Personalisasi
Halo,
Anda,

Segera Upgrade paket berlangganan Anda.
Dapatkan fitur lebih lengkap
Profil
Ada pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami
Bahasa
id-flag
en-flag

Apakah Rakyat Papua Berhak atas Self-Determination dan Mendirikan Negara Sendiri?

Share
copy-paste Share Icon
Kenegaraan

Apakah Rakyat Papua Berhak atas Self-Determination dan Mendirikan Negara Sendiri?

Apakah Rakyat Papua Berhak atas <i>Self-Determination</i> dan Mendirikan Negara Sendiri?
Dr. iur. Damos Dumoli AgusmanSeleb Jurist
Seleb Jurist
Bacaan 10 Menit
Apakah Rakyat Papua Berhak atas <i>Self-Determination</i> dan Mendirikan Negara Sendiri?

PERTANYAAN

Belum lama ini konflik di Papua semakin memanas, termasuk dengan ditetapkannya OPM sebagai kelompok teroris. Selain melalui kolompok bersenjata, kabarnya OPM juga menyuarakan kemerdekaan Papua di forum internasional di PPB atas dasar hak menentukan nasib sendiri bagi rakyat Papua. Sebenarnya bagaimana hukumnya pergerakan ini, apakah benar Papua berhak atas hak menentukan nasib sendiri dan membentuk negara baru?

___________________________

Recently, the conflict in Papua has escalated, including by the designation of the OPM as a terrorist group. Apart from that, it is reported that the OPM also voiced Papuan independence in the international forum at the UN on the basis of the right to self-determination for the Papuan people. Actually, how is this the legal perspective on this movement, is it true that Papua has the right to self-determination and to form a new state?

DAFTAR ISI

    INTISARI JAWABAN

    Hukum internasonal telah menetapkan syarat yang ketat tentang siapa dan dalam situasi apa sekelompok orang atau wilayah memiliki hak menentukan nasib sendiri (self-determination). Syaratnya sangat restriktif yaitu hanya berlaku pada wilayah di bawah kekuasaan kolonial (non-self governing territory), serta yang berada dalam situasi penaklukan, dominasi, dan eksploitasi asing (alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation) sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 1514 (“Resolusi MU PBB 1514”) dan  Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 2625 (“Resolusi MU PBB 2625”).

    Apakah dengan demikian berarti Papua tidak memiliki hak untuk menentukan nasibnya sendiri? Lalu bagaimana kedudukan Penentuan Pedapat Rakyat (“PEPERA”) yang diadakan untuk Papua pada 1969?

    Penjelasan lebih lanjut dapat Anda klik ulasan di bawah ini.

    ______________________________________________________

    International law has set strict conditions on who and under what circumstances a group of people or territory has the right to self-determination. The conditions are very restrictive, as it only applies to areas under colonial rule (non-self governing territory), as well as those that are in a situation of foreign subjugation, domination, and exploitation as stated in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 1514 (“UNGA Resolution 1514”) and United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 2625 (“UNGA Resolution 2625”).

    Does this mean that Papua does not have the right to self-determination? Then what is the position of the Act of Free Choice (“PEPERA”) which was held for Papua in 1969?

    For further explanation, please click “Ulasan” below.

    ULASAN LENGKAP

    Terima kasih atas pertanyaan Anda.

    Gagasan bahwa Papua merdeka melalui hak untuk menentukan nasib dendiri (self-determination) sudah lama didengungkan namun selalu kandas. Seperti halnya gagasan Republik Rakyat Maluku, Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, kemerdekaan Catalonia dari Spanyol, dan gerakan lainnya yang selalu dikampanyekan dalam opini publik, gerakan semacam ini tidak pernah mendapat dukungan negara-negara. Mengapa? karena gagasan ini tidak memiliki akar dalam hukum internasional. 

    Norma Self-Determination

    KLINIK TERKAIT

    Mengenal Perlindungan Hors de Combat dalam Hukum Perang

    Mengenal Perlindungan <i>Hors de Combat</i> dalam Hukum Perang

    Hak menentukan nasib sendiri (self-determination) sering dipahami secara liar dan tanpa kriteria. Banyak yang beranggapan melalui hak ini maka semua kelompok rakyat, wilayah, atau ras berhak merdeka. Bahkan ada yang merujuk Alinea pertama Pembukaan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 yang berbunyi “Bahwa sesungguhnya kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa" sebagai dasar hukum untuk Papua Merdeka. Namun menjadi bingung saat ditanyakan apakah suku Batak, Sunda, Minang dan suku lainnya di nusantara dapat juga merdeka dengan dasar yang sama. Mereka lupa membaca kalimat berikutnya yaitu dan oleh sebab itu, maka penjajahan di atas dunia harus dihapuskan”. Artinya, hak kemerdekaan tersebut adalah atas situasi penjajahan.

