Hostis humani generis: Perbedaan antara revisi

Satu-satunya aplikasi aktual dari konsep {{Lang|la|hostis humani generis}} yang telah diperluas adalah penggunaannya dalam pengadilan terhadap orang yang melakukan penyiksaan. Hal ini telah dilakukan oleh putusan pengadilan Amerika Serikat dan pengadilan internasional. Dalam perkara yang diadili di Amerika Serikat pada tahun 1980, ''[[Filártiga v. Peña-Irala|Filártiga v.Peña-Irala]]'', [[Kutipan kasus|630 F.2d 876]], [[Pengadilan Tinggi Federal Amerika Serikat untuk Wilayah II|Pengadilan Tinggi Federal Amerika Serikat]] memutuskan bahwa pengadilan mempunyai yurisdiksi terhadap kejahatan agen [[Pemerintah Paraguay]]<ref>Under the legal principles of the United States, the government of a nation, as a [[Juristic person|legal body]], cannot be held liable for willful or intentional acts against its [[constitution]], the [[law of nations]], or its internal laws. This is because a government is a creature created by action of positive law, and therefore, as a creature of law, cannot act in a matter inimical to the very thing that gives it meaning. However, this poses a problem: what if a government does act unlawfully? How can this conduct be punished? Over the years, the courts have created a [[legal fiction]] so as to give relief to victims of unlawful governmental acts. This fiction supposes that these unlawful acts are not engaged, conspired, or otherwise directed by the government in question, but by the individual officers of a government who carried out the unlawful acts. Therefore, even though a government may not be held liable for acts committed in its name, individual government agents who commit acts against the Constitution or the law of nations can be held personally liable. (Indeed, their liability is heightened, as they acted under [[color of law]], gravely aggravating the magnitude of the offense; see ''[[Ex parte Young]]'', [[Case citation|209 U.S. 123]] (1908), as well as ''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]'', [[Case citation|403 U.S. 388]] (1971).) This provides an incentive to government agents not to "[[Nuremberg Defense|just follow orders]]" when those "orders" are criminal.</ref> yang ditemukandinyatakan telah melakukan kejahatan penyiksaan terhadap warga negara Paraguay,. Pengadilan menyatakan mempunyai kewenangan hukum untuk mengadili menggunakanperkara yurisdiksinyaini diatas bawahdasar ''Klausul Pelanggaran''<ref>Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the [[Constitution of the United States]], which provides that the [[Congress of the United States|Congress]] is granted the power to "[t]o define and punish Piracies and [[Felonies]] on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations"; this clause both expressly provides that the Congress may [[Codification (law)|codify]] [[customary international law]] into federal law, and implicitly recognizes this law, or, as it has been known, since time immemorial, as the [[Law of Nations]], as a source of law outside of the Constitution, like the [[common law]] is.</ref> [[Undang-Undang Dasar Amerika Serikat|Konstitusi Amerika Serikat]], Undang-Undang Klaim Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Warga Asing, dan [[Kebiasaan internasional|hukum kebiasaan internasional]]. Dalam memutuskan hal ini, pengadilan menyatakan bahwa "Memang, untuk tujuan pertanggungjawaban perdata, penyiksa telah menjadi seperti bajak laut dan pedagang budak di hadapannya: ''hostis humani generis'', musuh seluruh umat manusia." Penggunaan istilah ''hostis humani generis'' ini telah diperkuat oleh putusan [[Pengadilan Pidana Internasional untuk Bekas Wilayah Yugoslavia|Pengadilan Kriminal Internasional untuk Bekas Yugoslavia]] dalam putusan yang diberikan kepada seorang penyiksa dalam ''Prosecutor v.'' ''Furundija''.<ref>{{Cite web|date=1998-12-10|title=Decision of ICTY in Prosecutor v. Furundžija|url=https://www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/judgement/index.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080313204736/http://www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/judgement/index.htm|archive-date=2008-03-13|access-date=2008-09-10}}</ref><ref>Janis, M. and Noyes, J. "International Law: Cases and Commentary (3rd ed.)", Page 148 (2006)</ref>