And so does social ‘sciences’ and the law.

Picture: Taken from The Copenhagen National Museum

Quick blogging. Finally the long awaited report from the Independent Expert (IE) is out.

The report emphasize the importance of transparency, participation and accountability in water projects involving the private sector. On the transparency side, the IE even suggests that "Commercial confidentiality must not jeopardize the transparency requirements provided for under the human rights framework". Finally, she conclude and recommends that "The process of decision-making and implementation, any instruments that delegate service provision including contracts, and instruments that outline roles and responsibilities must be transparent, which requires the disclosure of adequate and sufficient information and actual access to information".

 

I hope this report ends the long speculation that the human right to water means outlawing “privatisation”. It does not and is never meant to be as such. The discourse on water has been cluttered with the privatisation debate. This report outline that the word “privatisation” itself is dilemmatic and the problem does not end there. Privatization has its problem and so does non-delegated or state-owned services. The real problem is governance, whether the service is public or private or hybrid.

More discussions follows.

Read the full report here.

Relevant posts:

Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault?
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia
Papers:
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation:
Anticipating water trade

 

Hello again researchers!

 

Your Endnote contains the list of literatures and authorities you used for your research paper. It may also contain your research data itself, attached to the bibliography in endnote. For sure, you want it to be safe and if possible, retrievable from any location which has endnote software in it. The solution: store your endnote data in the cloud. If you use multiple computers, you might want to sync it as well so that every changes you made in one computer will be adjusted in the other. We’ll do this using dropbox.

Steps:

The Three Main Folders

1. Install Dropbox.

2. Identify three main folders used in endnote: the styles folder, the filters folder and the connections folders. Click edit, preferences, folder locations. You will see three default path to folder locations.

3. Go to windows explorers, find the location of those three folders, copy them.

4. Go to your MyDropbox, create a new folder (e.g. Endnote) and paste them there in the new folder.

5. Now you need to return to your endnote, click edit, preferences, folder locations, select folder. Change the path into your new endnote folders in Dropbox.

 

 

The library file (ENL)

 

Normally, Endnote store your library file in MyDocuments/Documents. Go to windows explorer, find the *.enl files and copy them. Next, go to MyDropbox, paste them there (or you can paste it in your endnote folder in dropbox too, if you like). In order to change the default library location, do the following:
Click edit, preferences, libraries, open the specified libraries, click add open libraries, apply.

 

That’s it! Your endnote is in your dropbox now. You can work on your paper in any computer with endnote and dropbox installed. If you are using a new computer, don’t forget to adjust the paths of your endnote software into your dropbox folder.   

Related post:
Howto: Autosave your ms word doc in Dropbox

 

This is a tip to my fellow countrymen ph.d, master students, and anyone else working with MS-Word in multiple computers. As you know, dropbox is a tool to sync, store and (optionally) share your data in the cloud. It gives you a 2GB of storage capacity.

Now that’s too small for me since I consume at minimum 5 GB of space ( for my MS Office files and PDFs data) every 6 months. So I use dropbox in combination with other free cloud strorage facilities such as Skydrive (25 GB). I use dropbox only to sync and store my working files, which are mostly in MS-Word (well, occasionally lawyers use excell and visio too, but only occasionally!). The whole ms-word working files cost me less than 500 MB for one year. That should work for everyone too. Even if you manage to write and publish 50 papers in a month, that should count for less than 1 GB for the whole year! Bottomline: dropbox free 2 GB account would suffice for syncing your working files. But for your data, you may need additional backup storage from Skydrive.

Here’s how it work for MS Word:

MS Word 2003:

Click tools --- Options --- File Locations --- Modify

 

 

MS Word saves your working files in Document/My Document by default. In order to change this, click modify and point it to your MyDropbox folder (normally located in My Document).

For MS Word 2007, you need to click the Office Button, click Advanced, in the General section click File Locations, click Documents in the File types list,  click Modify and then point it to your MyDropbox location.

Done. Now there is no more need to copy-paste your file from your local computer to your MyDropbox folder. Just save it as usual, and it will store in the cloud, your local hard drive and sync with your other computers at the same time.

Later when I have time, I will provide you with a tutorial on how to sync your endnote files, libraries and styles across computers as well as storing it in the cloud, using Dropbox.

The E&P Sharing Contracts and Agreement 2010 is taking place in the 6th until the 8th of July in the Grand Hyatt, Jakarta. Master Class A is taking place on the 6th of July with the topic “Structuring, Negotiating and Managing EPC Contracts in the Oil and Gas Industry”.