    Hukum internasonal telah menetapkan syarat yang ketat tentang siapa dan dalam situasi apa sekelompok orang atau wilayah memiliki hak menentukan nasib sendiri. Syaratnya sangat restriktif yaitu hanya berlaku bagi wilayah di bawah kekuasaan kolonial (non-self governing territory), serta yang berada dalam situasi penaklukan, dominasi, dan eksploitasi asing (alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation) sebagaimana dinyatakan dalam Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 1514 (“Resolusi MU PBB 1514”) dan  Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 2625 (“Resolusi MU PBB 2625”).

    Belajar Hukum Secara Online dari Pengajar Berkompeten Dengan Biaya TerjangkauMulai DariRp. 149.000

    Mengapa hukum internasional memberi syarat ketat? Karena ada norma hukum internasional lain yang menghalanginya, yakni penghormatan terhadap integritas wilayah negara, yang juga ditegaskan dalam Resolusi MU PBB 2625. Artinya jika hak menentukan nasib sendiri diberikan tanpa kriteria hukum maka akan terjadi gelombang disintergrasi wilayah di dunia yang berpotensi mengacaukan tatanan dunia.

    Selain itu, larangan pemecahan wilayah-wilayah negara juga terkristalisasi dalam Paragraf 6 Resolusi MU PBB 1514. Cukup membanggakan bahwa pada saat perumusan paragraf ini diusulkan oleh Indonesia, dengan merujuk pengalaman pahitnya soal Papua yang dipisahkan secara ilegal oleh Belanda melalui Konferensi Meja Bundar pada tahun 1949.

    Apakah Papua Ikut Merdeka pada Tanggal 17 Agustus 1945?

    Bagaimana dengan Papua, apakah masih berhak atas self-determination? Pertanyaan hukum yang pertama harus dijawab adalah apakah wilayah Papua termasuk wilayah yang dimerdekakan pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945, dan dengan demikian turut melaksanakan hak menentukan nasib sendiri? Jawaban atas pertanyaan ini tergantung pada apakah Papua pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 adalah bagian dari Hindia Belanda. 

    Hukum internasional mengenal doktrin uti possidetis juris yang tercermin dalam putusan Mahkamah Internasional (“ICJ”) pada Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) 1986. Doktrin ini menjelaskan bahwa batas-batas wilayah yang dimerdekakan adalah batas wilayah kolonial, tidak boleh lebih dan tidak boleh kurang (the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization) (hal. 15-17). Ini berarti wilayah Indonesia yang dimerdekakan tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 hanya wilayah bekas Hindia Belanda dan tidak boleh mencakup wilayah di luarnya, seperti Timor Timor (jajahan Portugal) dan Malaysia/Singapura (jajahan Inggris).

    Fakta sejarah menunjukkan bahwa Papua pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 adalah bagian dari Hindia Belanda sesuai dengan Pasal 62 Konstitusi Belanda tahun 1938 yang berlaku saat itu. Berdasarkan doktrin ini Papua adalah termasuk wilayah yang dimerdekakan pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945.

    Norma ini sudah dikonfirmasi oleh ICJ dalam Advisory Opinion on Chagos 2019(“Chagos 2019” ) (hal. 47-48) di mana ICJ mengatakan bahwa Inggris bersalah pada waktu memisahkan Kepulauan Chagos dari Mauritus. Secara analogis, tindakan Belanda telah melanggar hak menentukan nasib sendiri pada saat memecah-mecah wilayah Republik Indonesia (“RI”), mulai dari Perjanjian Linggarjati 1947 yang hanya mengakui de facto wilayah RI yakni Jawa, Sumatra, dan Madura; Perjanjian Renville 1948 yang mengakui de jure Jawa Tengah, Sumatra, dan terakhir Konferensi Meja Bundar 1949(“KMB 1949”) yang mengakui seluruh wilayah RI kecuali Papua.

