cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Eko Didik Widianto
Contact Email
rumah.jurnal@live.undip.ac.id
Phone
+62248312419
Journal Mail Official
hukumprogresif@live.undip.ac.id
Editorial Address
Doctor of Law, Diponegoro University Imam Bardjo, SH. No.1, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia
Location
Kota semarang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Jurnal Hukum Progresif
Published by Universitas Diponegoro
ISSN : 18580254     EISSN : 26556081     DOI : -
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Progressive Law journal is a container and pouring the idea of progressive legal thought. published 2 (two) times a year in April and October. Editors receive, edit and publish manuscripts that meet the requirements. Editors are not responsible for the content of published manuscripts.
Arjuna Subject : Umum - Umum
Articles 167 Documents
 13   14   15   16   17 
EXTENDED LAND-TENURE RIGHTS IN NUSANTARA: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY INCONSISTENCY AND AGRARIAN JUSTICE Alif Abdurrahman; Budi Santoso; Ery Agus Priyono
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 14, No 2 (2026): October 2026
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.14.2.421-458

Abstract

Indonesia’s relocation of its national capital to Nusantara, East Kalimantan, has created a special land-tenure regime designed to accelerate development and attract investment. Under the general agrarian framework established by Law No. 5 of 1960 and Government Regulation No. 18 of 2021, the maximum cumulative duration of the Right to Cultivate is 95 years, while the Right to Build may be granted for up to 80 years. By contrast, the special regulations governing Nusantara allow these rights to extend to 190 years and 160 years, respectively. This study analyses the normative inconsistencies between the national agrarian regime and Nusantara’s special legal framework, as well as their implications for legal certainty, land-rights protection, agrarian justice, and sustainable land governance. It employs a doctrinal legal method using statutory, conceptual, and philosophical approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials are examined qualitatively through grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation, supported by deductive reasoning and Hans Kelsen’s hierarchy of norms theory. The findings show that the extended tenure schemes may be defended under the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali. Nevertheless, their substantial departure from the Basic Agrarian Law creates tension concerning regulatory hierarchy, the social function of land, and the State’s constitutional duty to manage natural resources for the greatest prosperity of the people. The policy may also concentrate land control in business entities, restrict access for local and Indigenous communities, intensify agrarian disputes, encourage speculation, and accelerate environmental degradation. Although long-term tenure may strengthen investor confidence, it should not weaken public oversight, customary rights, or agrarian justice. The study concludes that harmonisation between Nusantara’s special regulations and national agrarian principles is essential. Periodic evaluation, transparent allocation, meaningful community participation, environmental safeguards, recognition of customary tenure, and enforceable obligations for rights holders are required to ensure legally coherent, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable development.
MENAFSIR YANG LEGAL, MENYEMPURNAKAN YANG MORAL Donny Gahral Adian
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 5, No 1 (2009): April 2009
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.5.1.54-64

Abstract

This article examines the problem of legal interpretation by critically analyzing the limitations of legal positivism and exploring Ronald Dworkin’s hermeneutic approach to adjudication. The study departs from the premise that legal texts are never entirely self-explanatory and that literal interpretation cannot adequately respond to the complexity of evolving social realities. Through a conceptual and philosophical analysis, the article contrasts H.L.A. Hart’s distinction between easy cases and hard cases with Dworkin’s theory of constructive interpretation. While Hart allows judicial discretion in hard cases, Dworkin argues that judges should remain bound to legal texts by uncovering the moral principles embedded within them rather than relying on subjective discretion. Legal interpretation, therefore, is understood as a constructive process that integrates legal rules, moral principles, and political ethics into a coherent judicial narrative. The article further demonstrates that adjudication is not merely the mechanical application of statutory provisions but an interpretive practice aimed at preserving the integrity of law. Nevertheless, it also identifies several philosophical limitations in Dworkin’s theory, particularly regarding the assumption that every legal text contains a discoverable original moral purpose and a coherent narrative unity. The article concludes that hermeneutic reasoning provides a more convincing framework than strict legal positivism for addressing contemporary legal disputes while simultaneously requiring critical reflection on the epistemological assumptions underlying legal interpretation.
WHO BEARS THE BURDEN? GENDER, CONTRACEPTIVE RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE LEGAL REGULATION OF REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE IN INDONESIA Heni Widiyani; Nikodemus Niko; Merlin Swantamalo Magna; Ayu Efritadewi
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 14, No 2 (2026): October 2026
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.14.2.269-298

