Suchergebnisse

Introduction to The Problem: As part of the organization of the government duties and community services, the authority to make a decision is attributed to the government officials (inherent aan het bestuur), which has led many to become a suspect and a convict. On the other hand, it is believed that the government's policies are not subject to the law.Purpose/Objective Study: This study aims to determine to analyze abuse of authority according to a meaning deconstructionDesign/Methodology/Approach: The research applied normative juridical approach as the logical consequence of sui generis of law.Findings: Each network of a structure of meaning is always presented in the form of binary opposition. One of the elements is marginalized and abandoned. Similarly, in the field of law, the term "abuse of authority," which is often connected to the damage that occurs to the state's financial condition, is seen as an absolute part of the Criminal Law. Arbitrarily, it replaces the function of the State Administrative Law. The "financial loss," which is then known as corruption, is the result of 'abuse of authority,' originated from the State Administrative Law. Through Jacques Derrida's perspective, a marginalized binary opposition is made into being. It is not to dominate others, but to share the views. The disjuncture between the state administrative law and criminal law has caused an unresolved issue of corruption. Through Paul Scholten's perspective, in essence, the criminal law has abandoned the social fact that there is a strong correlation between the deeds in the state administrative law and those in the criminal law, which is in the theoretical domain of administrative criminal law. The abandonment is against the hulprecht principle related to the implementation of the law mentioned above. The research employed a normative juridical method based on secondary data using philosophical, conceptual, and legal approaches.Originality: This article discusses specifically abuse of authority, a meaning deconstruction in terms of criminal law and state administrative lawPaper Type: General Review

I investigate an agency relationship with moral hazard where a principal relies on a supervisor to obtain verifiable information about an agent's output. The supervisor's discretionary power allows him to engage in unofficial activities, namely collusion & abuse of authority. Collusion occurs when the supervisor receives a bribe from the agent to conceal information whereas abuse of authority occurs when instead the supervisor asks the agent for a tribute to reveal information. I characterize the optimal incentive contracts in this environment & study how collusion & abuse of authority interact. Compared with the presence of a single form of unofficial activity, the presence of multiple forms of unofficial activity is never harmless & is more severely harmful. I also identify the condition under which the presence of multiple forms of unofficial activity entails cost super-additivity. 1 Appendix, 39 References. [Copyright 2005 Elsevier B.V.]

This paper discusses the main problems in handling disputes over the abuse of authority by state officials. This paper is based on the concept of the state as an organization or the highest body that has the authority to regulate matters relating to the interests of the wider community and has the obligation to prosper, protect and educate the life of the nation. This paper aims to analyze the Authority of Government Officials in carrying out Government and the Settlement of Abuse of Authority within the scope of Government Officials. This paper confirms that the issuance of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration is a response and response to the polemic surrounding which judicial institution has the competence to examine whether or not there is an alleged element of abuse of authority by a public official. The law expressly mandates the state administrative court as a judicial institution that has absolute competence to examine the alleged abuse of authority. The presence or absence of an element of abuse of authority must be tested with the principle of specialism (specialiteitsbeginsel) which is nothing but the domain of administrative law. The Decision of the State Administrative Court in resolving the abuse of authority carried out by the Agency and / or Government Official that harms the state finances as stipulated in Law No. 30 of 2014, has binding legal force and must be obeyed and implemented by the relevant Government Officials.

The concept of authority is crucial to explaining many interesting outcomes in international politics. Despite its importance, the conceptualisation of authority suffers from neglect and misuse. A clear understanding of the context and limits of authority will aid social scientists who seek to develop testable propositions and improve rigour in social science research. When scholars fail adequately to conceptualise authority they encounter problems identifying situations where the exercise of authority is present. For instance, scholars identify voluntary or diffused forms of authority. Moreover, scholars may test their explanations against weak or inaccurately applied versions of authority-based explanations or fail to consider that authority played any role in their outcome of interest. I argue that using an interpretation of authority based on legitimised power can help scholars avoid these pitfalls. Scholars will be able to compare the significance of the different sources of authority within international politics and thereby craft compelling tests of alternative hypotheses about the role authority plays in international politics. Using this interpretation will substantially enhance our understanding of phenomena in international politics.

