Principles of Legality in Criminal Law from Perspective Fair Enforcement

This study discusses the principle of legality in criminal law from the perspective of fair law enforcement. The formulation of the problem put forward is how to regulate the principle of legality in current criminal law and how the principle of legality in criminal law is currently from the perspective of law enforcement that is just. The conclusion of this study is that the regulation of the principle of legality in criminal law is currently regulated in Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code which is the principle of formal legality, which requires an act committed to be determined as a criminal act if it is first stated in the legislation that valid at the time the act was committed, from the perspective of fair law enforcement, the legality principle in criminal law currently cannot be used as a basis for carrying out fair law enforcement, because in this legality principle it implies that an act is qualified as a mere criminal act. only based on legislation (written legal regulations). In the opinion of the author, that law enforcement that adheres to the principle of legality can only achieve legal certainty, but has not been able to realize justice. Justice should be realized through law enforcement which is not just formal justice according to the formulation of the law, but also substantial justice, namely justice that is truly in accordance with the sense of community justice based on the living law.

The Role of Public Art in Solar Commons Institution-Building: Community Voices from an Essential Partnership among Artists, Community Solar Researchers, and Activists

In this urgent decade when American democracy faces the challenge of decarbonizing the U.S. electric grid and assuring that the economic benefits of our energy transition are equitably shared, many solar energy researchers and activists are searching for new ways to partner with the civic sector. Instead of treating energy users as passive customers, experts understand the importance of engaging community as active decision-makers, beneficiaries, and communicators for a just energy transition. Distributed solar technology offers more democratic potential than small savings on individuals’ electric bills. Energy experts working on the Solar CommonsÔ community solar model at the University of Minnesota are piloting demonstration projects with community partners in Arizona and Minnesota. These solar commons aggregate savings through power purchase agreements that create 25-year peer-governed revenue streams to support mutual aid and reparative justice work in neighborhoods. This article describes a Solar Commons research project in Arizona, with a conversation among the public artists who partnered with the legal research team to co-create communication and peer governance tools that will allow DIY Solar Commons to iterate throughout the US as a new institution in our civic sector. Images of the Solar Commons public art demonstrate how the artists helped expand the vision of solar energy from the iconic individual solar panel to a technology embedded in community justice and in a complex human-more-than-human environment.

Justice Enforcement on Plans for Imposition of Value Added Tax on Premium Basic Necessities

The plan to impose a value added tax (hereinafter referred to as VAT) on basic commodities has recently caused a polemic between the government and the community regarding justice and public welfare. The community is questioning the implementation of a just and civilized welfare from the government for the imposition of the VAT. Previously, on basic commodities, the government did not charge any kind of tax at all. The imposition of this tax is motivated by the economic recovery during the COVID-19 pandemic, Indonesia's VAT rate is too low, and the structure of state revenue is dominated by VAT. This paper aims to provide an analysis of the relationship between the imposition of VAT on staple goods and their impact on the level of community justice. The method used in this paper is a qualitative research method with a normative-juridical approach which is carried out through a literature study. This paper describes the findings related to the reasons for the government to charge VAT on basic necessities and the protection of the community's right to justice on the imposition of VAT. This finding can provide an overview for the continuation of the revision of the draft Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (hereinafter referred to as the KUP Bill) which contains revisions on basic materials as objects of VAT.

STRENGTHENING LAND REGISTRATION SYSTEM THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF DOMAIN APPROACH IN MANIFESTING LEGAL CERTAINTY AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE

As an implementation of welfare society, the government issued Law Number 5 of 1960 Article 19 paragraph (2) c, which provide the legal certainty of land rights for all Indonesians carried out through land registration. The land registration system adopted by Indonesia is negative land cadastre with positive tendency. The implementation of land registration provide the basis of state duty to produce land registration evidence, namely certificate, which is valid as a strong proof of rights. This certificate guarantees the correctness of physical data besides juridical data as long as it is not proven otherwise. Method: This legal research used Normative juridical method, with qualitative juridical data analysis. Results of the study: Negative land cadastre with positive tendency adopted by Indonesia currently does not guarantee legal certainty of land ownership and the community justice itself. This is indicated by the fact that there is still a phenomenon of land disputes, among the result of the issuance of overlapping. By using a legal cadastre-based domain approach, through an approach of extracting historical values of land and integrating the process of dialogue within the issuing of certificate; obtaining legal certainty and the community justice can be achieved. Conclusion: Negative land cadastre with positive tendency is still unable to manifest legal certainty of land ownership and community justice so it is appropriate that an adage states “the highest legal certainty, is the highest injustice”. Strengthening land registration system through the domain approach is an alternative option to manifest legal certainty and community justice.

