DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.54.2.2025.179-213

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAND COURT IN INDONESIA: REALIZING JUSTICE IN LAND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

*Abdul Wahid  -  Doctoral Program in Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Adi Sulistiyono  -  Doctoral Program in Law, Faculty of Law, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2025 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Agrarian disputes in Indonesia are highly complex, covering a range of issues such as customary and communal land rights, certificate disputes, conflicts between communities and corporations, and state land acquisition. These challenges are compounded by the inability of general courts to effectively address them due to overlapping jurisdictions, inadequate coordination, and a lack of technical expertise. Consequently, the resolution of land disputes is often delayed, leading to diminished public trust in the judicial system. Comparative studies from Brazil and New Zealand have shown that specialized land courts can enhance efficiency, consistency, and the protection of indigenous rights by focusing on specific mandates, employing expert knowledge, and utilizing mediation mechanisms. This research highlights the urgent need for the establishment of a Land Court in Indonesia, presenting it as a critical institutional reform that would ensure legal certainty, provide substantive justice, and improve access to justice. The novelty of this study lies in its integrative approach, which combines doctrinal, comparative, and empirical analyses. The proposed Land Court, staffed with specialized judges, land experts, and supported by strong mediation procedures, is designed to offer quicker, fairer, and more socially legitimate outcomes. This approach is expected to strengthen public confidence in Indonesia’s land governance system, ultimately improving the overall effectiveness of land dispute resolution.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Land Court; Agrarian Disputes; Legal Certainty; Access to Justice; Specialized Judiciary

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
AGRARIAN REFORM AS A HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE: BRIDGING INEQUALITY AND JUSTICE IN LAND DISTRIBUTION DISSEMINATION OF COMMUNISM/MARXISM-LENINISM AS POLITICAL OFFENSE IN INDONESIAN: NATIONAL SECURITY PROTECTION OR ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREAT AUTHORITY, DISCRETION, AND INCLUSION: A SOCIO-LEGAL ANALYSIS OF MARRIAGE REGISTRARS AND SENSORY DISABILITIES IN INDONESIA More recent articles
Most cited articles
PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PENGGANTI DALAM HUKUM PAJAK DI INDONESIA PERAN STRATEGIS PERGURUAN TINGGI DALAM PERCEPATAN PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI MEDIASI PENAL SEBAGAI ALTERNATIF PENYELESAIAN PERKARA PENGGELAPAN BENDA JAMINAN FIDUSIA REHABILITASI DALAM UPAYA DERADIKALISASI NARAPIDANA TERORISME Kebijakan Mediasi Penal Pada Kasus Pencurian di Kepolisian Surakarta More cited articles
  1. Abramson, J. (1986). Ronald Dworkin and the Convergence of Law and Political Philosophy. HeinOnline. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tlr65&div=51&id=&page=
  2. Akhtar‐Schuster, M., Thomas, R. J., Stringer, L. C., Chasek, P., & Seely, M. (2011). Improving the Enabling Environment to Combat Land Degradation: Institutional, Financial, Legal and Science‐Policy Challenges and Solutions. Land Degradation & Development, 22(2), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1058
  3. Alfitri. (2012). Legal Reform Project, Access to Justice and Gender Equity in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of International Law., 9(2), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.17304/ijil.vol9.2.348
  4. Alterman, R. (2010). Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights. American Bar Association, Section of State and Local Government Law
  5. Anggita, D., & Andraini, F. (2025). Pelimpahan Kewenangan Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara ke Peradilan Umum atas Sengketa Pertanahan dengan Objek Sertipikat Tanah. Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis, 6(8), 1-20 . https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v6i8.1456
  6. Arisaputra, M. I., Ashri, M., Aspan, Z., & Yunus, A. (2023). Special Land Court: Land Resolution With Legal Certainty. Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, 14(1), 402–406. https://doi.org/10.47750/pnr.2023.14.S01.45
  7. Barman, D., & Chowdhury, S. (2024). Land for Urbanization: Shifting Policies and Variegated Accumulation Strategies in a Fast-Growing City in Eastern India. Land Use Policy, 140, 107111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107111
  8. Baum, L. (2009). Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization. Duke Law Journal, 58(7), 1667–1684. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol58/iss7/14/
  9. Bedner, A. (2001). Administrative Courts in Indonesia: A Socio-Legal Study (Vol. 6). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