Tomorrow is a special day as the plenary session will take place. There’s an exciting segment where Dr Widjajono Partowidagdo of the National Energy Council (DEN) will discuss a new economic model he’s developed on the “Next Steps of Action” for operators and government to achieve the vision of the forum: Reformed, Energetic and Efficient E&P Industry in Asia Pacific through fresher, commercially viable E&P agreements.

High-level executives from oil and gas, oil financing and government sectors, supermajor IOCs, big NOCs, INOCs, SOCs including ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Total, Hess, Samsung, Petronas, PTT, Pertamina, Medco, major law firms, and teams from Indonesian regulators in the ESDM and BPMIGAS attended the forum.

Click here (Masterclass A) and here (Masterclass B and C) to get a sneak peek on the Master Classes. Read the forum agenda here.

H.T. to Mulia

 

 

 

 

 

It’s time for weekend intermezzo. Speaking about summer time, want to see how presidents fares with disturbing flies? Watch the video.

 

Well, looks like our President needs a bit of pesticide. Hm.

 

Now check out Obama’s style:

What a martial art! And more eco-friendly (well maybe not for the fly). The American President must’ve learned it during his childhood while he in Menteng, Jakarta.

If Leader Mao followed the contest, he would have used: a chopstick.

 

The World Bank once says that Indonesia’s negative list is by no means a simple system. Here’s a list of news and analysis discussing the 2010 negative list:

 

There’s a good article about this in HPLaw’s website:

PR No.36/2010 regulates 17 business fields that are conditionally open to capital investment, namely agriculture, banking, communications & information technology, culture & tourism, defense, education, energy & mineral resources, finance, forestry, health, industry, manpower & transmigration, marine & fisheries, public works, trading, transportation, and security.

Ebeling Heffernan (probably sourced from the Jakarta Post) tries to explain the ‘hierarchy of law’, operating with the DNI:

The regulation also recognizes a grandfather clause, meaning the new regulation will not affect investors that have complied with the previous regulation issued in 2007, he added. "This regulation also recognizes law hierarchy, so other regulations whose hierarchies are below this regulation are not effective," said Gita, adding that Indonesia wanted to eliminate investment uncertainties.

The Jakarta Globe details the ‘ownership percentage’ :

It permits, for example, foreign companies to own 67 percent of construction businesses, up from 55 percent. Meanwhile, foreign companies will be able to own 67 percent stakes in hospitals nationwide, up from 65 percent in specific health-related enterprises that were restricted to a few cities. Desperate to address a power shortage, however, the government has granted foreign investors the right to own up to 95 percent of joint ventures in power plants with a capacity above 10 megawatts.Meanwhile, in movie production, the government is allowing foreigners to own 49 percent of such companies, up from zero.

I found that this article from the Singaporean Law Firm O’Melveny to be particularly helpful and quite detail. It also addresses the BTS antenna controversy. As you might be aware, the current DNI resolves the overlap by siding with the Communication Ministry by forbidding foreign investment in Telecom Towers:

One significant area of difficulty in determining the Indonesian foreign ownership regime has been the existence of conflicting regulations issued by various different regulatory bodies. The most well known example is the telecommunications tower industry, which was opened to 100% foreign investment by BKPM under the 2007 Negative List, but which was declared closed to foreign investment by regulation of the Communications Ministry. The revised Negative List resolves this particular debate in favor of the Communications Ministry by closing the telecommunications tower industry to foreign investment. It was hoped that the New Regulations would address these conflicts by reconciling all foreign ownership issues to a single regime.

 

Meanwhile, Bisnis daily focuses on the overlap between the current DNI and the Shipping Law:

Johnson reminded the relaxed requirement for international route sea transportation was overlapping with Law 17/2008 on Shipping. "In implementing the presidential regulation, please don't violate Article 29 clause 2 of the Shipping Law." The article reads Indonesian citizens or business agencies can establish joint ventures with foreigners in forms of sea transportation companies. "To get business permit in Indonesia based on the law, foreign investors should at least have one Indonesia-flagged ship weighed 5,000 gross tonnage (GT) and the ship has to be registered to the government," he said.

 
Overlaps are quite normal for DNIs. But it can be a problem too if the industry sector is tightly regulated by a department or a ministry or especially, if it is correlated with license conditions. This is where potential investors normally requires an advice.

