Privatization that involves MNCs will cover generally three legal arenas, namely transnational, national and contractual. Each legal arena requires a different model of legal protection.

In the transnational arena, governments may face parent companies and shareholders of an Indonesian-incorporated subsidiary company in arbitrations. In typical water contracts between local water authorities and a locally incorporated company, there is always a clause that refers every dispute arising from the contract exclusively to a local jurisdiction.

The problem is, MNCs can always refer to Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) to which Indonesia is a party and use the "umbrella clause" in the BIT to transform a problem that was originally a contractual dispute into an international investment dispute. So, the central government can be dragged into a costly international arbitration.

One of the drawbacks of international arbitration is that the proceedings are often closed to the public. This transparency can no longer be ensured once a dispute is settled at an international arbitration venue.

Another disadvantage in dealing with an MNC is that there is currently no adequate accountability and responsibility standard in place. Thus, it is theoretically possible for an MNC to cause losses (to the environment or labor) in a host state and get away with it. This is because an MNC is a single economic unity, but is legally distinct.

The losses are not attributable to its parent company in United States or Europe, because those companies exist beyond Indonesia's jurisdictions and they possess a distinct legal personality from their Indonesian "avatar".

From the above explanations, there are some conclusions that can be drawn.

First, the legal protections granted at the national level will be obsolete at the transnational level if the government decides to conclude a contract with an MNC.

Second, the damages created by an MNC to the host state may be irrecoverable due their transboundary character. Put it simply, the control by the government towards water provision will considerably diminish when privatization is opted.

The second legal arena is the national fora. Protection towards the right to water in Indonesia is very weak. The first weakness is that our constitution does not explicitly recognize the right to water. The right to water in Indonesia develops only out of a judicial interpretation of the Constitutional Court when the water law was reviewed.

The second weakness is the water law itself, which does not specifically cite the right to water as a human right. This is a mistake because it should have cited Chapter XA of the Constitution, which regulates human rights. If it is only Article 33 that is cited, then water would be perceived nothing but as an economic good.

The third weakness is that the current regulations governing infrastructure projects do not distinguish water from other projects. Currently, a 2005 Presidential regulation is used as a "catch-all" regulation for infrastructure project, including water. This could be fatal if the government decides to privatize more water services in the future.

Water projects are among the most critical infrastructure projects for emerging economies. They have natural, cultural, political and legal characteristics that differentiate them from other infrastructure projects. Naturally, water is a limited resource, inseparable from the hydrological cycle, it is an indispensable element of life for human, animal and the ecosystem as a whole.

Regulations governing water infrastructure must contain provisions that obligate financial and legal due diligence toward the bidders. There has to be provisions that specifically regulate water service companies, especially its shareholding, lending structure and corporate executives. Its financial condition must also be declared to the public.

The last of the legal arena is the contract between MNC's subsidiary and the authority. Provision of this contract is very delicate as it must embody and guarantee constitutional, human rights, environmental and financial benefits of all stakeholders.

Ensuring the sustainability of the contract would be difficult because MNC tends to always have a more favorable position to ask for renegotiation once the contract is signed. On the other hand, the government's interest is in ensuring water service from being impeded, and the government will be compelled to do it at any cost.

Article 45
(1) The Copyright Holder shall have the right to give a license to another party based on a letter of licensing agreement to carry out the acts as referred to in Article 2.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed, the scope of licence as referred to in paragraph (1) shall cover all acts as referred to in Article 2 for a period of the licensing agreement and is exercisable within the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia.
(3) Unless otherwise agreed, the implementation of acts as referred to in Article (1) and (2) shall be accompanied by the obligation to pay royalty to the Copyright Holder by the licensee.
(4) The amount of royalty, which has to be paid by the licensee to the Copyright Holder shall be based on the agreement between the two parties by using the agreement of professional organization as a guide.

Article 46
Unless otherwise agreed, the Copyright Holder shall reserve the right to exercise or to give further licences to other third parties to carry out acts as referred to in Article 2.

Article 47
(1) A licensing agreement shall not contain any clauses, which may cause detrimental effect on the economy of Indonesia or to contain any clauses, which cause unfair business competition as provided for in the prevailing laws and regulations.
(2) In order to have legal consequences against a third party, a licensing agreement shall be recorded at the Directorate General.
(3) The Directorate General shall refuse any request for the recording of a licensing agreement, which contains clauses as referred to in paragraph (1).
(4) Further provisions regarding the recording of licensing agreements shall be regulated in Presidential Decree.

So that as it may by passing restrained order by the council as well as the earlier order notified in notification no 529/(2)/2007 issued by the president of Pakistan which is equally contrary to the constitution I have suffered as under:

(A) Detained for all intend and purpose with my family members including my infant child of 7 years from the evening of March 9th, 2007 uptill now. My official residence is sealed with heavy continget comprising police and member of other agencies. For which there is no justification.

(B) The vehicles which were in my use have been taken away by means of a lifter out of which one has been brought back by a lifter without its keys.