    Dalil kelompok pro Papua merdeka bahwa Papua bukan bagian dari RI karena tidak termasuk wilayah RI berdasarkan KMB 1949 dengan sendirinya gugur karena pemisahan ini bertentangan dengan norma self-determination dan doktrin uti possidetis juris seperti yang dimaksud ICJ dalam Chagos 2019.

    New York Agreement 1962 dan PEPERA 1969

    Lantas apa status Papua pasca KMB 1949? Sesuai Pasal 2 KMB 1949, masalah Papua akan diselesaikan dalam waktu 1 tahun. Artinya, status Papua adalah persoalan bilateral RI-Belanda. Namun Belanda ingkar janji dan justru memasukkan Papua sebagai wilayah Belanda dalam Konstitusi Belanda tahun 1956. Akibatnya, Indonesia terpaksa membatalkan KMB 1949 pada tahun 1956 melalui Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 1956 tentang Pembatalan Hubungan Indonesia Nederland Berdasarkan Perjanjian Konferensi Meja Bundar karena tindakan Belanda ini selain bertentangan dengan norma self-determination juga melanggar KMB 1949 itu sendiri.

    Norma hukum perjanjian internasional yang terkodifikasi pada Pasal 60 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 dapat dijadikan dasar untuk mengakhiri suatu perjanjian internasional jika diingkari oleh pihak lain. Roeslan Abdulgani, menggunakan istilah rebus sic stantibus sebagai justifikasi untuk pengakhiran KMB.[1]

    Sengketa bilateral ini selanjutnya difasilitasi oleh Sekretaris Jenderal PBB dan melahirkan perjanjian bilateral Indonesia-Belanda yaitu New York Agreement 1962, yang intinya menyepakati proses penyerahan Papua, dari Belanda kepada PBB, dan selanjutnya diserahkan ke Indonesia. Setelah diserahkan ke Indonesia, maka selanjutnya dilakukan Penentuan Pedapat Rakyat (PEPERA) 1969 oleh Indonesia sendiri bukan oleh PBB. Preamble dalam New York Agreement 1962 ini juga menegaskan bahwa Papua adalah sengketa antara Indonesia dan Belanda dan tidak merujuk pada Resolusi MU PBB 1514.

    Secara fundamental, PEPERA 1969 berbeda dengan jajak pendapat Timor Timur 2001. Jajak pendapat Timor Timur diselenggarakan langsung oleh PBB[2] dan disahkan atas dasar Resolusi PBB terkait dengan self-determination.[3] Ini menunjukkan Timor Timor diperlakukan sebagai wilayah yang masih berhak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri.

    Selanjutnya, melalui PEPERA rakyat Papua memutuskan ingin tetap menjadi bagian dari RI. Sekretaris Jenderal PBB selanjutnya melaporkan hasil PEPERA kepada Majelis Umum PBB dan diterima melalui Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa 2504 (“Resolusi MU PBB 2504”).

    Yang menarik adalah bagaimana negara-negara memaknai PEPERA ini. Ketua delegasi RI, Soejarwo, pada perdebatan di Majelis Umum PBB tersebut menyatakan:

    PEPERA bukan persoalan self-determination dalam konteks perjuangan terhadap kolonial. Bagi Indonesia ini adalah soal tuntasnya perjuangan kemerdekaan, kembali utuhnya persatuan nasional dan integritas wilayah, prinsip yang esensial bagi negara yang berdaulat dan bagi setiap negara.

    Mayoritas negara, antara lain Aljazair, Burma, India, Iran, Jepang, Kuwait, Malaysia, Arab Saudi, dan Thailand, mendukung posisi Indonesia bahwa PEPERA 1969 ini bukan dalam rangka self-determination seperti yang dikenal dalam kerangka Komite Dekolonisasi (C-24). India misalnya mengatakan:[4]

    The question under our consideration cannot be regarded as an act of self-determination in the normal understanding of the term, since West lrian must be regarded as being an integral part of the sovereign State of the Republic of Indonesia.

    Tidak dimaknainya PEPERA 1969 sebagai hasil yang lazim dari self-determination juga dinyatakan oleh beberapa pakar hukum internasional, antara lain Rigos-Sureda yang menyatakan:[5]

    the attitude taken by the General Assembly can be assumed to mean that West Irian was regarded as an ‘integral part’ of Indonesia and, therefore that there was no need for it to go through the process indicated by the General Assembly to achieve self-determination.