 

To read the Presidential Regulation 36 Year 2010 on Investment’s Negative List, click on my previous post here. Contact me at movanet(at)gmail.com for queries.

Related Posts:
The New Negative List for Foreign Direct Investment 2010 (Confirmed)
The new investment negative list (2010)
The New Negative List of Investment (2007)
How to set up a company in Indonesia
Geothermal projects in Indonesia
Water investment in Indonesia
Some note on Indonesian Investment Law
Living with the Other Fishes
Guide to doing business in Indonesia

 

On my previous post, I blogged about the new rule on negative list of investment (Daftar Negatif Investasi or “DNI”). The BKPM recently issued a press release about this. Here’s a snippet:

 

8)  Several sectors give opportunities for foreign capital to more help strengthening the financing capacity for domestics:
a.  Industrial sectors in siklamat and saccharine were previously closed for investment and now they are opened with certain license.
b.  Public works industries in construction have an upgrade of foreign capital ownership from 55% to 67%.
c.  Culture and tourism sectors in filming service (studio of filming, laboratory of film processing, dubbing facilities, printing and film reduplication) is now opened for foreign capital of 49%.
d.  Health sector in hospital services, clinics of specialist doctors clinic laboratories and medical check-up clinic has also an upgrade in foreign capital ownership from 65% to 67% and the location of the activities can now be done all over Indonesia.
e.  Electricity sectors in electricity generators (1-10MW) can be carried out in partnerships, whereas the generators higher than 10 MW, the ownership of foreign capital is maximum 95%.

9)  There will be several adjustments on foreign capital ownership for several sectors and it may be due to the existing of some new decrees or to give wider opportunities for local investors:
a.  Agricultural sectors in the cultivation of principal food crops (corns, soybeans, peanuts, green beans, rice, cassava, sweet potato) with the width of no more than 25 hectares, the ownership of foreign capital is maximum 49% based on the Decree No. 41 Year 2009 regarding the Protection of Sustainable Agricultural Land.
b.  Sectors of Communication and Information in the fields of:

i.  Mailing administration, is conditioned to have special permission and the foreign capital is maximum 49% based on the Decree No. 38 Year 2009 regarding mailing.
ii.  Providing, managing, (operating and renting) and providing construction service for telecommunication towers are 100% local investor ownership.

10) In order to implement Indonesian commitment in investment related to ASEAN Economic Community, this current DNI adds one new attachment (Attachment II.j) which rules out the conditions of foreign capital ownership and/or location for investors from ASEAN countries. These investors are given dispensation in owning capital more than the other foreign investors, for example in the transportation sectors in maritime cargo handling services of which the ASEAN investors are allowed to own foreign capital with the maximum of 60% while the other foreign investors are only allowed for 49%.

You can download the Presidential Regulation 36 Year 2010 on Negative List of Investment here (in Bahasa Indonesia). Alternatively, you can have a look at Google’s translation of the DNI regulation in this page (Google’s translate has been improving quite a lot although it can get lousy for technical terms sometimes). You may find some tips on filling out BKPM Forms on my previous posts below.

 

If you have any specific question, you can email me at movanet(at)gmail.com

 

Related Posts:

 

The new investment negative list (2010)
The New Negative List of Investment (2007) 
How to set up a company in Indonesia
Geothermal projects in Indonesia
Water investment in Indonesia
Some note on Indonesian Investment Law
Living with the Other Fishes
Guide to doing business in Indonesia

 

As of today, still no news in BKPM’s website about the new Presidential Regulation 36/2010 on investment’s negative list. But below is the new list according to some news source. Note: as I don’t have the Perpres 36 with me yet, please treat this as an unconfirmed.

 

1. Industrial sector: In the industry of cyclamate and saccharin previously closed to investments, now opened with special permission.
2. Public works: In the field of construction services foreign capital ownership increased from 55 percent to 67 percent.
   Culture and tourism: in the business of filming techniques 49 percent is opened to foreign capital.
3. The health sector: in specialist medical clinics and medical support services, foreign equity ownership is increased from 65 percent to 67 percent and its activities can be conducted at locations throughout Indonesia.
4. Electricity sector in the business of power plant (10-10 MW) can be done in the form of partnerships, while for above 10 MW, the maximum foreign equity ownership of 95 percent.

