesia during 1965 to 1966 fits best in to the politicide category
Definisi yang diusulkan D. Nersessian (2010) untuk amandemen/ optional protocol Konvensi Anti-Genosida (1948) dan Statuta Roma (2000) mengenai Pengadilan Kejahatan Internasional. (disalin dari Harry Wibowo)
The vacuum of international law in regard to politicide presents one of the most neglected areas of judicial protection for universal human rights and an area which possesses the potential to make the greatest contribution to world peace through the rule of law. The crime of politicide has existed since men first discovered the need to live in tribal organizations for collective security and the protection of their territory. A historical analysis of politicide would necessarily include an evaluation of the acts of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Hitler,l These men are but a few of the many who could be accused of politicide.
The decision made by the drafters of the Convention to exclude political groups from protection was based on two considerations. First, in determining which types of groups to protect, the drafters employed the criterion of stability: whether the groups were ones that persons tend to be born into or that tend to maintain their identities over relatively long periods of time. National, ethnic, racial, and religious groups qualified under this standard. Political groups did not. Second, some drafters were concerned that the inclusion of political groups in Article II would create an obstacle to its ratification by many states that were apprehensive that they would be charged with genocide of subversive groups they were attempting to suppress. The possibility that such allegations might be made was perceived to be even more troublesome in light of the fact that the Convention was to contain a provision relating to the creation of an international criminal court. In the end, most drafters of the Convention who favored the inclusion of political groups in Article II were persuaded to accept the deletion of the political groups clause in order to eliminate this obstacle to its ratification.
Political and other groups have re-entered the debate on protected groups in the drafting of international documents and faced the same result as in the drafting of the Genocide Convention. The International Law Commission (ILC), in developing the Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, entertained a non-exhaustive list of protected groups, 69 but eventually decided on the original four-group exhaustive list for…….
B. Political Groups
Despite their exclusion from the Genocide Convention, political groups have found explicit protection in several domestic codes prohibiting genocide. 117 While these states represent a clear minority, as most states have excluded political groups,118 the states demonstrate that the protection of political groups under genocide law is not a dead concept. Nersessian further notes that “no state has objected to the broader formulations,” although there is no evidence of opinio juris; the inclusion of political groups in these instances demonstrates nothing more than utilizing an optional feature of domestic law. 119 As Nersessian concedes, the survival of political groups in domestic protection is at best an “emergent” norm of customary international law. 120 The travaux préparatoires of the Genocide Convention demonstrate that political groups lacked wide international support from the beginning of codification of genocide law. Delegations such as those from Egypt, Iran, Uruguay, and the United States feared the inclusion of political groups among the protected groups would result in a lower number of ratifications and therefore a less forceful convention. 121 While much of the discussion surrounding the inclusion of political groups was over the appropriateness of including political groups among more permanent and stable protected groups, the committee was certainly mindful of the practical consequences of including these groups. The United States delegation explicitly distinguished between drafting a “convention founded on just principles” and one “ratified by the greatest possible number of Governments” 122 and suggested that both interests should be reconciled.
KONVENSI INTERNATIONAL
Konvensi tentang Pencegahan dan Penghukuman Kejahatan Genosida
CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE.
STATUTA ROMA MAHKAMAH PIDANA INTERNASIONAL
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
simak 400 ‘entry’ lainnya pada link berikut
Daftar Isi Perpustakaan Genosida 1965-1966
Road to Justice : State Crimes after Oct 1st 1965 (Jakartanicus)
loading...
0 Response to "Preseden Genosida Politik (Politicide) 1965-1966 dan Urgensi Amandemen Konvensi Genosida 1948"
Posting Komentar