Indonesian diplomacy criticized as “to slow, too weak, and too late” to protect its migrant workers. Indonesian migrant workers that consist 80% of women, sent to fulfill the high demand for domestic workers and low...Indonesian diplomacy criticized as “to slow, too weak, and too late” to protect its migrant workers. Indonesian migrant workers that consist 80% of women, sent to fulfill the high demand for domestic workers and low level labor in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The qualification of workers that mostly uneducated and lack of job experience caused many social-economic issues in receiving countries. Moreover, lack of training led to problems related to violation of human and workers’ rights, even in many cases turned as the victim of human trafficking. The problems at domestic level are related to corrupt government officials, weak of bureaucracy, and lack of coordination amongst government’s institutions. In addition, the business interests of recruiting agents both at home and host countries added to complexity of issues. Problems during recruitment, preparation and sending process also caused legal, social and cultural problems that need diplomatic efforts both at bilateral and multilateral level. Due to diplomatic failure that undermined Indonesian reputation in receiving countries, in addition to unresolved domestic problems, this article proposes the Indonesian government to terminate the sending of domestic workers. Furthermore, the immigration policy needs to be reevaluates. In the future, the Indonesian government should only send legal, documented workers, with skilled or semi-skilled qualifications.展开更多
The margin of appreciation is controversial and difficult to understand. Since its first reference in the case of Greece vs. UK, the meaning of this doctrine has evolved from deference to derogation from the European ...The margin of appreciation is controversial and difficult to understand. Since its first reference in the case of Greece vs. UK, the meaning of this doctrine has evolved from deference to derogation from the European Convention to an inflation of language used or misused by the Strasbourg Court to preserve the State's 'room for manoeuvre' or 'latitude of deference or error.' In this paper, I divide the concept of margin of appreciation into two categories: the substantive and structural concept. The Strasbourg Court usually generously defers to national decisions in structural scrutiny where it has to respect European pluralism and the collective interests of the contracting parties unless domestic decisions are regarded as 'manifestly unreasonable.' In contrast, the European Human Rights Court scrutinizes carefully in the substantive sense of margin of appreciation. Some factors or test approaches will be identified first, by which the Court substantively narrows or limits the scope of margin preserved for the States. The result of two conceptual margins of appreciation may be reciprocally transformed in some circumstances. When the collective good surely undermines the core of Convention rights, the Court will not stand with the domestic argument since it must ensure the implementation of pan-European human rights standards. On the other side, the Court has no capacity to further increase strict scrutiny in cases where there is a complicated relationship between the means and ends in the proportionality test, implying that domestic courts are better placed than the supranational court given the fact that they know better the local reality and have more local knowledge.展开更多
The bundle of personal information rights refers to a set of rights belonging to the subject of personal information,including the right to know,decide,inquire,correct,copy,delete,etc.Such a bundle of rights is usuall...The bundle of personal information rights refers to a set of rights belonging to the subject of personal information,including the right to know,decide,inquire,correct,copy,delete,etc.Such a bundle of rights is usually understood in Chinese civil rights legal circles as a civil right falling under the paradigm of individual autonomy and control,and is interpreted as a specific right to personal information.This understanding somewhat misinterprets the nature and function of the bundle of personal information rights.In terms of its nature,the bundle of personal information rights is the outcome of the state’s obligation to actively protect and empower individuals through institutional safeguards,and is thus essentially a means and a tool of protection granted to individuals by the state under the concept of protective law.In terms of its function,the bundle of personal information rights is both a tool enabling individuals to check and counterbalance processors of information and a strategy for the state to regulate data processors.Understanding the nature and functions of the bundle of rights from the perspective of state protection and regulation strategies helps to construct a fairer,more transparent and rational order of public law data governance under the concept of protective law and promotes the structural optimization and capacity enhancement of the data governance system.As an instrumental right under the state’s regulatory strategy,the implementation of the bundle of personal information rights needs to focus on facilitating the individual’s knowledge,participation and ability to negotiate under procedural justice,as well as the reasonable allocation of rights and obligations between individuals and information processors under distributive justice,with a view to continuously developing and enhancing the state’s regulatory rationality.展开更多