 

Meanwhile, in some other business sectors foreign capital ownership is adjusted:

 

1. The agricultural sector: in the cultivation of staple food crops (corn, soybeans, peanuts, green beans, rice, cassava, sweet potato) with an area of more than 25 hectares, the maximum foreign equity ownership of 49 percent (in compliance with Law No. 41 Year 2009 on the Protection of Agricultural Land Sustainable Food).
2. Communication and Information Sector: in the business of the postal administration, special permit is required and the maximum foreign capital is 49 percent (in accordance with Law Number 38 Year 2009 on Postal Service).  Meanwhile the provision, management (including operation and rental) and provider of construction services for telecommunication towers (BTS towers ) must have 100 percent domestic capital.

Allrite mate, time for sum intermezzo. Here's a homework for you CSR and social media experts. That fake BPGlobalPR twitter account just crowdsource a disparaging quizz a few minutes ago. What does BP stand for? he asked. Well, here's a snippet of the answers:

Reminder: An audio conference with the topic "Protection of water consumer's rights in Indonesia" will be held on this page today, June 2, 19.00-20.30 (GMT+0) -- that's around 1.a.m. Jakarta Time (GMT+6)! The discussion will be in Bahasa Indonesia. Materials are available below. Read here for previous announcement.

 

 

Live Videos by Ustream




Materials
Discussion Paper titled  “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Air di Indonesia” is downloadable here.  
Op-ed and blog posts:
Transparency in Water Services 
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance 
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam 
Missing water and shadow users 
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water 
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force! 
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law 
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison 
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault? 
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector 
Is water a commodity or human rights? 
The human right to water is not a property right 
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance 
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector 
The Economist and the human right to water 
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation 
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia 
Papers: 
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia 
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation: 
Anticipating water trade

 

I interviewed an Indonesian government official about the Flotilla incident. As you might have been aware, around 12 Indonesian journalists and volunteers are on board the vessels, which makes this issue even more emotive for the Indonesian.

The key question is what diplomatic avenues are available to protect our citizens there and as a follow-up to that, what mechanisms of redress is available under International Law. It is unfortunate that he refuse his name to be mentioned. The analysis he provides is very interesting. Enjoy the interview.

 

Why is there no "international law" when it comes to Israel?

Not necessarily the case. There are many areas in international law that must be followed by Israel. Take for example in area of diplomatic relations. The fact that Israel has embassies worldwide and official mission in the UN shows that Israel bound to international law. Failure to follow international law thereof will bring consequences.

The latest consequences or "slap in the face" for Israel in diplomatic relations was when UK and Australia expelled or "persona non grata" Israel diplomats from their embassies in relation to passport frauds done by Mossad in the recent Hamas' leader assassination.

In the context of freedom flotilla, one of the main issues of international law is the legality of unilateral interdiction in high seas, including among others, compensation. 

Can Indonesian government provide diplomatic protection to its citizens on board Flotilla -- notwithstanding that there is no preexisting diplomatic ties between the two nations?

Indonesian Government can provide protection for its nationals aboard freedom flotilla. As a matter of fact, it is required by indonesian law and international law acknowledges the existence of  such obligation.

Is it possible to ask for reparation for injuries?

Of course, in the context of Israel, the United Nations, in particular via the UNGA or UNSC may serve as a media to ask for reparation of injuries. What needs to be underlined though, both UNGA and UNSC are not law tribunals rather they are political bodies.   

 

Is there any way to charge the perpetrators under war-crime?

Charging is less difficult compared to find the means and enforcement to do so. Once there was an attempt to charge former US President Bush for war crimes in Iraq, but because neither the means and enforcement are sufficient, the attempt was useless.

Netanyahu claimed that it was an act of self-defense. What is your comment?

This incident reminds me of a self defence character policy announced by the US in 2004 called Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI, which basically allows interdiction of vessels on high seas assumed to carry WMD for terrorists.

In this case, both PSI and Israel's interdiction share similar motive; threat of terrorists attack (Netanyahu statement in BBC in responding to the interdiction). A clear difference between the two, however, is in the methods: the PSI requires a consent from the vessel's flag states before attempting to board the vessel to begin with whilst the Israelis clearly does not.

Surely, there is a valid reason why International law governs strict requirements when it comes to self defence and use of force, that is to maintain peace, not otherwise. 

 

How compelling (or binding -- as lawyer's often put it) is the law on interdiction under international law? Boarding a foreign vessel on an international water is a clear violation of international law, no? What can Turkey does to redress this internationally wrongful act of the Israeli state?

