The principle of non-refoulement in international law obliges states to refrain from returning refugees to places where they face persecution. Indonesia, as a state that upholds human rights, has applied this principle in receiving Rohingya refugees who are displaced from their country of origin. Nevertheless, its implementation encounters tensions between international obligations, national interests, and human rights considerations. This study aims to examine how international law influences Indonesia’s response to the Rohingya refugee situation and to analyze the government’s stance in balancing these competing interests. A mixed-method approach is employed, combining empirical research through focus group discussions and interviews with normative analysis of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings indicate that, despite not ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, Indonesia continues to adhere to the non-refoulement principle. However, regulatory improvements are necessary, particularly regarding Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016, to ensure fulfillment of refugees’ basic rights and adequate financial support, especially in Aceh. In conclusion, Indonesia must adopt prudent legal reforms to strengthen legal certainty, protect refugee rights, and balance international, national, and humanitarian interests effectively. Such measures will also enhance coordination among institutions, improve policy implementation, and promote sustainable humanitarian governance in addressing future refugee challenges comprehensively nationwide.
Electronic Monitoring (EM) constitutes a sophisticated surveillance mechanism that epitomizes technological advancements within the legal sphere and acts as a feasible substitute for conventional detention practices. Nations such as South Korea have adeptly incorporated EM into a meticulously designed, community-centric training framework. Indonesia is encouraged to adopt EM; however, the effective realization of this initiative necessitates alterations to the prevailing legal and social infrastructure. This research endeavors to investigate the feasibility of EM implementation in Indonesia through a comparative analysis with the established framework in South Korea, focusing particularly on the alignment of correctional institutions, technological systems, and community engagement. Employing a comparative judicial methodology, this study assesses the legal framework, institutional arrangements, and operational procedures pertaining to EM in both jurisdictions. Findings indicate that South Korea has established a comprehensive national framework for EM, supported by centralised monitoring facilities located in Seoul and Daejeon, regional parole offices, and coordinated oversight in conjunction with law enforcement agencies. In contrast, Indonesia's correctional system remains hampered by fragmented regulatory measures, inadequate institutional collaboration, and limited technological capabilities. The lack of EM as a formally recognised legal instrument limits alternative sentencing options and exacerbates prison overcrowding. This study concludes that Indonesia requires legislative reform, capital investment in monitoring infrastructure, and enhanced inter-agency collaboration to facilitate the effective implementation of EM.
Indonesia has used an open-list proportional representation system since the 2009 election to strengthen voter-representative linkage and internal party democratization. Yet persistent issues such as money politics, vote-buying, intra-party fragmentation, and low accountability of legislators question whether the system effectively converts voter choice into representative governance. This research diagnoses the performance of Indonesia’s open-list PR system through juridical analysis, focusing on its legal framework, implementation challenges, and compatibility with constitutional principles of popular sovereignty and fair representation. This research is normative juridical research using statutory, conceptual and case approach. The main sources are the Constitution 1945, Law No. 7/2017 on Elections and rulings of the Constitutional Court. Secondary Materials include academic literature and election reports 2009-2024. The results indicate that although the system legally broadens the choice of the voter, its effectiveness is compromised by the inadequate party institutionalisation, the loopholes in the regulation of campaign finance and the inconsistent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on election thresholds. It prioritizes individual popularity over party ideology, resulting in weak legislative cohesion. Conclusions that can be drawn are that the open-list system in Indonesia requires substantive reform through stricter campaign finance regulation, stronger internal party mechanisms, and a coherent constitutional interpretation to improve electoral accountability and systemic performance.
Achieving judicial fairness requires harmonizing legal texts with evolving societal realities. This research aims to explore the factors that enhance the fairness of judicial rulings by analyzing the interplay between abstract legal texts and practical reality. The method used involves a comparative analytical approach between modern legal systems and Islamic Sharia, supplemented by a review of judicial precedents. The results obtained indicate that legislative coherence and judicial discretion are critical for aligning rulings with justice objectives. Specifically, the study finds that rigid procedural adherence often undermines equity, whereas flexible interpretation grounded in contextual circumstances enhances fairness. Conclusions that can be drawn emphasize the necessity of developing legislative mechanisms that balance stability with equity, alongside promoting judicial transparency.
Indonesia, recognized as a significant maritime nation, documented a capture fisheries output of 7.7 million tonnes in the year 2023, positioning it among the foremost producers globally. Notwithstanding its substantial economic prospects, the well-being of coastal fishing communities remains suboptimal, signifying an enduring disparity between the wealth derived from marine resources and the prevailing social conditions. This research endeavors to furnish a contemporary examination of this incongruity by exploring the divergence between Indonesia's fisheries potential and the impoverishment faced by fishermen. Employing a legal-empirical framework, this investigation scrutinizes pertinent policies and integrates interviews with fishers from the Pekalongan, Juwana, and Tegal locales. The findings indicate that numerous fishing households exist in vulnerable conditions attributable to inadequate fisheries governance, resource overexploitation, and limited access to essential infrastructure and services, including education and healthcare. The activities of economically and politically hegemonic entities exacerbate the marginalization of fishers, while bureaucratic inefficiencies and corruption at both local and national strata obstruct enhancements in welfare. These inequities hinder social and economic advancement, posing a threat of ecological degradation and jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of marine resources. The research posits that the resolution of these challenges necessitates comprehensive and coordinated strategies that amalgamate economic, social, and environmental objectives within the paradigm of coastal development.