文摘Indonesian diplomacy criticized as “to slow, too weak, and too late” to protect its migrant workers. Indonesian migrant workers that consist 80% of women, sent to fulfill the high demand for domestic workers and low level labor in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The qualification of workers that mostly uneducated and lack of job experience caused many social-economic issues in receiving countries. Moreover, lack of training led to problems related to violation of human and workers’ rights, even in many cases turned as the victim of human trafficking. The problems at domestic level are related to corrupt government officials, weak of bureaucracy, and lack of coordination amongst government’s institutions. In addition, the business interests of recruiting agents both at home and host countries added to complexity of issues. Problems during recruitment, preparation and sending process also caused legal, social and cultural problems that need diplomatic efforts both at bilateral and multilateral level. Due to diplomatic failure that undermined Indonesian reputation in receiving countries, in addition to unresolved domestic problems, this article proposes the Indonesian government to terminate the sending of domestic workers. Furthermore, the immigration policy needs to be reevaluates. In the future, the Indonesian government should only send legal, documented workers, with skilled or semi-skilled qualifications.
文摘The margin of appreciation is controversial and difficult to understand. Since its first reference in the case of Greece vs. UK, the meaning of this doctrine has evolved from deference to derogation from the European Convention to an inflation of language used or misused by the Strasbourg Court to preserve the State's 'room for manoeuvre' or 'latitude of deference or error.' In this paper, I divide the concept of margin of appreciation into two categories: the substantive and structural concept. The Strasbourg Court usually generously defers to national decisions in structural scrutiny where it has to respect European pluralism and the collective interests of the contracting parties unless domestic decisions are regarded as 'manifestly unreasonable.' In contrast, the European Human Rights Court scrutinizes carefully in the substantive sense of margin of appreciation. Some factors or test approaches will be identified first, by which the Court substantively narrows or limits the scope of margin preserved for the States. The result of two conceptual margins of appreciation may be reciprocally transformed in some circumstances. When the collective good surely undermines the core of Convention rights, the Court will not stand with the domestic argument since it must ensure the implementation of pan-European human rights standards. On the other side, the Court has no capacity to further increase strict scrutiny in cases where there is a complicated relationship between the means and ends in the proportionality test, implying that domestic courts are better placed than the supranational court given the fact that they know better the local reality and have more local knowledge.
文摘The bundle of personal information rights refers to a set of rights belonging to the subject of personal information,including the right to know,decide,inquire,correct,copy,delete,etc.Such a bundle of rights is usually understood in Chinese civil rights legal circles as a civil right falling under the paradigm of individual autonomy and control,and is interpreted as a specific right to personal information.This understanding somewhat misinterprets the nature and function of the bundle of personal information rights.In terms of its nature,the bundle of personal information rights is the outcome of the state’s obligation to actively protect and empower individuals through institutional safeguards,and is thus essentially a means and a tool of protection granted to individuals by the state under the concept of protective law.In terms of its function,the bundle of personal information rights is both a tool enabling individuals to check and counterbalance processors of information and a strategy for the state to regulate data processors.Understanding the nature and functions of the bundle of rights from the perspective of state protection and regulation strategies helps to construct a fairer,more transparent and rational order of public law data governance under the concept of protective law and promotes the structural optimization and capacity enhancement of the data governance system.As an instrumental right under the state’s regulatory strategy,the implementation of the bundle of personal information rights needs to focus on facilitating the individual’s knowledge,participation and ability to negotiate under procedural justice,as well as the reasonable allocation of rights and obligations between individuals and information processors under distributive justice,with a view to continuously developing and enhancing the state’s regulatory rationality.
