,

Corruption Court: This year's legislative highlight!

Thursday, January 11, 2007

We all know that the Constitutional Court annuled Article 53 of the KPK Law which contains a Corruption Court. Much of its decision has been discussed here. Due to the decision, the House and the Government is politically compelled to enact a new law establishing a Corruption Court. This is going to be an interesting process which everyone must carefully observe:
The corrupt and would-be corrupt will want to have a soft law, while civil society activists will want to strengthen the role of the Corruption Court. If a compromise is reached, we might have a stronger and better judicial system. But if no compromise is reached, corruption eradication will be at serious risk.

An expert told that formation of a special court could be a lengthy and difficult process:

Experience with the establishment of the existing Anticorruption Court as a chamber of the Central Jakarta District Court shows the importance of thorough preparation to ensure the timely availability of the necessary funding and infrastructure.

There is certainly a lot that will need to be discussed in detail, decided on and prepared over the next three years. While doing all this, the overriding common cause should be constantly kept in mind: the eradication of corruption and the promotion of legal certainty and public welfare.

Well, let's keep an eye!

 

Precautionary Principle in Nanotech

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

A presentation from John Weckert about Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology is available here. The presentation has not answered the question of when can precautionary principle be applied to nanotech but it provides a good overview on the classification of risks associated to the technology as well as other problems surrounding it.

When exercised, precautionary principle may result in substantial impediments in international trade and eventually halt research. I have also discussed the basics of precautionary principle in international law in my past post.

 

, ,

Law 2.0: exchanges with mazyar hedayat

Mazyar Hedayat posted in his blog a draft business model for Law 2.0. I'll give you a quot:

the business model of the website is simple: users post content for others to download, such as:

  • documents: pleadings, letters, briefs, memoranda, research
  • presentations: power-point, flash, PDF
  • media: videos, photographs
  • applications: applets or widgets

authors and items receive user ratings. highly rated authors and items are featured more prominently. revenue would be generated through

  • e-commerce: host site would take a fair % of the value of each transaction
  • advertising: start simply by deploying ads then work up to sponsorship
  • subscriptions: as mentioned above
  • licensing: application could be licensed for use within an enterprise
The content looks perfect to me. The means are already available. With Google Docs, Google Notebook, Flickr, You Tube and del.icio.us they are virtually already here. But, aside from Creative Commons, I have never seen any boilerplates provision available online for free. Why? What would attract the hourly paid lawyers to tag, post and share their docs on the net? Can the networking power of web 2.0. altered the way legal services are delivered?

If you have a say, join us in this conversation. Give a link and we'll link you back.



 

,

Tender offer rule will be amended?

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

Bisnis Indonesia reported that capital market institutions are considering to change the threshold of controlling shareholder into 30%. As to my knowledge the current Rule IX.F.I on tender offer has not been amended.

 

, , ,

Is TSCA sufficient to cover nanotech?

The debate over TSCA in nanotech hovers primarily around the issue of putting engineered nanoparticle as a "new substance". Some expert considers TSCA adequate to overcome new technologies while other is pessimistic on the approach and cries for chemical reform.

This week's article in Chemicals and Engineering highlights the role of TSCA and compares it to the new EU's REACH. Only very small part of the article is dedicated to discuss nanotech. Click here to read.

 

,

Cost recovery in oil projects

Sunday, January 7, 2007

An op-ed piece in today's JP criticizing a government's plan in amending regulations affecting cost recovery in oil projects:
Before signing the PSC (or KKS as it is now called), the investor built an economic model, calculating his return on investment using several scenarios. He negotiated a contract expecting a certain minimum net result. If this expected net result no longer holds true because the deal was unilaterally changed, or if he is, for example, subject to sudden spurious tax levies at the central and local levels, he will demand that his economic expectations under the agreed contract be restored. If he does not get that, he may pack his bags and leave, and/or resort to arbitration.

Admittedly, there will always be a need for some degree of regulation, especially in the event of what economists call market failures. But the government should step in only when it needs to fix something. As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is the prevailing management theory and a fundamental credo of microeconomics.
Some official thinks that oil companies takes too much from cost recovery, oil company says there are not so much to be taken. I haven't look at the draft regulation so I can't say anything.

 

, , ,

Indonesian Govt and Religious Violence

A petitioner claim that the Indonesian Government failed to supress religious violence failed on the US Court of Appeals due to the lack of evidence.

The case is an immigration-asylum case and the petitioner claim the invocation of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) for his interest. However, the CAT claimed was rejected by the appeal court.

Case available here.

(H.T. Appelate Law and Practice blog)