Mimbar Hukum
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH
<p>Welcome to the official website of Mimbar Hukum, where we aspire to contribute to the dialectics of theory and philosophy of law. With the spirit of further proliferation of knowledge on the legal system in Indonesia to the wider communities, this website provides journal articles for free download. Our academic journal is a source of reference for both law academics and legal practitioners.</p> <p>Mimbar Hukum is a double-blind review academic journal for Legal Studies published by Journal and Publication Unit of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, periodically published (in June and December).</p>Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Madaen-USMimbar Hukum0852-100X<p>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</p> <ul> <li class="show">Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" target="_new">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li> </ul> <ul> <li class="show">Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li> </ul> <ul> <li class="show">Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.</li> </ul>Sufficiency and the Shifting Dynamics of Efficiency: A Political Economy and Jurisprudence Review
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/18391
<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>Sufficiency is a concept that challenges efficiency, a rational consequence that hitherto grows within the logic of capitalism. Without efficiency, the structure of capitalism collapses, as it has become the ontological prerequisite sustaining the structure of production, distribution, and accumulation of capital; Contrarily, efficiency leads to the collapse of the Earth’s systems, as it inherently overlooks ecological boundaries and fails to recognize the limits of nature as a fundamental principle in economic activity. This article examines, from a normative perspective, the transformative potential of sufficiency through an epistemic assertion within political economy and jurisprudence. It explores how this concept can redefine the relationship between economics, ethics, and ecology, advocating for a more balanced approach to socio-ecological justice that benefits both humans and nature.</p> <p><strong>Intisari</strong></p> <p>Sufisiensi adalah sebuah konsep yang menantang prinsip efisiensi, sebuah konsekuensi rasional yang sampai saat ini tumbuh dalam logika kapitalisme. Tanpa efisiensi, struktur kapitalisme akan runtuh, karena telah menjadi prasyarat ontologis yang menopang struktur produksi, distribusi, dan akumulasi kapital; sebaliknya, efisiensi menyebabkan runtuhnya sistem bumi karena secara inheren mengabaikan batas-batas ekologis dan gagal mengenali batas-batas alam sebagai prinsip fundamental dalam aktivitas ekonomi. Artikel ini mengkaji, dari perspektif normatif, potensi transformatif dari konsep sufisiensi melalui argumentasi epistemik dalam ekonomi politik dan filsafat hukum. Artikel ini mengeksplorasi bagaimana konsep sufisiensi dapat mendefinisikan kembali hubungan antara ekonomi, etika, dan ekologi, mengadvokasi pendekatan yang lebih setimbang terhadap keadilan sosio-ekologis bagi manusia dan alam. </p>Muhammad Syarahil Mutianwar EfendiReza Ilham Maulana
Copyright (c) 2025 Muhammad Syarahil Mutianwar Efendi, Reza Ilham Maulana
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-062025-06-0637113210.22146/mh.v37i1.18391Patologi Ruang Publik dalam Gerakan Perjuangan Hak Atas Lingkungan oleh Masyarakat
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/19498
<p><strong><em>Abstract</em></strong></p> <p><em>This article aims to uncover the pathology in public participation practices using Habermas's concept of deliberative democracy as well as examine the rationality of the actors involved in public participation activities in environmental affairs. Next, an answer will be given on how decisions should be made in a sketch of a healthy public sphere and procedural environmental justice. This research blends juridical and philosophical approaches. The results of this research show that there is still a pathology in the public sphere in the form of the dominance of instrumental ratios that lead to strategic action, the closure of space for practical discourse, and the stuttering in sorting out the idea of the good and the idea of the right. To overcome these problems, decision-making must take place in an open public sphere and guarantee freedom of expression, access to participation, and the right to examine each other's claims so that the resulting consensus is truly legitimate and intersubjectively acceptable.</em></p> <p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p> <p>Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengungkap patologi dalam praktik-praktik partisipasi publik menggunakan konsep demokrasi deliberatif dari Habermas sekaligus menguji rasionalitas dari para aktor yang terlibat dalam aktivitas partisipasi publik dalam urusan lingkungan hidup. Selanjutnya, akan diberikan jawaban tentang bagaimana seharusnya keputusan dibuat dalam sketsa ruang publik yang sehat dan berkeadilan lingkungan prosedural. Penelitian ini memadukan pendekatan yuridis dan filosofis. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa masih terdapat patologi dalam ruang publik berupa dominasi rasio instrumental yang mengarah kepada tindakan strategis, tertutupnya ruang untuk melakukan diskursus praktis, dan adanya kegagapan dalam memilah the idea of the good dan the idea of the right. Untuk mengatasi problem yang terjadi, keputusan harus dibuat di ruang publik yang terbuka dan terdapat jaminan terhadap kebebasan mengeluarkan pendapat, akses partisipasi, dan hak untuk saling menguji klaim-klaim yang ada agar konsensus yang dihasilkan benar-benar legitim dan dapat diterima secara intersubjektif.</p>RidwanMuhamad Agil Aufa Afinnas