Border Disputes: Religious Adjudication Along the Private/Public Divide

The article uses Israel’s volatile jurisdictional dynamics of the past two decades concerning access to religious community justice, as a telling case for examining the way legal pluralism is deployed along the public–private divide. The Israeli case exhibits a complex combination of an ostensibly liberal democratic regime, a commitment to a particularistic ethno-national political project, structural entanglements of state and religion against the backdrop of an unsettled constitutional order, and an historically diffuse mode of often-illiberal normative ordering within its diverse religious communities. All this provides a rich backdrop for various strategies by communal and institutional elites seeking to consolidate power, legitimacy, and authenticity in their often mutually-reliant jurisdictional projects. The article explores several salient episodes from Israel’s religious jurisdiction dynamics, focusing for purposes of analytical clarity on the case of Jewish orthodox legality. The analysis uncovers the main strategies stakeholders resort to, and shows how agency flows in different ways, with the choices of each player affecting the possibilities of the others. The institution at the arguable top of the system—the Supreme Court—is shown to be often devoid of effective means of elucidating, let along imposing, a coherent vision for a fragmented jurisdictional field. Conceptually, the judicial forum is revealed as the locus of an ongoing, uneasy engagement among normative imaginaries in a sometimes-competitive, sometimes-collaborative negotiation over coherence, tolerance, authority, and legitimacy.

Race, Nation, and Resistance to State Symbolic Power in Rwanda since the 1994 Genocide

The social categories “Hutu” and “Tutsi” have long been central to Rwandan politics, though never more so than during the 1994 genocide, when they formed the ultimate divide: kill (Hutu) or be killed (Tutsi). Since then, the Rwandan government has sought to eliminate these categories and replace them with a new, national identity category of “Rwandan.” This chapter draws on theories of state symbolic power and legibility to analyze how top-down projects of remaking Rwandans are being received from below. Specifically, we examine ordinary Rwandans’ responses to gacaca, a community justice practice central to the state’s National Unity and Reconciliation Program, and find Rwandans resent efforts to “unmake race” in favor of “nation” because the state’s account of genocide in gacaca does not allow them to sincerely express their experiences; it activates traumatic pasts for what they feel is superficial national reconciliation; and it detracts from their material needs. These findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between compliance and conviction in research on state efforts to transform civilian subjectivities. They also suggest directions for further research. Namely, future research on state symbolic power should attend to how individual experiences with violence mediate topdown efforts at remaking civilian subjectivities, to how different forms of governance shape civilian resistance to state categorization and classification projects, and to what kinds of interests are likely to motivate people to alter their self-perceptions. We conclude by arguing for more work on state race and nation-making from the perspectives of its targets.

THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY LAND ON GREEN-ZONE

Land rights are one of the rights of life of the community. This right should have been protected by the state as the implementation of Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Republic of Indonesia Constitution that the earth and natural wealth in it are protected by the state and used for the people's prosperity. This right is violated by the determination of land owned by the people declared in the green zone so that its use and allocation is limited by the government. On the other hand, when the land will be used in the framework of government planning, the status of the land will change according to the interests of the government. This phenomenon illustrates that the law that should support the state to give a sense of justice to the people on the contrary makes people's rights not fulfilled. The aim to be achieved in this study is to analyze the role of the government in protecting community land rights in the green zone. This research is normative legal research. Based on the research, it was concluded that community welfare and community justice were not well accommodated by the government regarding land in the green zone because there was a lack of clear arrangements regarding the ability to transfer the land.