    Pakar hukum internasional, J. Crawford juga berpandangan serupa, bahwa sikap PBB terhadap hasil PEPERA 1969 pada dasarnya menghormati penjagaan terhadap integritas wilayah Indonesia (the preservation of the territorial integrity of Indonesia).[6]

    PEPERA 1969 dilaksanakan pada saat situasi hukum dimana Papua sudah menjadi bagian dari Indonesia. Sehingga hasil PEPERA itu sendiri dikonstruksikan dalam konsideran ‘Menimbang’ pada Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 1969 Pembentukan Propinsi Otonom Irian Barat dan Kabupaten Kabupaten Otonom di Propinsi Irian Barat(“UU 12/1969”) bahwa Irian Barat tetap merupakan bagian dari Indonesia.

    Dari uraian di atas, pelaksanaan penentuan nasib sendiri rakyat Papua sudah dilakukan pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 bersama dengan wilayah-wilayah lainnya bekas Hindia Belanda sedangkan PEPERA 1969 dapat dimaknai sebagai konfirmasi rakyat Papua untuk tetap berada dalam RI. Karena sudah menjadi bagian dari Indonesia maka hak menentukan nasib sendiri menjadi tidak relevan. Itulah sebabnya topik self-determination untuk Papua pasca adanya Resolusi PBB tidak pernah lagi menjadi perhatian apalagi diperdebatkan dalam literatur hukum internasional.

    Status PEPERA 1969 juga coba untuk dipersoalkan dalam tingkat hukum nasional Indonesia. Pada tahun 2019 sekelompok masyarakat dan beberapa Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat meminta pembatalan materi dalam UU 12/1969 yang merupakan hasil dari PEPERA 1969 ke Mahkamah Konstitusi (“MK”) melalui permohonan judicial review terhadap UU 12/1969.

    Dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 35/PUU-XVII/2019, MK menolak permohonan para pemohon dengan pertimbangan bahwa pemohon secara substansi tidak memohonkan pengujian terhadap UU 12/1969, tetapi terhadap PEPERA 1969 sebagai peristiwa hukum internasional yang pada hakikatnya telah diakui oleh Resolusi MU PBB 2504 yang bersifat sah dan final. Dalam hal ini MK juga menegaskan tidak memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji keabsahan tindakan PBB (hal. 37).

    Gerakan Papua Merdeka

    Apa yang sedang diperjuangkan oleh gerakan-gerakan Papua Merdeka setelah 17 Agustus 1945 tidak dapat disebut sebagai perjuangan hak menentukan nasib sendiri. Pertama, karena hak ini sudah dilaksanakan oleh Papua, dan kedua, tidak mungkin hak ini dilakukan lagi oleh wilayah yang sudah sah sebagai bagian dari suatu negara.

    Apa yang dilakukan oleh gerakan-gerakan ini baik di Papua maupun dukungan lembaga swadaya masyarakat di luar negeri adalah gerakan pemisahan diri/separatis dari negara. Pasal 106 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana mengkategorikan tindakan yang berupaya memisahkan bagian wilayah ini sebagai makar.

    Selain itu, hukum internasional sangat jelas soal ini. Pada tahun 1917, Aaland Island (bagian dari Finlandia namun berbudaya dan berbahasa Swedia) pernah mencoba memisahkan diri dan menuntut bergabung dengan Swedia. Sengketa ini diselesaikan oleh Liga Bangsa-Bangsa dengan membentuk Commission of Jurists tahun 1920, yang pada intinya menyatakan bahwa:[7]

    Positive International Law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish.

    Yang pada intinya, dapat diartikan bahwa hukum internasional yang berlaku tidak mengenal hak sekelompok peduduk untuk memisahkan diri dari negaranya hanya karena kehendak semata.

    Sampai saat ini masih berlaku norma bahwa tidak ada hak untuk memisahkan diri dari negara (secession) dalam hukum internasional. Sekretaris Jenderal PBB U Thant pernah menyatakan:[8]

    the United Nations has never accepted and does not accept and I do not believe will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of its Member state.

    Contoh baru-baru ini adalah deklarasi pemisahan diri oleh Catalonia dari Spanyol tahun 2017 yang gagal karena tidak mendapat restu hukum internasional.

