Responsibility To Protect Research Articles

A testament deed is an authentic deed that has perfect proof. Testament is a unilateral will, so it does not require agreement with other parties, as a partij deed, the Notary only formulates the wishes of the Testator, because it involves property it often causes problems so that it is possible for a lawsuit against the testament deed. Analysing the decision of the Yogyakarta District Court No. 58/PDT.G/2011/PN.YK.Problem formulation: Legal protection for Notary related to the deed of will in civil case connected with Law No. 2 Year 2014, and Notary's responsibility towards the deed of will in civil case. The purpose of the research: to know the legal protection for Notary related to the deed of will in civil case in relation with Law No. 2 Year 2014. To find out the responsibilities of the Notary towards the testamentary deed in civil cases. The research method used in this research uses a normative juridical approach with additional interviews. The normative juridical approach is sourced from data collection obtained from library materials and then analysed by qualitative analysis method. The conclusion of the research is that the Notary is only responsible for the formal form of the deed he made, and is not responsible for the content of the deed. The protection of the Notary is that the will deed is a unilateral act, does not need the consent of other parties, as a partij deed, the Notary only formulates the wishes of the Testator, not as a party to the deed (Articles 52, 53 UUJN), besides that it is based on Article 66 of the UUJN which previously had to be approved by the MPD, currently replaced by the Notary Honor Council. Notaries are protected if they have fulfilled the requirements that must be met in making a deed of will. The author suggests that in making a deed, it is necessary to be careful, and adhere to the rules of the Notary Office. In addition, the Notary needs to provide information related to the will deed to the maker of the will and the party concerned. The government is expected to form regulations governing the protection of Notaries.

Artikel ini membahas upaya Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB) dalam menegakkan norma Responsibility to Protect (R2P) di Ukraina. Dimana penegakkan norma R2P di Ukraina masih gagal. Salah satu alasan dari kegagalan ini adalah karena penyeimbangan kekuatan besar yang terjadi dalam dinamika hubungan Anggota Tetap Dewan Keamanan PBB antara Amerika Serikat dan Rusia. Artikel ini menggunakan metode penelitian kualitatif dengan pertanyaan penelitian eksplanatif. Metode pengumpulan data yang digunakan dalam artikel ini adalah dengan menggunakan studi dokumentasi. Adapun teknik analisis yang digunakan merupakan teknik analisa Miles dan Huberman yang terdiri dari reduksi data, penyajian data dan penarikan kesimpulan. Dalam melakukan analisis dan olah data, peneliti menggunakan teori Balnce of Power (BOP) dengan frame neorealisme. Peneliti melihat alasan kegagalan PBB dalam menegakkan norma R2P disebabkan oleh konflik kubu yang saling berusaha mengimbangi kubu lainnya

In today's world, the concept of human rights stands as a beacon of hope, advocating for the fundamental dignity and freedoms of every individual. Rooted in the recognition that all human beings possess inherent worth, human rights provide a universal framework that transcends cultural, social, and political boundaries. They represent a collective aspiration to create a world where fairness, justice, and equality prevail. Throughout history, the concept of human rights has evolved, driven by the need to address pressing societal challenges and protect individuals from oppression, discrimination, and violence. From ancient civilizations to the modern era, societies have grappled with questions surrounding the rights and responsibilities of individuals and the role of governments in safeguarding these rights. Today, human rights encompass a broad spectrum of principles and entitlements that serve as a moral compass for societies worldwide. They encompass civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, recognizing that a person's well-being and dignity are intertwined with their ability to enjoy a range of freedoms, opportunities, and protections.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has been invoked by the Russian Federation in order to justify its ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine. As a matter of fact, if certain criteria are met, the Responsibility to Protect allows the use of force for humanitarian purposes in a third State in a manner consistent with the international legal framework. This paper aims at analysing Russia’s contradictory approach related to this doctrine as well as the illegality of its forcible intervention under international law, included within the R2P framework.

El principio de No Intervención ha surgido en la comunidad internacional desde el derecho consuetudinario, con la intención de preservar la soberanía de los Estados, en cambio la “responsabilidad de proteger” es un término comparativamente nuevo desde 2005 desde el seno de la ONU, con la proposición firme de establecer un deber de socorro a poblaciones víctimas de graves violaciones de derechos humanos, lo que ha hecho que se abran al debate los paradigmas establecidos del derecho internacional positivo. A partir de una exploración de la literatura académica y como parte de un propósito específico como lo es presentar brevemente los aspectos conceptuales sobre el Principio de No Intervención y la Responsabilidad de Proteger en el Derecho Internacional Público, el presente trabajo se toma la tarea de examinar ambos conceptos para determinar su alcance, así como los problemas de aplicación unidos a este concepto. Se concluye que se considera importante destacar la preeminencia de la idea de la protección de los intereses de las personas, frente a la protección de los intereses de la comunidad internacional y de los derechos humanos en el sistema internacional actual.