(c) Staff of Supreme Court attached with me is reportedly missing and had been kept at an unknown place. I believe that they have been detained just to fabricate evidence against me. I have also learned reliably that my chamber was also sealed and reportedly files lying there have been removed and some of them had been handedover to ISI under the supervision of newly appointed registrar. Such act is contrary to all norms and practices. I being CJP is entitled to occupy my chamber along with my staff.

(D) On account of deployment of heavy contingencies I am not allowed to go outside nor my family members are allowed to do so. Similarly no one is allowed to meet me freely. In as my colleagues have no access to me and whenever they want to visit they have to wait on the gate for a considerable period during which permission is sought from high ups of Mr Justice Raja Fayyaz can be quoted as on one occasion he had to go back without meeting me. Similar treatment was offered to Mr Justice Munir A sheikh (Retd).

(E) My children are not allowed to go to school, college and university I am not getting facility of telephone cable and DSL. Similarly I along with my family members have been deprived from basic amenities of Life ie medicines and doctor etc. (F) No. panel of lawyers is available to discuss the legal and factual issues involved in this reference. This act I have already highlighted on the notice received on March 10th, 2007.

The key word in these experiments is collaboration and the engine driving them is a type of Web site known as a wiki, from the Hawaiian word for fast. A wiki allows any Web page visitor to easily add, remove or edit content.

Editing can be done quickly from within a browser and without any special knowledge of authoring formats. A wiki's simplicity and ease of use make it an ideal tool for group projects. The first wiki software, WikiWikiWeb, was written in 1994. But it wasn't until recently that wikis saw broader use. No doubt, a driving force has been the best-known wiki -- the collaboratively written encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Neither are wikis new to the legal profession. Denver lawyer John DeBruyn has been experimenting with wikis as a tool for lawyer-to-lawyer collaboration since at least 1997. But in the legal world, as elsewhere, wikis have become more widely used in the last year or two.

Among these "questionable" contents was an article on one of the blogs where Fauzi was mentioned to have been unwilling to report the fund he allocated for the election campaigns as required by the election commission. Note, however, that this article was not written by the blog's author; it was first published by Rakyat Merdeka daily on April 12. Similarly, the other contested blog contained some articles originally published by popular news Web site detik.com.

"We are going to take firm action if our wish is not respected. Stop this activity before our anger sweeps across Jakarta," the Fauzi defenders team said in its press release, without specifying what action would involve.

The ICCPR does not prohibit the death penalty but its protocols do. As Indonesia is not party to any ICCPR protocol, the practice of the death penalty will not violate any international obligation to the ICCPR as long as the treatment of the inmates on death row and the execution of convicts is conducted in accordance with international standards.

It is then left to the problem of constitutional interpretation. Article 28I (1) of the Constitution guarantees that the right to life cannot be limited under any circumstances, but Article 28J (2) states that "In exercising his/her rights and freedoms, every person shall have the duty to accept the restrictions established by law... based upon the consideration of morality, religious values, security and public order in democratic society". The debate goes on as to whether the application of Article 28I (1) -- due to the phrase "cannot be limited under any circumstances" -- is non-derogable, including by Article 28J (2).

The convict's attorneys think that the rights under Article 28I (1) belongs to the cluster of rights which are non-derogable, including Article 28J (2). The government on the other hand, is of the opinion that Article 28J (2) may derogate Article 28I (1). Toward this polemic, there are a few methods of interpretation that can be applied.

First, by using the literal approach, it would appear that prohibition of the death penalty is stated nowhere in the Constitution. The wordings of "cannot be limited under any circumstances" under Article 28 I (1) cannot therefore be interpreted so as to mean prohibiting the death penalty. A comparison with Germany and Vietnam's constitutions would reveal that the prohibition of the death penalty is supported with a written, literal expression of the articles of the Constitution. As Indonesia's Constitution has no such provision, the death penalty is so far in line with the Constitution.

Second, by using the teleological approach, it can be seen from the preamble that the purpose of the Constitution is to first "protect the whole people of Indonesia and the entire homeland of Indonesia". Indonesia reportedly has 3.2 million drug users with the number of deaths around 15,000 users per year or an average of 41 deaths per day due to overdose or drug-related AIDS infections. The state has a constitutional obligation to prevent these deaths and to prevent the occurrence of a lost generation. Thus, the protection of the people by the state is paramount and would constitute a higher obligation in comparison to other duties.

Third, using the systematical method of interpretation, it would be clear that Article 28 J is placed under the same chapter as Article 28 I, which is the amended human rights chapter. It is then conclusive that Article 28 J was made "in relation and with due regard to" Article 28 I. We do not consider it appropriate to interpret that the restriction towards the implementation of human rights under Article 28 J refers to clusters of rights other than Article 28 I. The restriction under Article 28 J appears to cover the whole set of the Constitution.

Moreover, under the social contract construction, perpetrators are deemed to have waived their right to life, which is protected under the law, by acting in a manner that results in the loss of life. Thus, by "knowingly" killing others and being aware that their action entails capital punishment, they have given "implied consent" to be punished with the death penalty.