  10. Bedner, A. (2016). Indonesian Land Law: Integration at Last? And for Whom? In J. F. McCarthy & K. Robinson (Eds.), Land and Development in Indonesia: Searching for the People’s Sovereignty (pp. 63–88). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute; Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/814ED122711109DF92EFF35F6996CEAA
  11. Bedner, A., & Van Huis, S. (2008). The Return of the Native in Indonesian Law: Indigenous Communities in Indonesian Legislation. Bijdragen Tot de Taal-, Land-En Volkenkunde/Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia, 164(2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134379-90003655
  12. Benda-Beckmann, K. von, & Turner, B. (2018). Legal Pluralism, Social Theory, and the State. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 50(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2018.1532674
  13. Bentham, J. (1970). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), ed. By J. H Burns and HLA Hart, London, 2010–2011
  14. Beqiraj, J., & McNamara, L. (2014). International Access to Justice: Barriers and Solutions. Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law Report, 2(8). https://binghamcentre.biicl.org/publications/international-access-to-justice-barriers-and-solutions
  15. Berenschot, W., & Saraswati, N. (2024). Discourses of Land Conflicts in Indonesia. Development and Change, 55(6), 1182–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12865
  16. Boast, R. (2017). Māori Land and Land Tenure in New Zealand: 150 Years of the Māori Land Court. Comparative Law Journal of the Pacific, 23, 97–133. https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1244876/Boast.pdf
  17. Brooks, T. (2005). The Politics of Jurisprudence: A Critical Introduction to Legal Philosophy. Contemporary Political Theory, 4(3), 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300206
  18. Buscaglia, E., & Ulen, T. (1997). A Quantitative Assessment of the Efficiency of the Judicial Sector in Latin America. International Review of Law and Economics, 17(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(97)00007-0
  19. Butt, S. (2015). The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Brill
  20. Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2012). The Constitution of Indonesia: A Contextual Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing
  21. Chimhowu, A. (2019). The ‘New’african Customary Land Tenure. Characteristic, Features and Policy Implications of a New Paradigm. Land Use Policy, 81, 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.04.014
  22. Coase, R. H. (2013). The Problem of Social Cost. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(4), 837–877. https://doi.org/10.1086/674872
  23. Crawford, C., & Moldonado, D. (2020). Access to Justice: Theory and Practice from a Comparative Perspective’. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 27, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.27.1.0001
  24. Dakolias, M. (1999). Court Performance Around the World: A Comparative Perspective (Vol. 23). World Bank Publications. https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/639261468758377643
  25. Davidson, J. S., & Henley, D. (2007). The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics: The Deployment of Adat from Colonialism to Indigenism (J. S. Davidson & D. Henley, Eds.; p. 400). Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Revival-of-Tradition-in-Indonesian-Politics-The-Deployment-of-Adat-from-Colonialism-to-Indigenism/Davidson-Henley/p/book/9780415542081?srsltid=AfmBOopDPvAakOpUXuJK-zpbBnntPcNRc_RKSn2mF6BL9INz09a1grKd
  26. Deininger, K., Selod, H., & Burns, A. (2012). The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector. World Bank Publications
  27. Dhiaulhaq, A., De Bruyn, T., & Gritten, D. (2015). The Use and Effectiveness of Mediation in Forest and Land Conflict Transformation in Southeast Asia: Case Studies from Cambodia, Indonesia and Thailand. Environmental Science & Policy, 45, 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.009
  28. Dressel, B. (2024). Courts and Politics in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press
  29. Dworkin, R. (1988). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press
  30. Dworkin, R. (2013). Taking Rights Seriously. A&C Black
  31. Eleftheriadis, P. (2014). Legality and Reciprocity: A Discussion of Lon Fuller’s The Morality of Law. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlu002
  32. Elisabetta, S. (2014). Judicial Specialization: In Search of the ‘Right’judge for Each Case? Russian Law Journal, 2(4), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.52783/rlj.v2i4.254
  33. Fitzpatrick, D. (2007). Land, Custom, and the State in Post-Suharto Indonesia: A Foreign Lawyer’s Perspective. In The Revival of Tradition in Indonesian Politics (pp. 150–168). Routledge
  34. Fleck, Z. (2014). A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Power, Organisational Issues in Judicature and the Administration of Courts. In A. Badó (Ed.), Fair Trial and Judicial Independence: Hungarian Perspectives (pp. 3–25). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01216-2_1
