ASPEK HUKUM KEDAULATAN DI RUANG UDARA \nATAS PENEMBAKAN PS752 BERBENDERA \nUKRAINA OLEH IRAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana penegakan hukum \nInternasional berdasarkan kedaulatan negara dan untuk mengetahui status \nperlindungan hukum atas pesawat PS752 Ukraina yang ditembak Iran berdasarkan \nkonvensi Internasional. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif \ndengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach). Hasil \npenelitian ini: (1). Penggunaan senjata terhadap penerbangan sipil tidak \ndiperbolehkan meskipun pesawat sipil tersebut dianggap sebagai ancaman \nataupun melanggar kedaulatan yang dimiliki oleh negara kolong. Ketentuan Pasal \n1 Konvensi Chicago, tidak berarti membenarkan Iran menembak jatuh pesawat \nUkraina tersebut, walaupun dianggap ancaman, sebagaimana telah diatur dalam \nPasal 3 Bis yang mengutamakan kemanusiaan. (2). Dalam kasus penembakan \npesawat Ukraina PS752 yang dilakukan oleh Iran, telah melanggar beberapa \nperaturan/konvensi internasional yang baik secara implisit maupun eksplisit telah \nmemberikan perlindungan keamanan bagi pesawat sipil. Adapun aturan yang telah \ndilanggar adalah sebagai berikut: a) Pasal 89 Konvensi Chicago 1944, b) Pasal 44 \nkonvensi Chicago 1944, c) Pasal 3 Bis Protokol Montreal 1984, d) Pasal 51 ayat \n(4) Protokol Tambahan 1 1977 Konvensi Jenewa 1949, dan e) Pasal 52 ayat (2) \nProtokol Tambahan 1 1977 Konvensi Jenewa 1949. \nKata Kunci: Kedaulatan, Wilayah, Ruang Udara, Pesawat Sipil, dan Konvensi \n Chicago 1944
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.006 |
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".