Apa yang Perhimpunan Bangsa-bangsa Asia Tenggara (ASEAN) tuliskan dalam Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN (ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, AHRD) masih sangat jauh dari cita-cita ideal untuk penghormatan dan perlindungan terhadap hak asasi manusia. Hal ini bukanlah suatu kejutan, mengingat AHRD merupakan cerminan sempurna berbagai ‘kekurangan’ dari ASEAN sebagai sebuah organisasi kerjasama kawasan: tidak ada sesuatu yang bisa disebut ‘universal’, karena bagi ASEAN, kedaulatan suatu negara berada lebih tinggi dibandingkan otoritas dari organisasi tersebut. Continue reading Menelaah Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia ASEAN
What the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) promulgated through the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD) is far from being the ideal common goal for better respect and protection for human rights. This should not turn to be a surprise since the AHRD reflects perfectly the downsides of ASEAN as a regional organization: there is no such thing as something ‘universal’, because for ASEAN, each country’s sovereignty tops even the regional organization itself.
If you mention two variables:  international humanitarian law (IHL) and  international organization, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) will surely come across. As probably the organization that gave birth to the IHL, the ICRC is certainly responsible for disseminating the knowledge of IHL to everyone, especially to those who need to take the law into account, i.e. combatants.
However, today’s understanding of IHL has expanded to cover not only in times of armed conflict, but also in times of peace (i.e. post conflict situation). The responsibility to understand and uphold the IHL has also grown. However, it should be debated on whether the ICRC, the mother of IHL, should be the sole organization (sole party) responsible for the dissemination of IHL.
To begin with, I am writing this post in retrospect, since I got this motion almost three years ago during a debate competition. At that time, I was the affirmative side, yet I will build the case of both sides of the house here. The debate, of course, will not give you answer on which to believe, it may sill imply the affirmative is better, or the other way around.