...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Sriwijaya Law Review >IMPROVING LEGAL ARGUMENT CRITICALLY IN THE LITIGATION MECHANISM IN INDONESIA (AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL VERDICTS)
【24h】

IMPROVING LEGAL ARGUMENT CRITICALLY IN THE LITIGATION MECHANISM IN INDONESIA (AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL VERDICTS)

机译：极大地改善印度尼西亚的诉讼机制中的法律论证（对环境审理的实证研究）

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Legal argument is a debate or argument in explaining the issues between two or more people performed in court. Legal argument is one way to perform law finding with the purpose to avoid legal vacuum when the judge makes a legal reasoning in a verdict. In making a legal argument, it is at least performed by legal reasoning, logic, facts. However, some judges, in making a decision, did not use the legal arguments by legal reasoning and facts so that it resulted in debates and arguments. It is? interesting to study on how to build legal argument in the litigation mechanism in Indonesia. Some verdicts in Indonesia have been the debate among the public through social media, by both academic and non-academic communities, because they were not based on the legal facts revealed at the trials and not in favor of the public sense of justice. Some of the examples are the verdict in the case of the environmental lawsuits of Lapindo Brantas Mud in Sidoarjo, the case verdict in Palembang District Court on the lawsuit filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry on forest fires and land concessions of PT. Bumi Mekar Hijau in 2014. From the decisions, it turned out that the judges, in making the legal arguments for their decisions, had deviated from the analogy and were not based on the existing legal facts. In building legal arguments, it would have to be conducted by collecting data (evidence) and clear fact so that its solutions do not deviate from the rules of law.
机译：法律论证是辩论或论证两个或两个以上在法庭上进行的人之间的问题。法律论证是执行法律裁决的一种方法，目的是当法官在判决中作出法律推理时避免法律真空。在进行法律论证时，至少要通过法律推理，逻辑和事实来执行。但是，有些法官在作出决定时并未通过法律推理和事实使用法律论据，从而导致辩论和论证。它是？研究如何在印度尼西亚的诉讼机制中建立法律论据很有趣。印度尼西亚的某些裁决一直是学术界和非学术界通过社交媒体在公众之间进行的辩论，因为这些裁决不是基于审判中揭示的法律事实，也不赞成公众的正义感。其中一些例子是对Sidoarjo的Lapindo Brantas Mud的环境诉讼案的判决，在Palembang地区法院对环境和林业部针对PT的森林火灾和土地特许权提起的诉讼的判决。 Bumi Mekar Hijau在2014年。从裁决中，事实证明法官在作出裁决的法律论点时偏离了类比，并且没有以现有的法律事实为依据。在建立法律论据时，必须通过收集数据（证据）和明确的事实来进行，以便其解决方案不会偏离法律规则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号