Abstract

This study examines how gender relations, cultural norms, religious beliefs, and state intervention shape contraceptive responsibility and reproductive choice in Indonesia. It focuses on gender imbalance in family planning, in which women bear the social and moral burden of contraception, while men remain marginally involved. Drawing on socio-legal analysis, feminist theory, and Michel Foucault’s concept of biopower, the study analyses legislation, policy debates, historical developments, and scholarship, with particular attention to Government Regulation No. 28 of 2024 and recent controversies concerning contraceptive access and vasectomy. The findings show that contraception in Indonesia is not merely a matter of medical choice, but a contested field structured by patriarchy, religious interpretation, cultural expectations, healthcare systems, and population policy. Women’s reproductive decisions are frequently influenced by husbands, medical authorities, and state programmes, while male contraceptive participation remains limited by narrow method availability and dominant ideals of masculinity. The regulation of adolescent access to contraception further reveals tensions between reproductive health, moral governance, abstinence, and cultural values. Through a biopolitical lens, family planning emerges as both a public health instrument and a mechanism for managing population, productivity, and social order. The study argues that reproductive autonomy cannot be realised through expanded contraceptive availability alone. Effective reform requires gender-responsive policies that promote meaningful male participation, safeguard informed and voluntary choice, address coercive and patriarchal decision-making, and recognise Indonesia’s diverse social, religious, and cultural contexts. Responsibility for contraception must therefore be understood as shared, negotiated, and grounded in individual rights rather than assigned predominantly to women.
VIKTIMISASI MAJEMUK (MULTIPLE VICTIMIZATION) ANAK-ANAK KORBAN PERCERAIAN Reza Indragiri Amriel
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 5, No 1 (2009): April 2009
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.5.1.1-19

Abstract

Divorce is commonly perceived as a traumatic event for children. However, it represents only one form of victimization experienced by children following parental separation. This article argues that children of divorced parents are exposed to three interconnected forms of victimization: the impact of divorce itself, secondary victimization resulting from inadequate judicial mechanisms in child custody decisions, and further victimization caused by parental misconduct, including parental alienation. Using an interdisciplinary normative approach, the study examines child custody from psychological, legal, and Islamic legal perspectives. It concludes that strengthening child-centered judicial mechanisms is essential to ensuring the best interests of the child and preventing repeated victimization.
MENGGUGAT DOMINASI POSITIVISME HUKUM Faisal Faisal
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 5, No 1 (2009): April 2009
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.5.1.65-83

Abstract

The development of legal positivism cannot be separated from the Cartesian–Newtonian paradigm introduced by René Descartes and Isaac Newton. This paradigm has significantly contributed to the advancement of science and technology, thereby improving human civilization. However, its emphasis on objectivity, determinism, materialism, scientism, reductionism, instrumentalism, dualism, and mechanistic reasoning has also reduced the complexity of human and social realities. Within this framework, society is perceived as a mechanical system governed by fixed and predictable laws. Such assumptions have profoundly influenced the emergence and consolidation of legal positivism, which conceives law as a closed, objective, and value-neutral system detached from morality and social context. This article argues that the dominance of the Cartesian–Newtonian worldview has shaped the epistemological foundations of modern legal science while simultaneously limiting the capacity of law to respond to social justice and the dynamic nature of human life. Consequently, a critical reorientation toward more contextual and humanistic legal paradigms, such as progressive law, is required to overcome the limitations of legal positivism.
BEYOND HEALTH INFORMATION TRANSPARENCY: REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, BIOPOWER, AND WOMEN’S AUTONOMY IN INDONESIA Kadek Cahya Susila Wibawa; Salwa Putri Hardiyan; Henny Juliani
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 14, No 2 (2026): October 2026
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.14.2.299-328

