URGENSI PENGATURAN TENTANG UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) MENURUT PERSPEKTIF HUKUM UDARA INTERNASIONAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chalif Rafi Prayogi , Hanif Nur Widhiyanti, Dony Aditya Prasetyo Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya Email: Chaalifraafi@yahoo.com ABSTRAK Semakin banyaknya pengoperasian yang dilakukan UAV, maka semakin banyak juga potensi-potensi kejadian yang akan ditimbulkan oleh UAV. Urgensi yang ditimbulkan akibat pengoperasianya tersebut tidak lain seperti adanya pelanggaran-pelanggaran baru sudah mulai terjadi seperti adanya pelanggaran privasi seseorang, pelanggaran hak atas pemilik tanah, dan pelanggaran perlindungan data. Pelanggaran tersebut terjadi karena masih belum adanya regulasi atau peraturan tertulis internasional mengenai pengaturan UAV sehingga hal ini menuntut agar dibuatnya suatu pengaturan UAV internasional. Kejadian tersebut berbalik dengan belum tegaknya regulasi terkait pengoperasian UAV itu sendiri. Beberapa Negara seperti Kanada, Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia sudah mulai menerapkan peraturan mengenai pengaturan UAV. Namun, tidak semua negara mengatur UAV sebagai hukum nasionalnya, seperti di India. Hal tersebut dilakukan karena pemerintah India menganggap bahwa UAV sangatlah berbahaya Hal ini membuktikan bahwa harus adanya peraturan tertulis internasional tentang suatu aturan dasar mengenai pengaturan dan pengoperasian UAV sehingga meneruskan tujuan dari pasal 44 Konvensi Chicago 1944 yang mengatakan bahwa semua penerbangan harus mengutamakan keamanan dan keselamatan. Kata Kunci: Urgensi, Pengaturan UAV, Hukum Udara Internasional ABSTRACT The more operations of UAV will cause more potential events. The urgency caused by the operations of UAV is the violation on someone’s privacy, the infringement of the right to the landowner, and the breach of data protection. The violation occurs because there is still no international regulation regarding UAV arrangement. The incident is inversely proportional to law concerning UAV which is not held upright yet. Some countries such as Canada, United States of America and Indonesia have begun implementing regulations on UAV arrangement. However, not all countries regulate the UAV as its national law. The example of such country in India. This is done because the Indian government considers that UAV is very dangerous. This proves that there should be an international written rule on a basic rule concerning the regulation and operation of the UAV so as to continue the objective of article 44 of the Chicago Conventions of 1944 which states that all flights must prioritize security and safety. Keywords: Urgency, UAV Arrangement, International Air Law
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".