    Selain itu, terkait dengan hal ini, Indonesia telah melakukan deklarasi terhadap Pasal 1 Kovenan Internasional tentang Hak-Hak Sipil dan Politik terkait self-determination. Deklarasi tersebut menegaskan interpretasi Indonesia bahwa hak atas self-determination tidak dapat diberlakukan terhadap kelompok masyarakat di dalam suatu negara berdaulat yang akan merusak kesatuan wilayah (territorial integrity) dari negara tersebut.[9]

    Adanya gerakan pemisahan diri oleh Organisasi Papua Merdeka (“OPM”) sampai saat ini adalah akibat korban “janji (palsu) kemerdekaan” yang ditanamkan oleh kolonial Belanda, terutama pasca KMB 1949. Janji ini diteruskan ke sebagian masyarakat Papua dari generasi ke generasi.

    Demikian jawaban dari kami, semoga bermanfaat.

    Dasar Hukum:

    1. Konstitusi Belanda tahun 1938;
    2. Undang-Undang Dasar 1945;
    3. Konstitusi Belanda tahun 1956;
    4. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana;
    5. Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 1956 Pembatalan Hubungan Indonesia Nederland Berdasarkan Perjanjian Konferensi Meja Bundar;
    6. Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 1969 Pembentukan Propinsi Otonom Irian Barat dan Kabupaten Kabupaten Otonom di Propinsi Irian Barat;
    7. Perjanjian Linggarjati 1947;
    8. Perjanjian Renville 1948;
    9. Konferensi Meja Bundar 1949;
    10. New York Agreement 1962;
    11. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969;
    12. The Agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor;
    13. Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 1514;
    14. Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa 2504;
    15. Resolusi Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Nomor 2625;
    16. Resolusi Dewan Keamanan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa 1246.

    Referensi:

    1. Roesland Abdulgani, Hukum dalam Revolusi dan Revolusi dalam Hukum, (Jakarta:P. Prapantja), 1965;
    2. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law(2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006;
    3. Jamie Trinidad, Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories, Cambridge University, 2018;
    4. Zubeidi Mustofa, the Principle of Self-Determination in International Law, International Lawyer, Volume 5, Number 3, 1971;
    5. United Nations Monthly Chronicle, February 1970;
    6. United Nations Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, diakses pada 24 Juni 2021, pukul 09.33 WIB;
    7. United Nations General Assembly Official Records, 24th Session, 1813thPlenary Meeting, Wednesday, 19 November 1969, diakses pada 24 Juni 2021, pukul 09.33 WIB.

    Putusan:

    1. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) 1986;
    2. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 35/PUU-XVII/2019;
    3. International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Chagos 2018.

    ____________________________________________________

    English Version

    Does the People of Papua Have the Right to Self-Determination and to Establish Its Own State?

    The idea that Papua may become an independent state through the exercise of the right to self-determination has been long voiced with no avail. The same goes to the independent calls of the Republic of South Maluku (Republik Maluku Selatan [RMS]), Free Aceh Movement (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka [GAM]), Catalonian separatist movement in Spain, and other movements which are campaigned within the discourse of public opinion, these kinds of movements never obtain any support. Why? Because these ideas do not have any legal basis under international law.

    International Law governing Self-Determination

    The right to self-determination is often twistedly interpreted and understood loosely without observing the required criteria. Many take the view that through this right, every group of people, a territory, or a certain race has automatically the right to independence. Some even refer to the first paragraphof Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution which stipulates that: “Whereas independence is the inalienable right of all nations… (Bahwa sesungguhnya kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa…)” as the legal basis of Papua’s independence. But the proponents of this view cannot answer when they are posed with the similar question whether Batak, Sunda, Minang, and other ethnic groups in Nusantara may also have the right to independence by invoking that same constitutional basis. They forgot to read the subsequent sentence, which reads: “…therefore, all colonialism must be abolished in this world… (…dan oleh sebab itu, maka penjajahan di atas dunia harus dihapuskan…). This means that the right to independence must be construed within the colonial context.

    International law has provided strict requirements on who and in what kind of circumstances a group of people of a territory has the right to self-determination. Such requirements are very restrictive; the right can only apply in a territory under colonial rule (non-self-governing-territory), as well as under alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation, as enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution (UNGA) 1514(“UNGA Res 1514”) and UNGA Resolution 2625 (“UNGA Res 2625”).

    Why does international law stipulate such strict requirements? This is because there exists another international law norm which limits the right to self-determination, namely the respect for territorial integrity of a state, enshrined also in UNGA Resolution 2625. As such, if the right to self-determination is given without legal criteria, there would be a global wave of disintegration which in turn will potentially disrupt international order.

