<![CDATA[Purpose: This study examines the implementation of Article 2 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code in resolving disputes within the Maya Indigenous Community in Raja Ampat and evaluates whether the normative recognition of living law has been actualized in criminal justice practice. Research Design and Methodology: This study uses a socio-legal approach combining normative legal analysis and empirical field research. Primary data were obtained through semi-structured interviews with the Chair of the Ambel Waigeo Indigenous Community Institution and field observations in Raja Ampat. Secondary data were drawn from statutory regulations, legal literature, journal articles, and previous studies. Findings and Discussion: The findings show that customary deliberation, genealogical verification, and customary oaths remain socially legitimate mechanisms for resolving customary disputes. However, Article 2 has not yet created an institutional mechanism connecting customary settlement with investigation, prosecution, and court proceedings. This creates a Normative Recognition Empirical Actualization Gap. The model offers a conceptual bridge for institutional implementation. Implications: The study recommends implementing regulations on institutional coordination, procedural standards, recognition of customary law, and constitutional safeguards based on human rights, Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution, legality, and legal certainty. Future comparative socio-legal research is needed to test the Integrated Living Law Justice Model.]]>