  35. Foundations, O. S. (2019). Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice. OECD Publishing
  36. Friedman, L. M. (2008). American Law in the Twentieth Century. Yale University Press
  37. Fuller, L. L. (1964). The Morality of Law. Yale University
  38. Garoupa, N., & Botelho, C. S. (2022). Judicial Dissent in Collegial Courts: Theory and Evidence. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
  39. Gerhardt, M. J. (2011). The Power of Precedent. Oxford University Press
  40. Griffiths, J. (1986). What is Legal Pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18(24), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387
  41. Grover, R., Törhönen, M. P., Palmer, D., & Munro-Faure, P. (2007). Good Governance in Land Administration and Land Tenure. Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives (FAO). https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/122621/records/6472497e08fd68d54600a842
  42. Guttel, E., Harel, A., & Procaccia, Y. (2023). General courts, specialized courts, and the complementarity effect. Regulation & Governance, 17(4), 1021–1040
  43. Handayani, S. W., Fauzan, M., & Nasihuddin, A. A. (2018). Conversion of agricultural land policy in Indonesia. 2018 3rd International Conference on Education, Sports, Arts and Management Engineering (ICESAME 2018), 252–254
  44. Hart, H. L. A. (2012). The Concept of Law. OUP Oxford
  45. Hershovitz, S. (2006). Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence Of Ronald Dworkin. OUP Oxford
  46. Hutchinson, T. (2013). Doctrinal Research: Researching the Jury. In Research Methods in Law (pp. 15–41). Routledge
  47. Isra, S., & Faiz, P. M. (2024). The Indonesian Constitutional Court: An Overview. In Courts and Diversity: Twenty Years of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia (pp. 55–94). Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004691698_004
  48. Jackson, M. (1987). Maori and the Criminal Justice System: A New Perspective, He Whaipaanga Hou. New Zealand Dept of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/maori-and-criminal-justice-system-new-perspective-he-whaipaanga-hou
  49. Jadina, M. C., Nissen, S., & Rennie, H. (2025). The Unfinished Implications of ‘Finished’ Land Reform: Local Experiences of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in Leyte, Philippines. Land Use Policy, 157, 107658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107658
  50. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S. H. (2021). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Sinar Grafika
  51. Judijanto, L., Utama, A. S., Sahib, A., Sumarna, M. I., & Zulfikar, M. R. (2024). Comparative Analysis of the Use Of Customary Law in Land Dispute Resolution: Case Study Approach. Rechtsnormen Journal of Law, 2(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.55849/rjl.v2i2.796
  52. Kabiri, N. (2016). Public Participation, Land Use and Climate Change Governance in Thailand. Land Use Policy, 52, 511–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.014
  53. Kapiszewski, D., Silverstein, G., & Kagan, R. A. (2013). Consequential Courts: Judicial Roles in Global Perspective. Cambridge University Press
  54. Karaan, M. M. L. (2021). An Empirical Study of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Cases. Philippine Law Journal, 94(2), 401–434. https://philippinelawjournal.org/volume/post/volume-94-issue-2/
  55. Kennedy, A. (2016). Environmental Justice and Land Use Conflict. London: Earthscan, Routledge
  56. Koeswahyono, I., & Maharani, D. P. (2022). Rasionalisasi Pengadilan Agraria di Indonesia Sebagai Solusi Penyelesaian Sengketa Agraria Berkeadilan. Arena Hukum, 15(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2022.01501.1
  57. Larkin, P. J., Jr. (2016). The Original Understanding of “Property” in the Constitution. Marquette Law Review, 100(1), 1–80. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol100/iss1/2/
  58. Lera, S. C., Mahari, R., & Strub, M. S. (2022). Litigation Finance at Trial: Model and Data. Available at SSRN 4091716. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4091716
  59. Lev, D. S. (1985). Colonial Law and the Genesis of the Indonesian State. Indonesia, 40, 57–74. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3350875
  60. Lindsey, T., & Butt, S. (2018). Indonesian Law. Oxford University Press
  61. Lopes, G. R., Lima, M. G. B., & Dos Reis, T. N. P. (2021). Maldevelopment Revisited: Inclusiveness and Social Impacts of Soy Expansion Over Brazil’s Cerrado in Matopiba. World Development, 139, 105316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105316
  62. Lubis, I., Lubis, D. I. S., & Lubis, A. H. (2025). Integration of Customary Legal Values and Modern Mediation in the Framework of Land Dispute Resolution. Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP), 8(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.34012/jihp.v8i1.5781
  63. Lucas, A., & Warren, C. (2013). Land for the People: The State and Agrarian Conflict in Indonesia. Ohio University Press