This study aims to discuss issues regarding the legal certainty of criminal acts of abuse of authority and problems regarding the return of state financial losses in handling corruption cases in Indonesia. To examine these problems, a normative juridical research method was used using secondary legal data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials. Based on the results of the study, it is known that the handling of cases of Corruption Crimes cannot be separated from the influences of the bureaucracy and political factors, both from the legal provisions that govern it and from unscrupulous government officials with strategic positions in the Government who are perpetrators of abuse of authority that is detrimental to finances. country. However, there is a discrepancy in the regulation regarding abuse of authority in the Law on government administration and the Law on criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia, especially in terms of recovering state financial losses.

Before my combat deployments into Iraq, I, Colonel Wes Martin, had successfully fought another war. As a military police officer, I spent many years fighting against sexual misconduct, abuse of authority, and cover-ups within the senior officer and sergeant ranks in the United States Army. During this fight I faced continual criticism from my senior officers who claimed I was discrediting the Army by exposing the corrupt and immoral behavior of senior officers and sergeants. During the early days of standing up to the corruption, when I had the rank of Major, I received retaliatory evaluations and was forced to temporarily leave active duty. After successfully appealing and having the retaliatory evaluations removed from my records, I was determined no one should suffer the consequences of doing the harder right over the easier wrong. Teaming with military icon Colonel (Retired) David Hackworth and other officers determined to create a just system, I played a pivotal role in forcing reforms throughout the Army. While helping other victims of sexual harassment and abuse of authority I wrote three articles that found their way throughout the Army. During this same period, I progressed through four successful commands. In each of those commands I aggressively enforced his standards of "mutual respect" and "trust." In formations and training I warned all subordinates of the consequences of involvement in sexual harassment, abuse of authority, and racism. Even though I firmly drew the line when assuming each of my commands, there was always at least one subordinate in each who crossed the line thinking he was immune from being held accountable. The result was an immediate end to the transgressions and all dedicated soldiers realizing they had a champion to protect them from abuse. The Army did change for the better and also commenced holding senior officers and sergeants accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, the continuing deployments into combat has had a negative effect on Army leadership. A lot of outstanding junior officers and sergeants left the ranks to build family-oriented lives and civilian careers. Their departures have created vacancies and promotion opportunities for substandard performers. This has in turn resulted in a resurgence of misbehavior. The fortunate part is top Army leadership is no longer blatantly covering the corruption.

The administrative court is given the authority to review the request for review of abuse of authority according to the legislation and general principles of good governance as the two touchstones. This review may serve as a testing benchmark to discuss the issue of the request over the abuse of authority as requested by government officials, recalling that abuse of authority has several criteria to proscribe and regulate in the general principles of good governance. The research problems involved the criteria and the bases for determining the type of abuse of authority in the request over the abuse of authority. This research employed a normative method, statutory, and historical approaches. The research results concluded that the Decision 2/P/PW/2017/PTUN.JBI holds the relevance to the current legislation, public interest, and the absence of state losses, while the Decision 09/P/PW/2018/PTUN.Sby only refers to the current legislation in terms of its relevance. Although the general principles of good governance refer to the administrative court as the touchstone, this touchstone is not optimally used in the request for review of abuse of authority.Keywords: AUPB (general principles of good governance); Administrative Court; request for review of abuse of authority.

This research is based on the reality of low absorption of government agencies / institutions by government officials. Government Officials feel afraid if the decisions and / or actions issued lead to abuse of authority which has implications for corruption. The passing of Law No. 30 of 2014 concerning Administration Government has opened a new way of testing the abuse of authority which is typical of the concept of administrative law in the State Administrative Court. This law is also a means of legal protection for Government Officials. However, since this law was passed government officials are still afraid of using the budget in their institutions and there are still many government officials affected by corruption cases because of abuse of authority. This research includes normative legal research which is also often referred to as doctrinal research with the object or target of research in the form of legislation and other legal materials. Based on this research, it is known that the authority of PTUN in testing the abuse of authority has implications in the process of law enforcement for criminal acts of corruption. In enforcement of corruption, superiors of Government Officials, APIP, and Law Enforcement Officials (APH) must coordinate with each other in carrying out supervisory and enforcement tasks. law to government officials so that no case "race" occurs. If the decision of the PTUN states that there is no element of abuse of authority, the Government Official cannot be prosecuted either administratively, civilly or criminally. Conversely, if the PTUN ruling states that there is an element of abuse of authority, then the Government Official must recover the state financial losses, and the normative refund of the state financial loss cannot guarantee that the Government Official will avoid the process of enforcing criminal acts of corruption.