International law governs interdiction of ships both by customs and treaty laws. Israel is bound to follow; it if not by treaty law then by ways of customs. Because vessel is an extension of a state's territory being the flag state or the owner state, it can be considered as an act of war to board a foreign vessel without valid justification and procedures. Prima facie, such act violates that particular state sovereignty. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter is crystal clear when it comes to territorial integrity, let alone ICJ decisions.

Bilaterally, Turkey can seek compensation from Israel via its diplomatic channels. Multilaterally Turkey or any other nations for that matter that have been effected by this incident may ask UNGA to exercise Article 96 (b) of the UN Charter that is to seek ICJ's advisory opinion on the legality of Israel's interdiction on freedom flotilla as it did in 2004 on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory, which was decided as contrary to international law.

In a more concrete terms, what can we do provided that no diplomatic relation exist? Can we use the diplomatic arm of a third country to facilitate protection? Can we pursue international enforcement through ICJ, i.e. that states victim collectively demand reparation for its citizens on board Flotilla (that includes Turkey as the ship's flag-state) through ICJ mechanism?

I see several scenarios with regard to protection of Indonesian nationals, among others first, all or one Indonesian nationals are taken as hostages or worst prisoners and second possible compensations. For the first scenario, Indonesia via its permanent representative in the UN can demand a release or deportation of its nationals from Israel or use a third state having diplomatic relations to Israel to do so. The second scenario, however, is rather difficult because the Israel has to be found responsible first.

Enforcement through ICJ is unlikely to result in actual reparation. Unless Israel accepts ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction for contentious case, the only available means in ICJ is by advisory opinion under Article 96 (b) as I have mentioned earlier.

As part of procedures in advisory opinion, Indonesia can submit its official views to the ICJ on the case as it did in the advisory opinion case on legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.

 

 

 

And, a gentle reminder:
An online discussion on consumers rights in the Indonesian water services sector will be held on Wednesday, 2nd of June 2010 at 19.00 (GMT+0) in here. More detail.

And, a gentle reminder:
An online discussion on consumers rights in the Indonesian water services sector will be held on Wednesday, 2nd of June 2010 at 19.00 (GMT+0) in here. More detail.

Following is the announcement (in Bahasa Indonesia):

Waktu:  Rabu, 2 Juni 2010, pk. 19.00 - 20.30. (GMT + 0)

Pembicara: Mohamad Mova Al 'Afghani
(Ph.D Candidate, UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science. University of Dundee, UK) 

Chair: Rizal Yaya
(PhD Student University of Aberdeen UK) 

Tema: "Perlindungan Hukum bagi Konsumen Air di Indonesia"

 
Tambahan informasi dari Indonesia Law Reporter:
Acara ini bisa juga diikuti dari twitter dengan menggunakan hashtag #lawtalk atau me reply ke @movanet atau mendengarkan broadcast di home page Web Conference Indonesia Law Report. 

Prosiding dari acara ini akan disiapkan oleh Indonesia in Motion. 

Bahan bahan diskusi.
Makalah diskusi dengan judul “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Air di Indonesia” dapat di download di sini. 
Op-ed and blog posts:
Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam
Missing water and shadow users
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force!
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault?
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation
Hukum Air (Water Law) is not really a topic in Indonesia
Papers:
Safeguarding water contracts in Indonesia
Constitutional Court review and the future of water law in Indonesia
Presentation:
Anticipating water trade

In previous posts, I argue for the benefits of cloud computing for lawyers, lawfirms and government. However, cloud computing also posses some risks and the existing legal framework may not be adequate to tacke the problem. Read the recent ACLU publication (click on the image):

“Cloud computing”—the ability to create, store, and manipulate data through Web-based services—is growing in popularity. However, outdated laws and varying corporate practices mean that documents created and stored in the cloud may not have the same protections as the same documents stored in a filing cabinet or on a home computer. Can cloud computing services protect the privacy of their consumers? Do they? And what can we do to improve the situation?

HT @StephKimbro

 

 

Data Transfer, the DPR’s Style
6 Free collaboration tools for lawyers

 

I tried googling “water law” in Google.com (the Indonesian term is “hukum air”) and on the first google page, I found no reference to any site relevant to my search. If you click on the link, you will find that everything on the page is related to the religious law pertaining water for prayers or religious activities. None of them refers to water law.

I then googled “privatisasi air” (water privatization). Voila, everything in the first page is relevant. I scrolled down unto the 6th page, and everything reflects the true meaning of my google query.