  64. Lukito, R. (2012). Legal Pluralism in Indonesia: Bridging the Unbridgeable. Routledge
  65. Macpherson, E., & Turoa, H. (2025). Untapping the potential of Indigenous water jurisdiction: Perspectives from Whanganui and Aotearoa New Zealand. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04382-1
  66. Maulu, S. P., Wantu, F. M., & Abdussamad, Z. (2025). Agrarian Dispute Resolution Institution as a Manifestation of Progressive Legal Transformation. YUDHISTIRA: Jurnal Yurisprudensi, Hukum Dan Peradilan, 3(2), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.59966/yudhistira.v3i2.1788
  67. McCarthy, J. F. (2004). Changing to Gray: Decentralization and the Emergence of Volatile Socio-Legal Configurations in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Development, 32(7), 1199–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.02.002
  68. McCarthy, J. F., & Robinson, K. (2016). Land, Economic Development, Social Justice and Environmental Management in Indonesia: The Search for the People’s Sovereignty. In J. F. McCarthy & K. Robinson (Eds.), Land and Development in Indonesia: Searching for the People’s Sovereignty (pp. 1–32). ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute; Cambridge Core. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/964B20CE91549FD9C5D0BF4625331D04
  69. Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Mwangi, E. (2009). Cutting the Web of Interests: Pitfalls of Formalizing Property Rights. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.06.003
  70. Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Pradhan, R. (2002). Legal Pluralism and Dynamic Property Rights. CGSpace / CGIAR. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/06ca69e5-a766-4b1d-a5f0-5581296b076c
  71. Moa, F. R., & Djajaputra, G. (2025). Legal Remedies for Resolving Land Disputes under Indonesia’s Positive Law: An Evaluation of Effectiveness and Justice. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kyadiren, 7(1), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.46924/jihk.v7i1.306
  72. Nikmah, E., & Siregar, H. A. (2025). Land, Law, and Legitimacy: Unveiling the Evidentiary Power of Ownership Certificates in the Confluence of Islamic and Agrarian Legal Traditions. Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Raushan Fikr, 14(1), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.24090/jimrf.v14i1.13177
  73. Pertiwi, M. D., Firdausy, A. G., & Kharisma, D. B. (2024). Problematics of Land Dispute Resolution in Indonesia. Proceedings of the International Conference for Democracy and National Resilience (ICDNR 2024), 30, 94. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-634-5_12
  74. Peterson, D., Bedner, A., & Berenschot, W. (2025). The Perils of Legal Formalism: Litigating Land Conflicts in Indonesia. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 55(3), 430–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2024.2440855
  75. Pompe, S. (2018). The Indonesian Supreme Court: A Study of Institutional Collapse (Issue 39). Cornell University Press
  76. Posner, R. A. (2000). An Economic Analysis of the Use of Citations in the Law. Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics / University of Chicago Law School. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/44/
  77. Preston, B. J. (2012). Benefits of Judicial Specialization in Environmental Law: The Land and Environment Court of New South Wales as a Case Study. Pace Environmental Law Review, 29(2), 396. https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1692
  78. Pujayanti, L. P. V. A., Nugrahayu, Z. Z., Rahim, E. I., Muhtar, M. H., & Yassine, C. (2024). Indonesia’s Constitutional Court: Bastion of Law Enforcement and Protector of Human Rights in the Reform Era. Jurnal Pamator: Jurnal Ilmiah Universitas Trunojoyo, 17(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.21107/pamator.v17i1.24128
  79. Radbruch, G. (1950). II. Legal Philosophy. In The Legal Philosophies of Lask, Radbruch, And Dabin (pp. 43–224). Harvard University Press
  80. Radbruch, G. (2006a). Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy (1945). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi042
  81. Radbruch, G. (2006b). Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi041
  82. Rauzi, F., & Hadi, M. Z. P. (2024). The Parameters of Absolute Competence of General Courts and State Administrative Courts in Adjudicating Land Disputes. SHS Web of Conferences, 182, 4008. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202418204008
  83. Rawls, J. (2017). A Theory of Justice. In Applied ethics (pp. 21–29). Routledge
  84. Revesz, R. L. (1990). Specialized Courts and the Administrative Lawmaking System. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138(4), 1111–1174. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312246
  85. Roach, K., & Sossin, L. (2010). Access to Justice and Beyond. University of Toronto Law Journal, 60(2), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.60.2.373
