The doctrine of universal jurisdiction is widely recognized as a key legal mechanism for addressing impunity for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious international crimes. However, its contemporary implementation has increasingly been criticized for selective enforcement, political instrumentalization, and inconsistent accountability, thereby generating a significant legitimacy deficit within the international legal order. This study aims to reconstruct the normative foundation of universal jurisdiction through the framework of Maqāṣid al-Sharī‘ah and classical Siyar (Islamic international law) in order to strengthen its ethical legitimacy and promote a more consistent model of global justice. This research employs normative legal methods, integrating doctrinal, conceptual, comparative, and qualitative content analysis approaches. The findings demonstrate that the current practice of universal jurisdiction is structurally constrained by selective enforcement and geopolitical asymmetries, which undermine its claim to universality. Furthermore, this study clarifies the strict doctrinal divide between municipal universal jurisdiction operating via custom and the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) treaty-based jurisdiction and the study finds that four core maqāṣid principles ḥifẓ al-nafs (protection of life), al-ʿadālah (justice), al-musāwāh (equality), and al-maṣlaḥah al-ʿāmmah (public welfare) provide a coherent normative framework for evaluating and reconstructing universal jurisdiction. These principles establish clear ethical criteria for non-selective enforcement, equal protection of victims, and enhanced accountability beyond geopolitical interests. The study concludes that Maqāṣid al-Sharī‘ah functions not merely as a theological-legal doctrine, but as a universal normative framework capable of reinforcing the legitimacy of international criminal justice. Based on these findings, the article proposes a Maqāṣid-Based Universal Jurisdiction Model to promote a more consistent, impartial, and human-centered system of global accountability.
Prior scholarship has tended to treat post-Islamism and religious moderation as distinct subjects, giving insufficient focus to the ways their interplay influences democratic strengthening and political change within Indonesia. This research explores links between post-Islamism and religious moderation within Indonesia’s changing Islamic political sphere. It further investigates how post-Islamist thought reinforces moderation in religion by promoting inclusive values, democratic principles, and tolerance. Empirical site investigation, together with scholarly source analysis, forms the interpretive design employed in the inquiry. Beginning with the interaction among political authority, administrative institutions, and Islamic mass organizations, three forms of leadership collectively contribute to fostering a moderate social order. In Indonesia, the post-Islamist era is further reinforced through the presence of religious moderation, which, in turn, deepens its influence. By upholding the rejection of radicalism alongside the cultivation of tolerance and appreciation of diversity, religious moderation highlights respect for differences. At the same time, post-Islamism opens an ideological transformation space that advances the recognition of democracy, human rights, and pluralistic values. Such dynamics ultimately establish the basis for a more adaptive, inclusive, and moderate governance structure and also shape harmonious interactions between Muslim and non-Muslim communities within diverse societies. The results demonstrate a reciprocal and strengthening linkage between religious moderation and post-Islamist thought in forming democratic participation and inclusive political behavior. Through engagements among state institutions, Islamic civil society organizations, and political parties, a holistic model is introduced in this research that connects democratic consolidation, religious moderation, and post-Islamism, thereby adding value to scholarly discussions.
The cancellation of fiduciary security registration (roya) remains a recurring legal issue in Indonesia due to creditors’ failure to deregister fiduciary guarantees following debt settlement. The lack of effective sanctions for non-compliance generates legal uncertainty and undermines debtor protection. This study aims to analyze the normative weaknesses in the regulation of fiduciary security deletion and to formulate a strengthened legal framework based on legal certainty and debtor protection principles. This study adopts a normative juridical approach employing statutory and conceptual analyses. Legal materials were examined through library research and complemented by interviews with relevant practitioners and government officials to provide contextual insights into the implementation of fiduciary security deletion. The data were analyzed qualitatively using legal interpretation and doctrinal analysis.The findings reveal that although the obligation to delete fiduciary security has been regulated by law, its implementation remains ineffective due to the lack of explicit sanction provisions for non-compliant creditors. This study contributes by proposing a reformulation of fiduciary security regulations through clearer creditor obligations, the imposition of administrative and civil sanctions, and stronger supervisory mechanisms. The implications are intended for lawmakers, government agencies, and financing companies to strengthen compliance and legal certainty in fiduciary security practices.
This study seeks to elucidate the complexities surrounding the concept of the five pillars of the household within Mubādalah theory through the lens of Michel Foucault’s power relations. It employs a qualitative field-based design with an exploratory orientation. Data were gathered through observation, in-depth interviews with informants, and document analysis, followed by procedures to ensure the validity and credibility of the findings. The results indicate, first, that Mubādalah theory tends to presume that reciprocal relations can be established primarily through normative knowledge. As a consequence, mutual conduct is often assumed to emerge organically, without sufficient attention to the fact that shifts in power relations also require structural transformation and sensitivity to variations in family types and dynamics. Second, although the framework prioritizes reciprocity and gender justice, these ideals frequently encounter local value systems that continue to privilege gender hierarchies. In practice, this tension often renders implementation contingent upon the moral orientation of the household head. These findings suggest that reciprocity within Mubādalah cannot be adequately understood as a purely normative construct. Rather, it needs to be situated within broader configurations of social structure and intra-family power dynamics. Accordingly, there is a need to further develop a more context-responsive approach to Mubādalah, one that takes into account structural conditions, local cultural contexts, and power relations, in order to enhance its effectiveness in advancing gender justice and equality.
This article looks at how the Hadhrami Arab community in the Dutch East Indies built Islamic legal responses to colonial citizenship across the 1914 to 1945 period. Using siyāsah syar‘iyyah as the main analytical framework, the study investigates the competing positions of Al-Rabithah al-Alawiyah and the Partai Arab Indonesia (PAI) in defining loyalty, homeland, and civic belonging. This research employs a historical-interpretative approach based on archival documents, colonial legal texts, organizational writings, newspapers, and relevant secondary literature. The findings show that being classified as Vreemde Oosterlingen pushed the Hadhramis toward two major legal-political responses. Al-Rabithah leaned into a transnational Muslim identity and ties to Hadhramaut as a way of holding onto religious autonomy under colonial rule. In contrast, PAI, led by the Peranakan Arab generation and represented by A. R. Baswedan, promoted integration into Indonesia as an Islamic and civic strategy for equality, security, and anti-colonial solidarity. This article adds to Islamic law and citizenship studies by showing that Hadhrami citizenship debates went beyond ethnic or political conflict, functioning instead as juridical negotiations over Islamic loyalty, public welfare, and national belonging.
