Internalization of International Human Rights Law

2. The DPR must give its approval before the President can make any other international agreements that require changes or the creation of laws and that fundamentally affect the lives of the people, particularly those that deal with the state's financial burden.

3. The law governs additional information about international agreements.

On the other hand, the dualism view is a theory that contends that domestic and international law are independent legal systems that operate separately of one another. The following are some arguments in favor of the dualism approach:

1. There are distinctions between the sources of national and international law; the former derives from state will, while the latter comes from the collective agreement (gemeinswille) of states;  

2. National and international law deal with distinct topics. While the subject of international law is restricted to nations, that of national law encompasses individuals in both the civil and public law domains;

3.  National and international legal structures differ as legal systems do. Only within the framework of national law do complete law-implementing institutions (executive, judicial, and legislative) exist. Furthermore, national law is independent of international law in terms of its applicability or validity; in other words, national law can be implemented successfully even in situations where it conflicts with international law. 

The dualistic perspective has important ramifications. First, a legal system's tenets cannot come from or be predicated on another legal system. Because national and international law are not dependent on one another, no hierarchy can be established between them. Second, the two legal systems cannot clash with one another. Third, provisions of international law must be translated into national law in order for them to have legal force at the national level. 

 The dualistic perspective has important ramifications. First, a legal system's tenets cannot come from or be predicated on another legal system. Because national and international law are not dependent on one another, no hierarchy can be established between them. Second, the two legal systems cannot clash with one another. Third, provisions of international law must be translated into national law in order for them to have legal force at the national level.  

The dualist argument is, however, inherently dubious. The scope of international law has evolved to include more than just states. Nowadays, a wide range of entities are covered by international law, including private citizens, non-independent territories, national minorities, international organizations and organs, and rebel groups. Finally, international law retains the authority to regulate individuals within nations, despite the fact that the field of law is still evolving. 

Structural distinctions between national and international legal systems are merely expressions of varying degrees of integration between national and international societies. The extent of national law has advanced to a new degree. The Law Number 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights and Law Number 26 of 2000 concerning Human Rights Courts serve as the foundation for the protection and upholding of Human Rights in Indonesia.