Abstract

In Indonesia, transparency in reproductive health information has increasingly been promoted as a legal and policy strategy to address reproductive injustice and strengthen women’s rights. Through instruments such as the Public Information Disclosure Act and Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health, the state formally recognises women’s access to information regarding contraception, pregnancy, reproductive services, and health rights. However, this study critically examines whether transparency genuinely expands women’s reproductive autonomy or instead reproduces subtle forms of governance over women’s reproductive bodies. Employing a socio-legal approach, this study combines normative analysis of legal frameworks with critical discourse analysis to examine how women are constructed as legal subjects within Indonesia’s reproductive health regime. The analysis is guided by feminist legal theory, Foucauldian biopolitics, and epistemic justice to explore the relationship between information, power, and reproductive decision-making. The findings reveal that legal recognition of reproductive health information does not automatically generate substantive autonomy. Although women may formally obtain reproductive knowledge, their ability to exercise meaningful choices remains constrained by patriarchal decision-making structures, unequal access to healthcare services, bureaucratic barriers, and the dominance of medical expertise. Transparency may therefore create an appearance of empowerment while simultaneously reinforcing institutional authority exercised by the state and healthcare systems. This study argues that reproductive justice requires more than expanding access to information; it requires transforming the power relations that determine who can access, interpret, and utilise reproductive knowledge. As an alternative framework, this study proposes epistemic sovereignty, understood as women’s right to define, manage, and control reproductive knowledge according to their own circumstances. Genuine reproductive autonomy can only emerge when women are recognised not as passive recipients of information but as authoritative subjects within a rights-based and accountable reproductive health governance system.
PROGRESIF AWARD BAGI KANIT RESERSE POLSEK PANCORAN MAS Aliyth Prakarsa
Jurnal Hukum Progresif Vol 5, No 1 (2009): April 2009
Publisher : Doctoral of Law Program, Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/jhp.5.1.20-29

Abstract

The increasing number of criminal cases involving police discretion has raised concerns regarding coercive law enforcement practices rooted in legal positivism. This article critically examines police discretion through the case of The Story of a Pair of Shoes to demonstrate that law enforcement should prioritize substantive justice rather than rigid legal formalism. Drawing on the perspectives of contemporary legal scholars, the study argues that discretionary authority must be exercised within the framework of humanity, proportionality, and the public interest. It concludes that a justice-oriented approach to police discretion is essential for strengthening public trust and enhancing the legitimacy of law enforcement institutions.

Page 17 of 17 | Total Record : 167

 13   14   15   16   17 

Filter by Year

2005 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 14, No 2 (2026): October 2026 Vol 14, No 1 (2026): April 2026 Vol 13, No 1 (2025): April 2025 Vol 12, No 2 (2024): Oktober 2024 Vol 12, No 1 (2024): April 2024 Vol 11, No 2 (2023): Oktober 2023 Vol 11, No 1 (2023): April 2023 Vol 10, No 2 (2022): Oktober 2022 Vol 10, No 1 (2022): April 2022 Vol 9, No 2 (2021): Oktober 2021 Vol 9, No 1 (2021): April 2021 Vol 8, No 2 (2020): Oktober 2020 Vol 8, No 1 (2020): April 2020 Vol 7, No 2 (2019): Oktober 2019 Vol 7, No 1 (2019): April 2019 Vol 5, No 1 (2009): April 2009 Vol 4, No 1 (2008): April 2008 Vol 3, No 2 (2007): Oktober 2007 Vol 3, No 1 (2007): April 2007 Vol 2, No 2 (2006): Oktober 2006 Vol 2, No 1 (2006): April 2006 Vol 1, No 2 (2005): Oktober 2005 Vol 1, No 1 (2005): April 2005 More Issue