This article aims to discuss the Principles of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) that may be applied to the conflict in the Gaza Strip between Israel and Palestine. This normative legal research using a conceptual approach and a case approach indicates that the humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict needs to be the focus of the international community, and the R2P principle may be applied as an alternative solution. Although the R2P principle is not a legal formulation, R2P plays an important role. It is recognized as an emerging norm or an obligation with a legal significance. R2P has been agreed upon and accepted by most countries globally that are members of the United Nations through UN General Assembly Resolutions. R2P assigns responsibility to the international community to help parties protect populations from the crime of genocide. Ultimately, R2P is expected to encourage states to fulfill their legal responsibilities and obligations, help build capacity to protect populations, and provide assistance to states in emergencies.

The purpose of this study is to find out about the setting of the authority of the Indonesian National Army (TNI)  overcoming the armed separatist movement, armed insurgency, and acts of terrorism in Law NRI Number. This research is normative legal research using the statutory approach, historical approach, comparative approach, philosophical approach. The analysis technique is done by qualitative juridical analysis. The results showed that the legis ratio of regulating the authority of the Indonesian National Army in overcoming armed separatist movements, armed insurgency, and acts of terrorism in RI law number 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Army was departed from the desire to abandon the dual function model of ABRI, namely as a security and security forces and as a social-political force. As a social and political force, ABRI at that time had a role as a stabilizer, a dynamist, as a pioneer, and as an implementer of Pancasila democracy. With the enactment of RI law number 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Army, changing the Indonesian National Army as a means of defense of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, which is tasked with implementing a state defense policy to uphold national sovereignty, maintain territorial integrity, and protect national security, carry out military operations for war and military operations other than war, and actively participate in the task of maintaining regional and international peace

The final and binding nature of international arbitral awards results in the nullification of the rights of the parties to file legal remedies against the arbitral award, as is the case with decisions of national courts that can be appealed, appealed, or reviewed. However, Article 68 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution provides an opportunity for parties who refuse to recognize and implement an international arbitral award that can be appealed to, as well as Article 70 must also be explained that Article this applies only to national arbitrations. This of course creates legal uncertainty, disuse, and injustice for the parties. Therefore, what is highlighted in this research is what is the position of the final and binding international arbitration award in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the research show that the position of international arbitral awards in Indonesia is not the same as the decisions of national courts because they cannot be appealed, cassated, and reviewed. Therefore, it is necessary to completely amend international arbitration arrangements by removing Article 68 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution in order to provide legal certainty, benefit, and justice for the parties.

Since the territorial defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), debates and questions on what states should do (individually and or collectively) with foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) from their countries have become more relevant yet controversial. This article critically investigates whether states of origin have an obligation to repatriate ISIS FTFs under international law as well as what options are available for such countries in dealing with returning ISIS fighters based on a human rights approach. This article also highlights that the current international legal framework is generally moving toward the repatriation of FTFs for the purpose of prosecution and rehabilitation. While states have taken diverse and controversial approaches in dealing with fighters who wish to return, the option to repatriate and fairly prosecute them in their countries of origin is seen as the most comprehensive and preferred approach, not only for the countries of origin but also for the international community as a whole in the long term.

This research is a normative juridical research using a statutory approach, and a conceptual approach. This research is a normative juridical with a literature approach, namely by studying journals, books, legislation and other documents related to this research. Normative law is directly related to the practice of law which involves two main aspects, namely the formation of law and the application of law. This approach views law as synonymous with written norms made and promulgated by official institutions or officials. In this study there are 3 (three) legal materials: including primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The technique of collecting legal materials is by using a literature study model. The legal material analysis technique used is content analysis, after obtaining the necessary data, this paper analyzes the data logically, systematically and juridically. Furthermore, the data were analyzed juridically, namely starting from the existing regulations and related to the positive law that is currently in effect.