From my queries, I can infer that water law is simply not (yet) a substantial part of the public discourse. But conversely, privatization is. So talks about water in Indonesia is dominated with the privatization discourse. What is interesting, the discourse of water privatization is much focused in the privatization of ‘water utilities’. If you speak bahasa Indonesia and google “privatisasi air”, you will find that most of the pages are critical towards the privatization of water utilities. Only one or two discusses water privatization in another context. Another thing: almost none (at least in google’s 1-3rd page) discusses sanitation.

On the one hand, it is a positive thing that privatisation is becoming a part of public discourse, but on the other hand, it is a pity that the debate is dominated only with privatisation of water utilities. What we need now is a better governance of our water (both resources and services) and law, is an important tool of governance. Privatization of utilities is only a small – albeit important and vital – part where law comes into play. But that’s not everything. We also need to think on how our resources is managed and how our services (both when they are public and private) are run.

It is not adequate for us to speak “against privatization”. We must also say what should be done when privatization is already the fact of life and what should be done when public ownership becomes the mode of delivery. Irrespective of the model (privatization or public ownership), in the end of the day, it is the consumer that needs to be defended. They need water to flow to their tap and they need the law to be on their side.  

Hence, water law should be in the discourse.

ps: if your google search (for hukum air) returns this post on the first page, then we might have contributed the “hukum air” meme into the discourse

Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam
Missing water and shadow users
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force!
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault? 
Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector
The Economist and the human right to water
Transparency Agenda in Water Utilities Regulation

H.T to Bo.
The economist recently released an excellent report on water. But there are some parts of the report that disturbs me a little:

Industrial use takes about 60% of water in rich countries and 10% in the rest. The difference in domestic use is much smaller, 11% and 8% respectively. Some of the variation is explained by capacious baths, power showers and flush lavatories in the rich world. All humans, however, need a basic minimum of two litres of water in food or drink each day, and for this there is no substitute. No one survived in the ruins of Port-au-Prince for more than a few days after January’s earthquake unless they had access to some water-based food or drink. That is why many people in poor and arid countries—usually women or children—set off early each morning to trudge to the nearest well and return five or six hours later burdened with precious supplies. That is why many people believe water to be a human right, a necessity more basic than bread or a roof over the head.

From this much follows. One consequence is a widespread belief that no one should have to pay for water. The Byzantine emperor Justinian declared in the sixth century that “by natural law” air, running water, the sea and seashore were “common to all”. Many Indians agree, seeing groundwater in particular as a “democratic resource”. In Africa it is said that “even the jackal deserves to drink”.
A second consequence is that water often has a sacred or mystical quality that is invested in deities like Gong Gong and Osiris and rivers like the Jordan and the Ganges. Throughout history, man’s dependence on water has made him live near it or organise access to it. Water is in his body—it makes up about 60%—and in his soul. It has provided not just life and food but a means of transport, a way of keeping clean, a mechanism for removing sewage, a home for fish and other animals, a medium with which to cook, in which to swim, on which to skate and sail, a thing of beauty to provide inspiration, to gaze upon and to enjoy. No wonder a commodity with so many qualities, uses and associations has proved so difficult to organise.

If you read these sentences carefully, you will find:

• The reason why there is the right to water
• The first consequence of the right to water
• The second consequence of the right to water

What are they? Let’s return to the paragraphs:

 

Industrial use takes about 60% of water in rich countries and 10% in the rest. The difference in domestic use is much smaller, 11% and 8% respectively. Some of the variation is explained by capacious baths, power showers and flush lavatories in the rich world. All humans, however, need a basic minimum of two litres of water in food or drink each day, and for this there is no substitute. No one survived in the ruins of Port-au-Prince for more than a few days after January’s earthquake unless they had access to some water-based food or drink. That is why many people in poor and arid countries—usually women or children—set off early each morning to trudge to the nearest well and return five or six hours later burdened with precious supplies.  That is why [Reason] many people believe water to be a human right, a necessity more basic than bread or a roof over the head.
From this much follows. One consequence is a widespread belief that no one should have to pay for water. [First Consequence] The Byzantine emperor Justinian declared in the sixth century that “by natural law” air, running water, the sea and seashore were “common to all”. Many Indians agree, seeing groundwater in particular as a “democratic resource”. In Africa it is said that “even the jackal deserves to drink”. [ Example of first Consequence?]
A second consequence is that water often has a sacred or mystical quality that is invested in deities like Gong Gong and Osiris and rivers like the Jordan and the Ganges. [Second consequence] Throughout history, man’s dependence on water has made him live near it or organise access to it. Water is in his body—it makes up about 60%—and in his soul. It has provided not just life and food but a means of transport, a way of keeping clean, a mechanism for removing sewage, a home for fish and other animals, a medium with which to cook, in which to swim, on which to skate and sail, a thing of beauty to provide inspiration, to gaze upon and to enjoy. No wonder a commodity with so many qualities, uses and associations has proved so difficult to organise.