    Even, the prohibition of partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country under colonial context is also crystallized in Paragraph 6 of UNGA Resolution 1514. It is worth noting that Indonesia was the proponent of this paragraph during the drafting and what in mind was the continuation of Dutch colonialism by illegally detached Papua through the Round Table Conference 1949.

    Was Papua Part of the Territory Gaining Independence on 17 August 1945?

    What about Papua, does it still have the right to self-determination? The first legal question that must be answered is that whether or not the territory of Papua was included among the territory of Indonesia when it gained independence on 17 August 1945, thus whether or not Papua participated in the exercise of self-determination. The answer to this question depends on the legal fact whether on 17 August 1945 Papua was part of the Netherlands Indies.

    International law recognizes the principle of uti possidetis juris enshrined in Internatioal Court of Justice (“ICJ”) decision in the Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) 1986. This principle provided that the territorial boundaries of a newly independent state is the territorial boundaries of the former colony, no more and no less (the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization) (p. 15-17). This means that the territorial boundaries of Indonesia which gained independence on 17 August 1945 was limited only to the territorial boundaries of the Netherlands Indies and cannot include any other territories, such as East Timor (former colony of Portugal), and Malaysia/Singapore (former colony of the United Kingdom).

    Historical facts show that on 17 August 1945 Papua was a part of the Netherlands Indies in accordance with Article 62 of the 1938 Netherlands Constitution which was applicable at the time. In accordance with the principle, Papua was part of the territory which gained independence on 17 August 1945.

    This norm was further affirmed by the ICJ in its 2019 Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (“Chagos 2019”) (p. 47-48), in which the ICJ stated that the United Kingdom was at fault when it detached the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. Analogically, the conduct of the Netherlands had violated the right to self-determination when it detached a number of colonial territories from Indonesia, by virtue of a number of agreements, from Linggarjati Agreement 1947 in which it only gave de facto recognition towards Java, Sumatra, and Madura; Renville Agreement 1948, which provided a de jure recognition of Central Java and Sumatra, and ultimately the Round Table Conference 1949 (Konferensi Meja Bundar [KMB 1949]) which provided recognition towards all Indonesia’s territory, but excluding Papua.

    The argument of the supporters of Papua’s independence which states that Papua was not part of Indonesia because it was not part of Indonesia’s territory under the Round Table Conference 1949 therefore rendered itself invalid because the Papua detachment was in contrary to the norm of self-determination and the principle of uti possidetis juris as eventually confirmed by the ICJ in Chagos 2019.

    New York Agreement 1962 and The Act of Free Choice (PEPERA) 1969

    Then, what is the status of Papua after the Round Table Conference 1949? In accordance with Article 2 of the Round Table Agreement, the issue of Papua was to be resolved within 1 year. This meant that the issue of Papua was a bilateral issue between Indonesia – the Netherlands. However, the Netherlands breached this provision and instead included Papua as part of its territory in its 1956 Constitution. As a result, Indonesia was forced to terminate the Round Table Agreement in 1956 through Law Number 13 of 1956 on the Cancellation of Indonesia-Nederland Relations Based on the Round Table Agreement because the Netherlands’ conduct was in violation the norm of self-determination as well as the provision of the Round Table Conference 1949 itself.

    The legal norm of treaties codified in Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 can be used as a basis to terminate an international treaty if it is violated by the counterpart. Roeslan Abdulgani uses the term rebus sic stantibus as a justification of the termination of the Round Table Agreement.[10]

    The resolution of this bilateral dispute was subsequently facilitated by the UN Secretary General which led to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement between Indonesia – Netherlands, namely the New York Agreement 1962, in which the two parties basically agreed to the transfer of authority over Papua, from the Netherlands to the UN, and subsequently to Indonesia. After being transferred to Indonesia, the Act of Free Choice 1969 was to be conducted by Indonesia by itself, and not by the UN. The preamble of the Agreement also asserted that the issue of Papua was a bilateral dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands, and it did not refer to UNGA Resolution 1514.

    Fundamentally, the Act of Free Choice 1969 is different from the referendum of East Timor in 2001. East Timor’s referendum was conducted directly by the UN[11] within the framework of UNGA Resolutions relevant to self-determination.[12] This is to demonstrate that East Timor was treated as a territory which still had the right to self-determination.

    Subsequently, through the Act of Free Choice 1969, the people of Papua decided to stay as a part of Indonesia. The UN Secretary General then reported the result of the Act of Free Choice 1969 to the UNGA and it was accepted through UNGA Resolution 2504.