Copyright (c) 2025 Ridwan, Muhamad Agil Aufa Afinnas
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-112025-06-11371335410.22146/mh.v37i1.19498Criticizing the Political System and the Normativity Foundations Through Joseph Raz's Legal and Philosophical Thought
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/20234
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p style="font-weight: 400;">This article explores constitutional legitimacy through the legal and philosophical lens of Joseph Raz, focusing on the dynamic relationship between political systems, normative reasoning, and public justification. Raz contends that legal authority cannot rely solely on institutional power or formal procedures; it must be supported by reasons that individuals can endorse as morally and rationally acceptable. This insight is especially relevant to constitutional interpretation, where judges must navigate between textual fidelity, evolving democratic norms, and political pressures. Divided into four key discussions, the article first traces<br><em>the foundations of Raz’s legal philosophy and its political context. Then, it examines the political system, public reason, and judicial interpretation in Raz’s framework. The third section focuses on the normativity foundations in Raz’s legal and political philosophy landscape. Finally, the article applies these insights to the Indonesian context, where constitutional judging faces challenges from politicized reason justification. Using a philosophical-legal method, this article argues that a Razian approach can help preserve public trust and legal legitimacy by grounding judges to act not only with legal precision but also with ethical discernment, civic responsibility, and publicly justifiable norms rather than in institutional dominance.</em></p> <p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>Abstrak</strong></p> <p style="font-weight: 400;">Artikel ini menyajikan analisis tentang legitimasi konstitusi melalui pendekatan hukum dan filsafat Joseph Raz, dengan menyoroti hubungan antara sistem politik, alasan normatif, dan pembenaran publik. Raz berpendapat bahwa otoritas hukum tidak dapat semata-mata didasarkan pada kekuasaan institusional atau prosedur formal, melainkan harus dibangun atas dasar alasan yang dapat diterima secara moral dan rasional oleh masyarakat. Pandangan ini sangat relevan dalam praktik interpretasi konstitusi, khususnya di negara seperti Indonesia, di mana tekanan politik kerap memengaruhi proses pengambilan keputusan yudisial. Artikel<br>ini terbagi dalam empat bagian utama. Bagian pertama membahas dasar-dasar filsafat hukum Raz dan konteks politiknya. Bagian kedua mengkaji konsep sistem politik, nalar publik, and interpretasi yudisial dalam kerangka pemikiran filosofis Raz. Bagian ketiga mengulas fondasi normativitas dalam acuan pemikiran filsafat<br>hukum dan politik Raz. Bagian keempat menerapkan pemikiran Raz untuk menelaah situasi Indonesia, di mana penegakan konstitusi menghadapi ragam tantangan yaitu justifikasi alasan yang dipolitisasi. Dengan menggunakan metode penelitian filsafat dalam kerangka philosophical-legal, artikel ini menunjukkan<br>bahwa pendekatan Raz dapat membantu menjaga kepercayaan publik dan legitimasi hukum dengan membumikan hakim harus bertindak tidak hanya berdasarkan presisi hukum tetapi dengan kearifan etis, tanggung jawab sipil, dan norma-norma yang dapat dibenarkan secara publik daripada dalam dominasi kelembagaan.</p>Artha Debora Silalahi
Copyright (c) 2025 Artha Debora Silalahi
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-112025-06-11371558210.22146/mh.v37i1.20234Independensi Kekuasaan Kehakiman Dalam Menjatuhkan Putusan Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Undang-Undang Sebagai Perjanjian
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/18891
<p><em><strong>Abstract</strong></em></p> <p> </p> <p><em>Laws (UU) are understood as the manifestation of an agreement between the people, represented by the legislative body (House of Representatives), and the government, represented by the executive body. In a democratic system, the process of forming laws reflects the principles of deliberation and consensus, which aim to create a social, national, and state order. However, the role of the judicial branch in upholding justice is often reduced to merely enforcing laws. Regardless, judges are directly accountable to God under the principle of ‘Justice Based on the Almighty God’ in carrying their duties. This places the judicial power in a unique position, not only as an enforcer of laws but also as an interpreter of justice that must be independent from the influence of the executive and legislative branches. In this context, a fundamental challenge arises: how can judges uphold true justice when laws, as products of agreements between the executive and legislative branches, do not always reflect the substantive values of justice expected by society? Therefore, judicial independence is essential to ensure that decisions are not merely an implementation of the text of the law, but also reflect the justice that exists in society. The principle of checks and balances is not merely about the division of power, but also about how the judicial branch can fulfil its role as an independent guardian of justice in a legal context that is often biased towards political and economic interests.