DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.51.3.2022.314-324

EMPAT PROBLEMATIK FILOSOFIS HUKUM DALAM DINAMIKA HUBUNGAN KEADILAN DAN KEPASTIAN

*Al. Andang L. Binawan  -  Program Pascasarjana, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract
Hukum adalah product penting kebudayaan manusia yang juga menggenggam persoalan filosofis. Banyak pemikir berusaha memaparkannya, termasuk H.L.A. Hart. Pokok-pokok persoalan filosofis penting itu antara lain muncul dalam tarik-menarik antara tujuan keadilan dan kepastiannya, seperti dalam adagium “Summum ius, summa iniuria“. Selalu ada upaya untuk memahami dan meredakan ketegangan, tetapi setiap upaya selalu menggendong persoalan filosofis­nya. Artikel ini berusaha memetakan persoalan-per­soalan filosofis itu supaya alur dan dinamika perdebatannya lebih mudah diikuti. Pro­blematik yang muncul dari hubungan antara tujuan keadilan dan kepastian itu -yang akan disebut sebagai ‚sudut sempit‘, berbeda dengan ‚sudut luas‘-nya H.L.A. Hart- dipetakan dalam dimensi ‚waktu‘ alur hidupnya suatu hukum. Dari sudut sempit ini, akan tampak empat pro­ble­­matik filosofis. Pencermatan problematik filosofis ini penting terutama untuk memahami bahwa tidak ada hukum yang sempurna, sehingga perlu terus-menerus dicermati agar lebih mencapai tujuan dasarnya.
Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Problematik Filosofis Hukum; Kepastian; Keadilan; Esensi Hukum; Tafsir Hukum; Ketidakcukupan Hukum