    It is interesting to observe how states construed the Act of Free Choice 1969. Indonesian head of delegation, Soedjarwo, during the debate in the UNGA stated:

    The act of free choice in West Irian was not, however, a matter of self-determination in the sense of an anti-colonial struggle. For Indonesia the question was the completion of our anti-colonial struggle, the completion of our national unity and territorial integrity, a principle which is of the highest importance for a sovereign country – and for any country…

    The majority of states, including Algeria, Burma, India, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Thailand, supported Indonesia’s position that the Act of Free Choice 1969 was not conducted under the framework of self-determination recognized within Decolonization Committee (C-24). India, for instance, stated:[13]

    The question under our consideration cannot be regarded as an act of self-determination in the normal understanding of the term, since West Irian must be regarded as being an integral part of the sovereign State of the Republic of Indonesia.

    The understanding that the Act of Free Choice 1969 was not construed as a normal understanding of self-determination was also stated by several internatonal scholars, among others is Rigos-Sureda, who stated:[14]

    the attitude taken by the General Assembly can be assumed to mean that West Irian was regarded as an ‘integral part’ of Indonesia and, therefore that there was no need for it to go through the process indicated by the General Assembly to achieve self-determination.

    Other well known scholar, J. Crawford, also shares the view that the UN’s attitude towards the Act of Free Choice 1969 was, in principle, taken to respect the preservation of the territorial integrity of Indonesia.[15]

    The Act of Free Choice 1969 was conducted in legal circumstances where Papua has already been a part of Indonesia. As such, the result of the Act of Free Choice itself was constructed in the preamble of Law Number 12 of 1969 on the Creation of Autonomous Province of West Irian and Autonomous Districts in West Irian Province (“Law 12/1969”) that West Irian remains a part of Indonesia.

    From the historical and legal facts above, the right of self-determination of the people of Papua had been exercised on 17 August 1945 along with other former territories of the Netherlands Indies, while the Act of Free Choice1969 can be understood as the affirmation of Papuan people’s aspiration to remain with Indonesia. Since Papua is already a part of Indonesia, the call of right to self-determination in this case is no longer relevant. This is why the topic of self-determination for Papua after the UNGA Resolution has never been a focus, let alone a debate, in international law literatures.

    The status of the Act of Free Choice 1969 was also attempted to be challenged within the domestic law of Indonesia. In 2019, a group of people and a number of civil society organizations requested the annulment of Law 12/1969 to the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi [MK]) through a judicial review application towards Law 12/1969.

    In its Decision Number 35/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court rejected the application under the consideration by arguing that the Applicant, in essence, did not request a judicial review for the Law 12/1969, but questioning the validity of the Act of Free Choice 1969 as an international law process, which had been recognized by the UNGA 2504, and therefore is final and binding. In this regard, the Court also asserted that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the validity of the UN’s actions (p. 37).

    Free Papua Movement

    The struggle of Papua’s freedom movements after 17 August 1945 cannot be considered as a struggle for the right to self-determination. First, because the right had been exercised by Papua, and second, it is not permitted for this right to be exercised (again) by a territory which has lawfully become a part of a state.

    What these movements are doing, both in Papua and through the support of civil society organizations abroad, is a secession/separatism from the state. Article 106 of Indonesian Penal Code categorizes this attempt to separate a part of a territory as treason.

    Furthermore, international law has been crystal clear on this matter. In 1917, Aaland Islands (which was part of Finland but with Swedish tradition and language) attempted to separate itself and demanded to integrate with Sweden. This dispute was resolved by the League of Nations by establishing the Commission of Jurists in 1920, who in principle stated that:[16]

    Positive international law does not recognize the right of national groups, as such, to separate themselves from the State of which they form part by the simple expression of a wish.

    Until now, the norm dictating that there is no right to secede from a state is still applicable under international law. Former UN Secretary General U Thant once said:[17]

    The United Nations has never accepted and does not accept and I do not believe will ever accept the principle of secession of a part of its Member state.

    The most recent example is the failed declaration of secession by Catalonia from Spain in 2017 because it did not obtain the approval of international law.

    Moreover, in this regard, Indonesia has submitted a declaration towards Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on self-determination. The declaration asserted Indonesia’s interpretation that the right to self-determination cannot be applied towards a group of people in a sovereign country, which will disrupt the territorial integrity of the state.[18]

    The secessionist movement by the Free Papua Movement until today is a result of a “(false) promise of independence” implanted by the colonial Netherlands, especially after the Round Table Conference 1949. This promise is passed down towards a part of the people of Papua from generation to generation.