</em></p> <p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p> <p>Undang-Undang (UU) dipahami sebagai manifestasi perjanjian antara rakyat yang diwakili oleh lembaga legislatif (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat) dan pemerintah yang diwakili oleh lembaga eksekutif. Dalam sistem demokrasi, proses pembentukan UU mencerminkan prinsip musyawarah dan kesepakatan yang bertujuan untuk menciptakan tata kehidupan bermasyarakat, berbangsa, dan bernegara. Namun, peran kekuasaan kehakiman (Yudisial) dalam menegakkan keadilan sering kali tereduksi menjadi sekadar penerap undang-undang, padahal dalam menjalankan tugasnya, hakim bertanggung jawab langsung kepada Tuhan dengan prinsip "Demi Keadilan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa." Ini menempatkan kekuasaan Yudisial dalam posisi yang unik, tidak hanya sebagai pelaksana undang-undang, tetapi juga sebagai penafsir keadilan yang harus bebas dari pengaruh eksekutif dan legislatif. Dalam konteks ini, muncul tantangan mendasar: bagaimana hakim dapat menegakkan keadilan sejati ketika undang-undang sebagai produk perjanjian antara kekuasaan eksekutif dan legislatif tidak selalu mencerminkan nilai-nilai keadilan substantif yang diharapkan oleh masyarakat. Oleh karena itu, independensi hakim menjadi esensial dalam memastikan bahwa putusan yang dihasilkan tidak sekadar mengimplementasikan teks undang-undang, tetapi juga mencerminkan keadilan yang hidup dalam masyarakat. Prinsip check and balance bukan hanya soal pembagian kekuasaan, tetapi juga soal bagaimana kekuasaan kehakiman mampu menjalankan perannya sebagai penjaga keadilan yang independen dalam konteks hukum yang sering kali bias terhadap kepentingan politik dan ekonomi.</p>Dharma Setiawan NegaraErwin Susilo
Copyright (c) 2025 Dharma Setiawan Negara, Erwin Susilo
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-112025-06-113718310610.22146/mh.v37i1.18891The Peredaran Narkotika Global: Respon Hukum Terhadap Perempuan yang Terjebak Sebagai Kurir Ditinjau Berdasarkan Feminist Legal Theory
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/12583
<p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p> <p>Penelitian ini membahas peredaran narkotika lintas negara yang melibatkan Perempuan sebagai kurir yang mengantarkan narkotika dari satu negara ke negara lain. Peristiwa ini kerap terjadi karena adanya ketidaksetaraan gender, relasi kuasa yang timpang, faktor ekonomi dan kerentanan perempuan yang dimanfaatkan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui sejauh mana keterlibatan perempuan dalam peredaran narkotika pada lintas negara dan sejauh mana respons hukum internasional dan regional pada kawasan ASEAN terhadap perdagangan narkotika. Studi ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dengan menganalisis konvensi internasional dan pengaturan tingkat ASEAN yang kemudian dianalisis dengan <em>Feminist Legal Theory</em>. Keterlibatan perempuan sebagai kurir narkotika lintas negara terjadi dengan berbagai modus, proses perekrutan hingga eksekusi yang terorganisasi dan tak jarang mereka terjerat dari hukuman yang berat. Konvensi Internasional setidaknya telah berperspektif gender dengan membahas keterlibatan perempuan sebagai kurir. Namun, pengaturan di tingkat ASEAN masih sangat umum. Begitu pula penanganan yang dilakukan negara anggota ASEAN yang belum berperspektif gender sehingga menempatkan perempuan sebagai kurir termasuk pelaku perdagangan narkotika global.</p> <p><strong>Abstract</strong></p> <p>This research discusses cross-border drug trafficking involving women as couriers who deliver drugs from one country to another. This incident often occurs due to gender inequality, unequal power relations, economic factors, and the vulnerability of exploited women. This study aims to determine the extent of women’s involvement in cross-border drug trafficking and the extent of international and regional legal responses in the ASEAN region to drug trafficking. This study is normative legal research using a statutory approach by analyzing international conventions and ASEAN regional regulations, which are then analyzed with Feminist Legal Theory. The involvement of women as transnational drug couriers occurs in various modes, the recruitment process to execution is organized, and often they are caught and face severe penalties. International conventions have at least taken a gender perspective by addressing the involvement of women as couriers. However, arrangements at the ASEAN level are still very general. Likewise, the handling carried out by ASEAN member states has not yet taken a gender perspective, thus placing women as couriers, including the perpetrators of the global narcotics trade.</p>Dita Gusnawati