With all the respect to the economist, I think it is contestable that the human right to water causes either (1) the widespread belief that water is free or (2) that water is sacred and mystical.

Let’s discuss the first consequence. The economist is already quite prudent in not directly pointing out that human right to water means that water should be for free. Instead, it points out that human right to water makes people think that water should be free (a widespread belief). But is it true. Is it true that the human right to water makes people think that water should be free? It would require an empirical research to survey people’s opinion, not only about the human right to water, but also the term human rights in general. Is it true, that when something is labeled as “human rights”, then it should be free? This would make an interesting research in itself because it will have implications to human rights based access movements. My understanding is of course, that things which are labeled human rights, does not necessarily means that they are ‘free’. The right to education and the right to health are not free, although they are human rights. The right to vote is not free, because someone will have to provide and construct the ballots. Indeed, elections costs a lot.  

The examples of the first consequence is not really clear to me.  The second sentence (Justinian’s decree) does not really reinforce the assertion used on the main idea (human right to water causes the widespread belief that water should be free). But the sentence does provide an understanding that in the past people once regard water as ‘common to all’. This is correct. What is not correct is when they are tied to the main assertion. There is no relation between the human right to water and Justinian’s decree that water is a res communis. The two are different things. To put it in different way: Justinian does not say that running water is common to all, because it is a human right.

Now let’s move on to the second consequence: the right to water makes sacred or mystical qualities attached into it. I am almost certain that this is not the case. The Ganges were there, and was considered sacred, long before the term “Human Rights” were invented.

Anyway, probably it is me the one who misunderstood the Economist’s paragraphs above. Do you have a better suggestion?

 

I contributed a paper about the transparency agenda in water utilities regulation and the role of Freedom of Information Law for the next edition of the Journal of Water Law. The case studies are England and Indonesia. The paper is quite relevant for the situation in Indonesia as the Freedom of Information Law has just been recently enacted and not so many literature is available. This is the content of the forthcoming Journal of Water Law which you might find interesting:

 

CONTENTS

 

Preface

Promoting water (law) for all Addressing the world’s water problems – a focus

on international and national water law and the challenges of an integrated approach

PATRICIA WOUTERS, SARAH HENDRY

 

International Water Law

Reframing the water security dialogue

DAN TARLOCK, PATRICIA WOUTERS

 

Introducing an analytical framework for water security: a platform for the refinement of

international water law BJØRN-OLIVER MAGSIG

 

The principle of good faith in the Argentina-Uruguay pulp mills dispute

TERESA LIGUORI

 

Examining the thresholds of harm for international watercourses in the Canada-US

context: would a mining development in the Flathead River watershed violate the Boundary

Waters Treaty?

MICHAEL AZULAY

 

The concepts of equitable utilization, no significant harm and benefit sharing under

the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement: some highlights on theory and

practice

MUSA MOHAMMED ABSENO

International water law in Central Asia: commitments, compliance and beyond

DINARA ZIGANSHINA

 

National Water Law

Protection of foreign investment and the implications for regulation of water services and

resources: challenges for investment arbitration
ANA MARIA DAZA VARGAS

Responding to the ‘water crisis’: the complementary roles of water governance and

the human right to water
HILARY J GRIMES

The transparency agenda in water utilities regulation and the role of freedom of

information: England and Jakarta case studies

MOHAMAD MOVA AL ‘AFGHANI

 

Valuing water in law: how can Indigenous cultural values be reconciled with Australia’s

water law in order to strengthen Indigenous water rights?

TRAN TRAN

An analytical framework for legal regimes applicable to freshwater ecosystems

HUGO TREMBLAY

Bridging the water law, policy, science interface: flood risk management in Scotland

CHRIS SPRAY, TOM BALL, JOSSELIN ROUILLARD


Related Posts:
Transparency in Water Services
Indonesian Water Services Suffering from a Lack of Governance
Supreme Court Decision on Water Monopoly in Batam
Missing water and shadow users
14 Disturbing Facts about Jakarta's Water
Tomorrow, the Freedom of Information Law is in force!
Three ways for your business to be implicated by the new Indonesian freedom of information law
Where to complain for bad water services – a comparison
Jakarta’s water crisis, whose fault?

Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector
Is water a commodity or human rights?
The human right to water is not a property right
Why busy with the right to water instead of governance
Consultation on the Human Right  Aspects of Private Sector Participation in the Water Sector: more responses from the private sector

 

The HRW 2010 report released earlier this May focused on Indonesia’s defamation law. According to the Human Rights Watch’s press release:

The 91-page report, "Turning Critics into Criminals: The Human Rights Consequences of Criminal Defamation Law in Indonesia," documents recent cases in which criminal libel, slander, and "insult" laws have been used to silence public criticism. Criminal defamation charges have been filed against individuals after they held public demonstrations protesting corruption, wrote letters to the editor complaining about fraud, registered formal complaints with the authorities, and published news reports about sensitive subjects.

In an SMH op-ed published today, the author of the report argue:

Not everyone in Indonesia who airs critical facts or opinions ends up accused of a criminal offence. But the arbitrary enforcement of such laws, and even the mere threat of enforcement, has a damaging chilling effect on civil society, the media, and private citizens' willingness to express critical thoughts or opinions, especially online.

The cover page of the report pictured Prita Mulyasari, the housewife sent to trial under the defamation law for complaining for a bad health service she had received from a hospital. In my earlier op-ed, I emphasize the need for an efficient and effective out of court settlement in health cases, such as that involving Prita’s:

In a market-based solution, the parties stay out of court. If the health service provider does something wrong, they pay the patient and the patient can agree not to sue at a price. If providers don't do anything wrong, they ask the patient to issue a public apology and a sum of money to the extent that they can pay. The cost expended in this mechanism is much lower compared to going to court. This mechanism requires the government to reduce information asymmetry in the market as parties can only negotiate when the evidence is available.

This report sends a very strong message to the international community and create pressures to the government that a reform is urgent. Click on the image below to download the full report:

 

Related posts:
Bringing patients to court may not be efficient
Housewife on trial for defamation

Good news from SSRN:

 

Dear Mohamad Mova al 'Afghani:

Your paper, "Religious Freedom in Indonesia Before and after Constitutional Amendments", was recently listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list for Asian Law eJournal, HRN Religious Studies Research Network, REL Subject Matter eJournals and Religion & Culture eJournal - Forthcoming. As of 05/17/2010, your paper has been downloaded 47 times. You may view the abstract and download statistics at http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1587256.

Top Ten Lists are updated on a daily basis. Click on the following link to view the Top Ten list for the journal Asian Law eJournal Top Ten, HRN Religious Studies Research Network Top Ten, REL Subject Matter eJournals Top Ten and Religion & Culture eJournal - Forthcoming Top Ten.

Click on the following link to view all the papers in the journal Asian Law eJournal All Papers, HRN Religious Studies Research Network All Papers, REL Subject Matter eJournals All Papers and Religion & Culture eJournal - Forthcoming All Papers.

To view any of the Top Ten lists, click the TOP button on any network, subnetwork, journal or topic in the Browse list reachable through the following link: http://www.ssrn.com/Browse

Your paper may be listed in the Top Ten for other networks or journals and, if so, you will receive additional notices at that time.

If you have any questions regarding this notification or any other matter, please email AuthorSupport@SSRN.com or call 877-SSRNHelp (877.777.6435 toll free). Outside of the United States, call 00+1+585+4428170.

 


Hm... religion and constitution seemed to be quite a hot topic. I am not sure I’d get that much of downloads for my papers on governance issues.

Related Posts:
MK: The Blasphemy Law is here to stay
The nature of the Indonesian blasphemy law
The controversial blasphemy law verdict
More on Blasphemy Law
Does religion matter in corruption eradication?

 

In case you haven’t realize, the Nanotechnology Law blog adds a few links in the tabs: Lawfirm Directory and Add Lawfirm.

Lawfirm directory is a new feature aimed at collecting information about lawfirms practising Nanotechnology related issue. If you fill out the form and request a review, we will consider the application subject to further documentation provided by you.

Please note that the review is not an advertorial. If you request an advertorial, we will have to disclose it in the blog post.

Click here to download the list of firms and here (or scroll below) to fill out the form.

 

Related:

Solo Practicioner Lawyer, a Trend?
The future of work: no cubicle culture, smaller companies, working from home