<![CDATA[Amid ASEAN’s institutional deadlock and the region’s failure to address grave human rights violations such as the crisis in Myanmar, this study examines Indonesia’s constitutional stance on universal jurisdiction. This research addresses a fundamental paradox: how a state fundamentally built upon the principle of humanity (Pancasila) can constitutionally justify restrictions on jurisdictional instruments designed to adjudicate crimes against humanity. Using a normative legal methodology with a comparative lens (Germany and Argentina), this research evaluates the legal reasoning behind Constitutional Court Decision No. 89/PUU-XX/2022. Rather than merely assessing the legal status of international customary law, the findings highlight how the Court utilised the doctrine of ‘open legal policy’ to reject the mandate of international jurisdiction in the interests of national stability and constitutional identity. Ultimately, this article offers a new conceptual framework for the Global South (developing countries), demonstrating how developing countries can exercise legitimate constitutional resistance to the extraterritorial reach of international criminal law whilst firmly upholding their domestic humanitarian commitments.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