Copyright (c) 2025 Dita Gusnawati
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-132025-06-1337110714110.22146/mh.v37i1.12583Navigating Legitimacy and Authority: The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Provisional Measures in Ukraine v. Russia
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/20960
<p><em><strong>Abstract</strong></em></p> <p><em>International maritime disputes involving geopolitical tensions test the legitimacy and authority of tribunals like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). This article examines ITLOS’ provisional measures order in Ukraine v. Russia (2019) to assess how the Tribunal balances procedural fairness with enforcement challenges in politically charged disputes. Employing qualitative legal analysis, the study dissects ITLOS’ reliance on state consent and procedural integrity as pillars of its normative legitimacy, while evaluating its de facto authority through state participation and compliance. The article argues that ITLOS’ strict adherence to UNCLOS provisions reinforces its normative legitimacy, yet gaps in enforcement–exemplified by Russia’s partial compliance–reveal the limits of its authority in high-stakes conflicts. By contextualizing the case within broader debates on international adjudication, the analysis demonstrates how ITLOS’ procedural rigor mitigates non-participation risks but struggles to overcome power asymmetries. The study concludes with pragmatic reforms, including clarified jurisdictional guidelines, advisory opinions, and collaborations, to bolster ITLOS’ role in maritime dispute resolution. These findings illuminate the evolving challenges faced by international courts in reconciling legal principles with geopolitical realities.</em></p> <p><strong>Abstrak</strong></p> <p>Sengketa maritim yang melibatkan ketegangan geopolitik menguji legitimasi dan otoritas lembaga peradilan seperti Pengadilan Internasional untuk Hukum Laut atau the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). Artikel ini menganalisis tindakan sementara ITLOS dalam Ukraina v. Russia (2019) untuk menilai bagaimana Pengadilan menyeimbangkan keadilan prosedural dengan tantangan penegakan hukum dalam sengketa politis. Melalui analisis hukum kualitatif, studi ini mengkaji ketergantungan ITLOS pada persetujuan negara dan integritas prosedural sebagai pilar legitimasi normatif, sekaligus mengevaluasi otoritas de-facto-nya melalui partisipasi dan kepatuhan negara. Artikel ini berargumen bahwa kepatuhan ITLOS pada UNCLOS memperkuat legitimasi normatifnya, tetapi celah penegakan–ditunjukkan oleh kepatuhan parsial Rusia–mengungkap batasan otoritasnya dalam konflik berisiko tinggi. Dengan mengkontekstualkan kasus ini dalam debat peradilan internasional, analisis menunjukkan bahwa ketelitian prosedural ITLOS mengurangi risiko ketidakhadiran pihak, namun belum mampu mengatasi asimetri kekuasaan. Studi ini merekomendasikan reformasi pragmatis, termasuk panduan yang mengklarifikasi yurisdiksi, pandangan hukum, dan kerjasama, untuk memperkuat peran ITLOS. Temuan ini menyoroti tantangan yang dihadapi pengadilan internasional dalam memadukan prinsip hukum dengan realitas geopolitik.</p>Hanif Ardiningrum Khansa
Copyright (c) 2025 Hanif Ardiningrum Khansa
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-132025-06-1337114216710.22146/mh.v37i1.20960Doctor’s Legal Obligation to Act as a Good Samaritan in Indonesia: Is It Ethically Justifiable?
https://jurnal.ugm.ac.id/v3/MH/article/view/14708
<p> </p> <p><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><em>Abstract<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em></strong></p> <p><em>The Good Samaritan Law, which principles are widely implemented globally, were not applied under Indonesia’s legal framework. Instead of ensuring adequate legal protection for “the Good Samaritan,” Indonesian law enforces their obligations under threat of legal repercussions. The law is even stricter when the Good Samaritan is a doctor. Current regulations create dilemmas for doctors especially when facing emergency situations, torn between saving lives and avoiding legal consequences. To address this, our paper employs normative (doctrinal) legal research which proposes three solutions: Firstly, Indonesian law should adopt the comprehensive Good Samaritan Law model. Second, shifting burdens of proof from doctors to the complainants. Lastly, it is crucial to synchronize the mechanism to submit a complaint against doctors to the authoritative institutions. These aim to overcome the legal and ethical issues surrounding the obligations and protections for doctors acting as Good Samaritans in Indonesia.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></em></p> <p><strong><span class="Apple-converted-space">Abstrak</span></strong></p> <p> </p>Agathon HenryantoJessica Sylvanie Oswari
Copyright (c) 2025 Agathon Henryanto, Jessica Sylvanie Oswari
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
2025-06-152025-06-1537116819710.22146/mh.v37i1.14708