The Three Pillars of the Responsibility to Protect

We present an innovative process-based approach aimed at helping entrepreneurs to adapt to the new circumstances arising from the introduction of the Standard Audit File for Tax (SAF-T), which is changing the paradigm of tax authorities3 in dealing with tax non-compliance. The responsibility to protect against evaders has shifted significantly from tax administration towards entrepreneurs, increasing the risk of financial penalties and torts. Simultaneously, it has enabled the introduction of innovative management concepts in the field of financial inspection, auditing, and tax compliance. A process-based approach has been proposed to cope with the complex challenges the entrepreneurs and accountants are now facing in this subject. It is used as a framework for combining key management concepts, like due diligence and quality management, which are typically applied separately. We have achieved our goal by constructing a Data Control Framework (DCF) for SAF-T that addresses the need for the redesign of internal financial control procedures to meet the new requirements of a fiscal audit. Two research methods have been used in this paper: (1) a survey to assess the effects of the implementation of the SAF-T standard in the enterprise and (2) design science research (DSR) for building the proposed framework.

Explaining Norm Ineffectiveness: Responsibility to Protect as a “Hollow Norm”

The article discusses the responsibility to protect (RtoP) and the shift from a right for humanitarian intervention towards a global responsibility to protect civilians, as exemplified by the wording of Resolutions 1970 and 1973. The main goal of the article is to analyse the response of the United Nations to the crisis in Libya and discuss the ways in which responsibility to protect and human security were incorporated throughout the involvement in Libya. The article is structured in three main parts. The first one provides a brief overview of the essentials of the responsibility to protect while the second one focuses on the UN’s incorporation of RtoP. Finally, the last part tackles the degree to which the intervention in Libya reflected an adequate and consistent RtoP framework.

W artykule przedstawiona jest interwencja w obronie jezydów zapoczątkowana w sierpniu 2014 roku w północnym Iraku. Podmiotem operacji były przede wszystkim Stany Zjednoczone dysponujące zgodą irackiego rządu na prowadzenie działań zbrojnych na rzecz integralności terytorialnej oraz ochrony obywateli Iraku. Autor artykułu dowodzi, że w operacji w obronie jezydów, wbrew powszechnym przekonaniom, można odnaleźć znacznie więcej elementów interwencji humanitarnej niż odpowiedzialności za ochronę. W tym celu poszczególne komponenty operacji w obronie jezydów zostały zaprezentowane przez pryzmat koncepcji interwencji humanitarnej i odpowiedzialności za ochronę.

Norm Robustness and the Responsibility to Protect

Failure Of Integrating The Responsibility To Protect Law In Syria And Its Implementation In Libya

The meaning of RtoP (responsibility to protect) is self-explanatory, it shows what the international community (or at least some part of it) considers unacceptable in today’s world: genocide, ethnic cleansing and barbarous acts against civilians. However, the same international community stood silent when Rwanda and Srebrenica happened. Yet precisely because of the guilt and shame associated with its previous failures, the same international community managed to launch an initiative, responsibility to protect (RtoP/R2P), in 2001. We insist on calling RtoP an initiative, not as a derogatory term, but as a counter-rhetoric argument to the so-called RtoP emerging norm. According to international law theory, a norm can be either customary (derogatory), either peremptory (jus cogens), there is no in-between option, particularly when interpreting the UN Charter provisions in relation with to the broad-spectrum of the principle of non-intervention as opposed to human rights (the area where RtoP tries to overstep the Charter’s authority). The main aspects of RtoP are, (1) on one count, the infringement on state-sovereignty (the functional sovereignty theory), particularly on the quality of the so-called Westphalia-style sovereignty, (2) the other being the clear purpose of the ICISS, above and beyond of ending mass-atrocities, which is the process of legalizing humanitarian intervention. After the 1999 Kosovo Intervention and during the early phases of the War on Terror, humanitarian intervention became seriously de-legitimised, this is why something novel was needed, which where RtoP stepped-in, riding on the hopes of many.

Fil: Cabrol, Diego. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Centro Cientifico Tecnologico Conicet - Cordoba. Instituto de Humanidades. Universidad Nacional de Cordoba. Instituto de Humanidades; Argentina

Theorising the Responsibility to Protect, edited by Ramesh Thakur and William Maley

This article explores how girls’ and young women’s sexual behaviours have been and currently are constructed and responded to within social work. Contemporary views of childhood consider young people as sexually innocent and lacking (sexual) agency. Moreover, the experience of sexual abuse is believed to be traumatic and to result in long-term adverse life experiences. Such narratives can influence how social workers perceive and respond to abuse and indeed whether sexual activities involving young people are understood as abusive. Drawing on different but related Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded projects, the article introduces narratives of girls who were resident at the school where allegations against Jimmy Savile originate from. It then considers research looking at adult women’s engagement with the childhood sexual abuse (CSA) recovery literature and draws links from this to the ways in which cases of sexual exploitation in UK towns such as Rotherham are responded to. Both examples challenge dominant understandings of CSA, raising questions of girls’ agency, but also of how sexual experience might act to remove a responsibility to protect girls from abuse. We argue that there is merit in separating out wrongfulness from harm in how social workers respond to such issues.

Theorising the Responsibility to Protect. Edited by Ramesh Thakur and William Maley

Book Review: The Responsibility to Protect: A Defense

Book review: Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History

Dan Kuwali and Frans Viljoen (Eds),Africa and the Responsibility to Protect: Article 4(h) of the African Union Constitutive Act