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : ID
Recent articles
PARTISIPASI BANK INDONESIA DALAM PENGATURAN DIGITALISASI SISTEM PEMBAYARAN INDONESIA PENGUATAN REGULASI: UPAYA PERCEPATAN TRANSFORMASI DIGITAL PERBANKAN DI ERA EKONOMI DIGITAL BITCOIN SEBAGAI ASET DEBITOR PAILIT DALAM HUKUM KEPAILITAN DI INDONESIA More recent articles
Most cited articles
UPAYA PERLINDUNGAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA DALAM PEMBINAAN NARAPIDANA ANAK (STUDI DI LEMBAGA PEMASYARAKATAN KLAS II B ANAK PONTIANAK) MARRIAGE LAW AND DIVORCE BASED ON ADAT LAW IN BALI INDEKS PRINSIP MOST FAVOURED NATIONS DAN PENGECUALIANNYA DALAM WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO) URGENSI HUKUM PERIZINAN DAN PENEGAKANNYA SEBAGAI SARANA PENCEGAHAN PENCEMARAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP More cited articles
  1. Apeldoorn, L. . J. Van. (1978). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita
  2. Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics. Kitchener: Batoche books
  3. Bello, P. C. (2012). the Controversy About the Essence of Law: a Dispute Between Hart and Dworkin. Indonesia Law Review, 2(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v2n1.11
  4. Buckholtz, J. W., & Marois, R. (2012). The Roots Of Modern Justice: Cognitive And Neural Foundations Of Social Norms And Their Enforcement. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 655–661
  5. Callister, P. D. (2017). What is meant by ‘evaluation’? Pace Law Review Volume, 37(2), 507–550. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847429162.ch002
  6. Cotterrell, R. (2019). Access To Justice, Moral Distance And Changing Demands On Law. In Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice (Vol. 36). https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v36i0.6420
  7. Cross, F. B. (2007). Identifying the Virtues of the Common Law. In Law and Economics Working Paper No. 063 (No. 063). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.812464
  8. Čufar, K. (2021). Pure theory’s deconstruction. European Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 155–186. https://doi.org/10.2924/EJLS.2019.044
  9. Darmodiharjo, Darji, & Shidarta. (2004). Pokok-pokok Filsafat Hukum: Apa dan Bagaimana Filsafat Hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
  10. Deakin, S. (2015). Juridical Ontology : The Evolution of Legal Form. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 40(1), 170–184
  11. Delaney, D. (2001). Semantic ecology and lexical violence: nature at the limits of law. Law Text Culture, 5(2), 77–112
  12. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
  13. Endicott, T. A. O. (1998). Herbert Hart and the Semantic Sting. Legal Theory, 4(3), 283–300
  14. Finnis, J. (2014). What is the Philosophy of Law? The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 59(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auu012
  15. Finnis, J. (2016). Judicial Power: Past, Present and Future (No. 2/2016)
  16. Folarin, P., & Sobola, E. (2019). Language of law: Imperative for linguistic simplicity. Journal of Research Findings/Revue, 2(2), 268–285. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24296.08960
  17. Gaus, G. (2018). Theoretical Considerations: The Complexity of a Diverse Moral Order. The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 16, 645–680
  18. Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. London: Profile Books
  19. Gkouvas, T., & Follow. (2018). The Nature of Legal Interpretation: What Jurists Can Learn about Legal Interpretation from Linguistics and Philosophy. International Dialogue, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226445168.001.0001
  20. Hart, H. L. A. (1983). Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  21. Heller, A. (2000). The Complexity of Justice : A Challenge to the 21st Century. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 3(3), 247–262
  22. Indarti, E. (2018). Progressive Law Revealed : a Legal Philosophical Overview. Diponegoro Law Review, 03(01), 28–42
  23. Kincaid, E. R. (2019). The virtue of equity and the contemporary world. Journal of Moral Theology, 8(Special Issue 2), 114–133
  24. Kretzmann, N. (1988). Lex Iniusta Non est Lex - Laws on Trial in Aquinas’ Court of Conscience. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 33(99), 99
  25. Latipulhayat, A. (2014). Roscoe Pound. PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 1(2), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v1n2.a12
  26. Leiter, B. (2021). Back to Hart. Anali Pravnog Fakulteta u Beogradu, 69(4), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfub_21401a
  27. Mandel, G. N. (2007). History Lessons for a General Theory of Law and Technology. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 8, 551–570
  28. Manzanares, J. V. (2014). Cognitive Linguistics and the Law. Anuari De Filologia. Estudis De Lingüística, 4, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1344/afel2014.1.10
  29. Marilang, M. (2017). Menimbang Paradigma Keadilan Hukum Progresif. Jurnal Konstitusi, 14(2), 315. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1424
  30. Marmor, A. (2014). Philosophy of Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press
  31. Pankova, O., & Migachev, Y. (2020). Justice in the contemporary world. BRICS Law Journal, 7(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-1-119-147
  32. Rahardjo, S. (1977). Aneka persoalan hukum dan masyarakat. Bandung: Alumni
  33. Rahayu, M. K. (2018). Sengketa Mazhab Hukum – Sintesis Berbagai Mazhab dalam Pemikiran Hukum. Jakarta: Penerbit Kompas
  34. Review, L. L., & Massey, C. (2007). The Constitution in a Postmodem Age. Washington and Lee Law Review, 64(1)
  35. Ryan, M. (2022). The Limits of Law and AI. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 90(3), 923–950
  36. Shai, I. (2019). Radical transformation and the limits of law. Acta Academica, 51(1), 144–162. https://doi.org/10.18820/24150479/aa51i1.8
  37. Spaak, T. (2017). Legal Positivism, Conventionalism, and The Normativity of Law. Jurisprudence: An International Journal of Legal and Political Thought, 9(2), 1–26
  38. Spaak, Torben. (2021). Legal philosophy and the study of legal reasoning. Belgrade Law Review, 69(4), 795–811. https://doi.org/10.51204/anali_pfbu_21405a
  39. Stewart, J. G. (2019). Demystifying Critical Legal Studies. The University of Adelaide
  40. Thoreau, H. D. (2014). Civil Disobedience. Utah: Libertas Institute
  41. Torre, M. La, Hull, C., Model, T. H., & Hart, H. L. A. (2007). The Hierarchical Model and H . L . A . Hart ’ s Concept of Law. ARSP: Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie / Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 93(1), 82–100
  42. Unger, R. M. (1996). What Should Legal Analysis Become? New York: Verso
  43. Vega, J. (2018). Legal philosophy as practical philosophy. Revus Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law / Revija Za Ustavno Teorijo in Filozofijo Prava, (34). https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.3859
  44. Visser, P. R. S., & Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (1998). A Comparison of Four Ontologies for the Design of Legal Knowledge Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008251913710
  45. Wignjosoebroto, S. (2003). Hukum: Paradigma, Metode Dan Dinamika Masalahnya (Ifdhal Kasim dkk, Ed.). Jakarta: ELSAM-HUMA
  46. Zain, Z. M., & Yusoff, M. A. (2017). Civil Disobedience: Concept and Practice. Asian Social Science, 13(8), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n8p129

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-06-28 01:37:07

No citation recorded.