    Legal Basis:

    1. The Constitution of the Netherlands 1938;
    2. The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia 1945;
    3. The Constitution of the Netherlands 1956;
    4. Indonesian Penal Code;
    5. Law Number 13 of 1956 on the Termination of Indonesia – Netherlands Relationship under Round Table Agreement;
    6. Law Noumber 12 of 1969 on the Creation of Autonomous Province of West Irian and Autonomous Districts in West Irian Province;
    7. Linggarjati Agreement 1947;
    8. Renville Agreement 1948;
    9. Round Table Conference 1949;
    10. New York Agreement 1962;
    11. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969;
    12. The Agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor;
    13. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 1514;
    14. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 2504;
    15. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 2625;
    16. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1246.

    References:

    1. Roesland Abdulgani, Hukum dalam Revolusi dan Revolusi dalam Hukum, (Jakarta: B.P. Prapantja), 1965;
    2. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006;
    3. Jamie Trinidad, Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories, Cambridge University, 2018;
    4. Zubeidi Mustofa, The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law, International Lawyer, Volume 5, Number 3, 1971;
    5. United Nations Monthly Chronicle, February 1970;
    6. United Nations Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, accessed on 24 June 2021, 09.33 Western Indonesia Time (GMT+7)
    7. United Nations General Assembly Official Records, 24th Session, 1813th Plenary Meeting, Wednesday, 19 November 1969, accessed on 24 June 2021, 09.33 Western Indonesia Time (GMT+7).

    Court Decisions:

    1. International Court of Justice, Case Concerning the Frontier Burkina Faso/Mali) 1986;
    2. Constitutional Court Decision Number 35/PUU-XVII/2019;
    3. International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, 2019.

    [1] Roesland Abdulgani, Hukum dalam Revolusi dan Revolusi dalam Hukum, (Jakarta: B.P. Prapantja), 1965, hal. 36.

    [2]Resolusi Dewan Keamanan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa 1246 (“Resolusi DK PBB 1246”)

    [3] Resolusi DK PBB 1246 mengutip The Agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of

    East Timor yang didasarkan atas Resolusi MU PBB 1514 dan Resolusi MU PBB 2625

    [4] United Nations General Assembly Official Records, 24th Session, 1813th Plenary Meeting, Wednesday, 19 November 1969, hal. 3

    [5] Jamie Trinidad, Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories, Cambridge University, 2018, hal. 30

    [6] J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law(2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006, hal. 646

    [7] Zubeidi Mustofa, the Principle of Self-Determination in International Law, International Lawyer, Volume 5, Number 3, 1971, hal. 479

    [8]United Nations Monthly Chronicle, February 1970, hal.36

    [9]United Nations Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    [10] Roesland Abdulgani, Hukum dalam Revolusi dan Revolusi dalam Hukum, (Jakarta: B.P. Prapantja), 1965, p 36.

    [11]United Nastions Security Council Resolution 1246

    [12] UNSC Resolution 1246, which quoted the Agreement between Indonesia and Portugal on the question of East Timor which was based on UNGA Resolution 1514 and UNGA Resolution 2625

    [13] UNGA Official Records, 24th Session, 1813th Plenary Meeting, Wednesday, 19 November 1969, p. 3.

    [14] Jamie Trinidad, Self-Determination in Disputed Colonial Territories, Cambridge University, 2018, p. 30.

    [15] J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 646.

    [16] Zubeidi Mustofa, The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law, International Lawyer, Volume 5, Number 3, 1971, p. 479.

    [17] United Nations Monthly Chronicle, February 1970, p.36.

    [18]United Nations Treaty Collection, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

    Tags

    hukumonline
    pbb

    Punya Masalah Hukum yang sedang dihadapi?

    atauMulai dari Rp 30.000
    Baca DisclaimerPowered byempty result

    KLINIK TERBARU

    Lihat Selengkapnya

    TIPS HUKUM

    Akun Pay Later Anda Di-Hack? Lakukan Langkah Ini

    19 Jul 2022
    logo channelbox

    Dapatkan info berbagai lowongan kerja hukum terbaru di Indonesia!

    Kunjungi

    Butuh lebih banyak artikel?

    Pantau Kewajiban Hukum
    Perusahaan Anda Di Sini!