The Policy of President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) refusing clemency (n. grasi/ampunan) of the death penalty for the six drug traffickers (n. pengedar) gets pros and cons (phr. pro dan kontra) responses from the public this early day. As it is known, the death sentence has brought six lifes into their end of drug traffickers, they are Marco Archer Cardoso Moreira from Brazil, Rani Andriani and Tommi Wijaya from Indonesia, Tran Thi Bich Hanh from Vietnam, Namaona Denis from Malawi, and Daniel Enemuo from Nigeria. However this policy making has drawn (v. menarik) international attention to give response, let along Indonesian people.

islaminindonesia.files.wordpress.com

     Those who do not agree with this policy argue that death penalty which takes person’s life is murder and it violates (v. melanggar) human rights as set (v. diatur) in article 28 A 1945 "every person has the right to live and to defend life and living". Jakarta Archbishop (n. uskup besar) Mgr. Ignatius Suharyo in Tribunnews.com said that life and death of a person is not in the hands of man, and this is contrary to the teachings of the church. Jokowi gives the decision as if all dealers are guilty and should be put on death penalty. "He (Jokowi) does not see the reason of the drug traffickers, it should be revised and examined one by one, the death penalty will not solve the problem," adds Ignatius. Meanwhilst (adv. sementara itu) those who agree said that the death penalty can give the effect of abundant and provide lessons for other traffickers who have not been caught yet.
       On the other hand, the Head of the National Narcotic Province Agency "BNNP" of South Sulawesi, Richard M Nainggolan approves (v. menyetujui) the decision which has been taken by Jokowi. He said "The death penalty should be carried out to the drug traffickers who are really proven, so that others feel threatened (v. terancam)". In order to legitimate the death penalty, the legal process should be based on Law, Human Rights, Health, and should be through assessment. This will determine whether the results will prove it is the trafficker or only user or addict. Those who proved to be an addict must be rehabilitated and those who proved to be a dealer (n. pedagang) must get death penalty.
      In constitution 1997 No.22 about narcotics, article 80 paragraph (1a, 2a and 3a), article 81 paragraph (3a), article 82 paragraph (1a, 2a, and 3a) the death penalty does not violate human rights, which is guaranteed in article 28A and international law obligations of Indonesia which come from an international agreement on combating illicit (adj. haram) trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances so that law enforcement needs to be improved. Moreover Indonesia does not adhere (v. menganut) to the absolute human rights law as stated in the article 28J paragraph (2) that everyone should respect other people's rights and peace to to get their rights. So that it can break the protection of human rights contained in Article 28A.
       Departing from the legal basis, it can be concluded that the death penalty for drug traffickers who would have been convicted  through (phr. dihukum) due law process and assessment must be carried out (phr. diadakan) because it can provide lessons and prevalent effects to other traffickers who have not been caught so that the drug traffickers will be decreased, and probably be stopped.

Questions.
1. What is in your mind about death senctence? What if it is implemented to criminals? What kind  of crimes that deserve it?
2. Do you agree about Jokowi’s decision to reject petition for mercy of the six drug traffickers?
3. What do you know about the result of the Jokowi’s rejection? Is it good for our country?
4. How drugs give bad impact to our society? How to resolve it?
5. How should law behave to user, addict, and traffickers of drugs?

       Written By: Mila | English Department Bachelor

Every country has relation with another country both bilateral and multilateral relation known as International relation. The relation between country and individual or country and international organization is not always plait well. Sometimes this relation causes a dispute between them. The dispute comes from factors such us border area, natural resource, environmental damage, trade etc. when the dispute happens, there are some efforts to solve it whether in diplomatic way or war (military way). This paper will discuss about the best way to resolve international dispute.

Negotiation is one of the diplomatic ways and the most important way in solving a dispute. Some countries prefer to do negotiation as a first step to solve their international dispute. In negotiation, both countries will discuss directly to look for the solution of their dispute through dialogue without intervention from the third side. When negotiation is successful, the result will be poured on peace agreement document. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that negotiation will solve the dispute because one of parties is stubborn and maintain its opinion especially when the country has stronger bargain. There will be political stress to the week country.

Moreover, military way (war) is also claimed and practiced internationally/globally. Even war has become a tool and international policy. War has been used by some countries to force their interests in the forms of rights and understandings about international public rule. War is an action of independence country. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S, Robert Lansing, in 1919 says;to declare war is one of the highest acts of sovereignty. However, because of the development of weapon of mass destruction technology, international society becomes more aware about the danger of war. In addition to that, war will not resolve the dispute. Instead, war will create bigger dispute between countries because war means violence. In the war there will be some irresponsible countries that will take advantage from the war by selling their guns or doing military intervention on one of them.

To sum up, solving the dispute between countries in international world is important. Both negotiation and military action are the rights of every country in the world. Each government has right to decide the best way of solving the dispute. As independence country we must maintain our international relation with other countries. Government must put every diplomatic possibility as first way to resolve the dispute. In order that war will not become the way of solving the dispute or at least we decrease the using of war.

Written by : ZakiaKhyadhanielZaskia