<![CDATA[Engulfed in a constant ideological challenge from various societal organizations, Indonesia inflicts an ideological curtailment measure as an attempt to defend the reign of its state ideology, Pancasila. To this end, societal organization is barred to actively adopt, develop, and spread any teaching or idea which contradicts Pancasila. From international law standpoint, assertion over the measure’s incompatibility with human rights norms emerges. Although, a portion of the justification conveyed by the Government of Indonesia did stipulate a reference to international human rights law regime by virtue of the invocation of state of emergency and a presumably regional norm, such defence is shaky at best when being confronted with the temporal nature of state of emergency and the high threshold to ascertain a regional customary international law. This Article, therefore, proposes an alternative defence for such curtailment measure from international law perspective. In doing so, this Article will first delve to pinpoint the ideological issue within the corpus of international law. Subsequently, by navigating through international conventions and jurisprudences, it will establish conceivable justifications for Indonesia’s ideological curtailment. Finally, this Article will also observe the looming challenges and opportunities as Indonesia embraces a restrictive approach to societal organization existing under its jurisdiction.]]>
Copyrights © 2022