  86. Rundcrantz, K., & Skärbäck, E. (2003). Environmental Compensation in Planning: A Review of Five Different Countries With Major Emphasis on the German System. European Environment, 13(4), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.324
  87. Safari, D. J. (2013). The Role and Efficacy of the Land Adjudication Committee as an Alternative Land Dispute Resolution Mechanism In Narok County. University of Nairobi
  88. Sethi, M. (2006). Land Reform in India: Issues and Challenges. Promised Land: Competing Visions of Agrarian Reform, 73–92
  89. Siagian, A., Alify, R. F., Siagian, A. W., & Alghazali, M. S. D. (2023). Optimalisasi Kompetensi Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dalam Penyelesaian Perkara Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Pemerintah (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad). Jurnal Hukum Peratun, 6(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.25216/peratun.612023.35-56
  90. Siems, M. M., & Mac Síthigh, D. (2012). Mapping Legal Research. The Cambridge Law Journal, 71(3), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197312000852
  91. Silliman, G. S. (1982). Dispute Processing by the Philippine Agrarian Court. Law & Society Review, 16(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053551
  92. Simanjuntak, D., Uwiyono, A., & Padmadari, E. (2025). Reforming Indonesia’s Land Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Comparative Insights for a Specialized Court from the Mato Grosso, Brazil Land Court and New Zealand Māori Land Court. Jurnal Ilmiah Living Law, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.30997/jill.v17i2.18526
  93. Simpson, A. W. B. (1987). Legal Theory and Legal History: Essays on the Common Law. A&C Black
  94. Sinai, Y. (2010). Reconsidering Res Judicata: A Comparative Perspective. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 21, 353-400. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/djcil/vol21/iss2/3
  95. Stepanov, R. (2009). Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy by Gustav Radbruch. Glasnik Bar Ass’n Vojvodina, 549
  96. Studwell, J. (2014). Land for the People: The State and Agrarian Conflict in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 50(2), 302–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.2014.938421
  97. Subiyanto, A. E. (2012). Mendesain Kewenangan Kekuasaan Kehakiman Setelah Perubahan UUD 1945. Jurnal Konstitusi, 9(4), 661–680. https://www.neliti.com/publications/109546/mendesain-kewenangan-kekuasaan-kehakiman-setelah-perubahan-uud-1945
  98. Sukmana, T., Ashari, Z. S., & Darmawan, Y. (2023). Responsive Law and Progressive Law: Examining the Legal Ideas of Philip Nonet, Philip Selznick, and Sadjipto Raharjo. Peradaban Journal of Law and Society, 2(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.59001/pjls.v2i1.82
  99. Tahir, A. I. (2022). Legal Pluralism, Obscure Reforms and Adjudication of Land Conflicts in Hargeisa, Somaliland. Land Use Policy, 120, 106286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106286
  100. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On The Rule of Law, History, Politics, Theory. Cambridge/Cambridge University Press
  101. Tambunan, R. J. R., SafaAt, R., Permadi, I., & Sulistyarini, R. (2025). Refining Land Dispute Resolution in Indonesia’s Judicial System: An Economic Analysis of Legal Integration. Nurani Hukum, 8(1), 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.51825/nhk.v8i1.30991
  102. Tucker, E. W. (1965). The Morality of Law, by Lon L. Fuller. Indiana Law Journal, 40(2), 5. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol40/iss2/5/
  103. Unruh, J. D. (2003). Land Tenure and Legal Pluralism in the Peace Process. Peace & Change, 28(3), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0130.00267
  104. Van Hoecke, M. (2011). Legal Doctrine: Which Method (S) for What Kind of Discipline? In Methodologies of Legal Research: Which Kind of Method for What Kind of Discipline? (pp. 1–18). Hart Publishing
  105. Van Rooij, B., & Van de Meene, I. (2008). Access to Justice and Legal Empowerment. Making the Poor Central in Legal Development Co-Operation. Leiden University Press
  106. von Benda-Beckmannn, F., & von Benda-Beckmannn, K. (2006). The Dynamics of Change and Continuity in Plural Legal Orders. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 38(53–54), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2006.10756597
  107. Walker, R. (2008). Which Side “Ought to Win”??discretion and Certainty in Property Law. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 229–240. JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24870262
  108. Waluchow, W. J. (1994). Inclusive Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press
  109. Widiyono, T., & Khan, M. Z. K. (2023). Legal Certainty in Land Rights Acquisition in Indonesia’s National Land Law. Law Reform, 19(1), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i1.48393
  110. Zeya, S. (2024). Legal Pluralism as a Necessity: The Difficulty of Adjudicating Land Disputes in India. Society, 61(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00922-0

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2025-09-19 21:16:57

No citation recorded.