Interpretation of Article 27(3) of U.N. Charter in Light of Russia's Veto on Draft Resolution S/2018/321 on Prohibition of Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria and Establishment of Fact-Finding Mission in 2018

DIPO BIJAK MUHAMMAD, Prof. Dr. Agustinus Supriyanto, S.H., M.Si.

2020 | Skripsi | S1 HUKUM

Pada 10 April 2018 Rusia menyuarakan veto terhadap rancangan resolusi S/2018/321 dari A.S. untuk membuat mekanisme penyelidikan mandiri dibawah P.B.B. untuk mencari fakta atas penggunaan Senjata Kimia dalam peperangan di daerah Timur Tengah, terutama di Konflik Suriah. Larangan Penggunaan Senjata Kimia adalah norma jus cogens dan sangat di kecam secara luas. Keterlibatan Rusia dalam Konflik Suriah membuat banyak pihak bingung akan kebimbangan P.B.B. di hadapan kekacauan konflik internasional semata-mata untuk melindungi kepentingan politik anggotanya. Selama beberapa tahun banyak peneliti menemukan bahwa aturan dalam Pasal 27(3) Piagam P.B.B. yang mengharuskan "pihak" dari "perselisihan" untuk mengundurkan dari pemungutan suara telah di abaikan dalam praktek. Penelitian hukum ini mencoba menganalisa apabila Pasal 27(3) bisa di terapkan di kasus ini. Penelitian hukum ini menggunakan pendekatan Penelitian Hukum Doktrinal, atau disebut juga pendekatan Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Penelitian kualitatif menjadi fokus penelitian yang diterapkan untuk mengacu kepada data sekunder termasuk sumber hukum utama dan juga sumber hukum sekunder. Penelitian hukum ini menyimpulkan bahwa meskipun veto dari Rusia terhadap rancangan resolusi S/2018/321 secara tidak langsung memperpanjang Konflik Suriah, tindakan tersebut bukan merupakan pelanggaran Piagam P.B.B. dikarenakan keambiguan di dalam rancangan resolusi S/2018/321. Ini dikarenakan Pasal 27(3) mewajibkan ketidaksertaan dalam pemungutan suara hanya jika sebuah rancangan resolusi menerapkan Bab 6 atau Pasal 52(3), yang mana tidak dijelaskan dalam rancangan resolusi S/2018/321.

On April 10, 2018, Russia vetoed draft resolution S/2018/321 proposed by U.S.A. intended to establish an independent U.N. based investigative mechanism to inquire the allegations of the use of Chemical Weapons as means of warfare in the regions of Middle East focusing on Syrian Conflict in particular. Prohibition of use of Chemical Weapons is considered as jus cogens norm and widely condemned. With Russia's involvements in the Syrian Conflict, naturally one cannot help but wonder why the U.N. would continue its indecision in the face of atrocity of international concern to thrive on the foundation of preservation of political interests of one of its permanent member. Over the years many researchers have found that the provision Article 27(3) of U.N. Charter obliging a "party" to the "dispute" to abstain from voting have been neglected in practice. This legal research attempts at analyzing whether Article 27(3) can be invoked for the present case. This legal research employs Doctrinal Legal Research approach, or also known as Normative Legal Research approach. Qualitative research is the presiding type of research. Results presented within this research rely on secondary data of research including primary authoritative sources as well as predominantly secondary authoritative sources. This legal research concluded that while Russia's veto on draft resolution S/2018/321 has indirectly resulted in prolonging Syrian Conflict, it is in fact not a breach of obligation under U.N. Charter on the account of ambiguity of clauses of S/2018/321. This is due to the fact that Article 27(3) obliges abstention only if a draft resolution operates under Chapter VI or Article 52(3), which S/2018/321 did not make clear in its contents, hence the ambiguity.

Kata Kunci : Article 27(3), U.N. Charter, abstention, U.N.S.C., veto, draft resolution S/2018/321, dispute