Indonesian Minority Justice Review
Indonesian Minority Justice Review (e-ISSN: 3164-581X) is a peer-reviewed, open-access academic journal published by COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA in online format (electronic journal). First published in 2024, the journal is issued quarterly in January, April, July, and October. It provides an academic platform for scholars, researchers, legal practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to disseminate research and scholarly perspectives on minority rights, legal recognition, equality, and social justice in Indonesia and other multicultural societies. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, case studies, conceptual studies, policy analyses, and interdisciplinary scholarly works addressing legal and social issues affecting minority communities. Its scope includes minority rights, discrimination, equality before the law, freedom of religion and belief, ethnicity, gender equality and identity, disability rights, linguistic diversity, cultural rights, citizenship, and access to justice. It also welcomes studies on legal reform, public policy, governance, human rights, and institutional mechanisms for minority protection and social inclusion. The journal encourages interdisciplinary contributions from law and related fields, including political science, sociology, anthropology, religious studies, and international human rights. It aims to promote rigorous academic discussion and practical recommendations that contribute to legal reform, equality, human rights protection, social justice, and inclusive governance. The journal applies a double-anonymous peer-review process and an Open Access Policy, providing free and immediate access to all published articles. Copyright is retained by the authors, and articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Articles
55 Documents
<![CDATA[When Customary Law Meets Constitutional Equality: Resolving Conflicts Between Indigenous Norms and Minority Rights in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Ardi Dwiputro]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Minority Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/xh4dz047
<![CDATA[Indigenous customary law occupies an important position within Indonesia's legal pluralist system, yet its recognition raises difficult questions when customary norms potentially conflict with constitutional principles of equality and individual rights. This article examines how legal institutions should resolve tensions between collective indigenous autonomy and the rights of individuals who may occupy marginalized positions within customary communities. The research focuses particularly on women, children, and internal minorities whose interests may not always correspond with dominant customary practices. Employing a normative juridical and comparative approach, the study analyzes constitutional provisions, legislation concerning indigenous communities, relevant judicial decisions, and principles of legal pluralism and human rights. The article argues that neither unconditional state intervention nor absolute deference to customary authority provides an adequate framework for resolving such conflicts. Absolute deference may entrench internal discrimination, whereas excessive state intervention may undermine indigenous autonomy and cultural integrity. The study therefore proposes a proportionality-based approach that recognizes customary autonomy while establishing constitutional minimum guarantees for equality, dignity, and fundamental rights. The article concludes that Indonesian legal pluralism should be understood as a negotiated relationship between collective self-determination and individual rights rather than as a hierarchy in which one automatically prevails. This framework provides a basis for developing more nuanced judicial and legislative responses to conflicts between customary norms and minority rights.]]>
<![CDATA[The Right to Difference, the Duty to Protect: Rethinking State Neutrality toward Religious Minorities in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Helmi Syahreza]]>;
<![CDATA[Ahmad Zubair Mohd Karim]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Minority Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/4ktz1t62
<![CDATA[State neutrality is frequently invoked as a foundational principle in regulating religious diversity, yet neutrality may become problematic when dominant social groups possess greater institutional and political power. This article reexamines the meaning of state neutrality in relation to religious minorities in Indonesia. The study asks whether the state can legitimately remain passive when minority communities experience discrimination, intimidation, or unequal access to religious freedom. Employing a normative constitutional approach, the research analyzes constitutional provisions, human rights principles, legislation, and selected judicial decisions concerning freedom of religion and minority protection. The article distinguishes between formal neutrality, which requires equal treatment regardless of religious identity, and substantive neutrality, which may require positive state intervention to correct unequal conditions. The analysis argues that a purely passive conception of neutrality can reproduce existing inequalities because majority practices may already shape institutional norms and public policy. Consequently, equal protection may require the state to take affirmative measures against discrimination while maintaining impartiality among competing religious doctrines. The study proposes a duty-to-protect framework grounded in equality, proportionality, and positive human rights obligations. It concludes that genuine neutrality should not be equated with governmental inaction. Rather, the state must ensure conditions under which minorities can exercise religious freedom on substantially equal terms. This approach reframes neutrality as an active constitutional commitment to pluralism rather than a justification for institutional passivity.]]>
<![CDATA[Justice for the Stateless and Almost-Stateless: Legal Protection of Refugee and Migrant Minorities in Indonesia ]]>
<![CDATA[Hengki Setiyono]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Minority Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/81v5hb81
<![CDATA[Refugees, asylum seekers, and certain migrant communities occupy a precarious legal position in Indonesia because their protection is not fully secured through either citizenship or conventional minority-rights frameworks. This article examines the extent to which Indonesian law provides meaningful protection for individuals and communities living outside the full framework of national citizenship. The study focuses on access to employment, education, healthcare, legal assistance, protection from exploitation, and effective remedies. Employing a normative and socio-legal methodology, the research analyzes Indonesian regulations, international human rights principles, institutional policies, and selected cases involving refugees and migrant populations. The article argues that citizenship-centered approaches to minority justice leave significant protection gaps for populations whose vulnerability derives precisely from their limited legal status. Although certain forms of humanitarian protection exist, fragmented institutional authority and restrictive administrative frameworks may prevent refugees and migrants from exercising basic rights on equal terms. The study proposes a vulnerability-based approach that separates fundamental human rights from formal citizenship status. It further emphasizes the importance of minimum procedural guarantees, access to remedies, and institutional accountability. The article concludes that minority justice should not be limited to citizens or constitutionally recognized minority groups. A more inclusive framework must also address legally precarious populations whose exclusion results from the intersection of migration status, nationality, and limited access to state protection.]]>
<![CDATA[Disability Within Minority Justice: The Double Exclusion of Persons with Disabilities from Religious and Indigenous Communities ]]>
<![CDATA[Santi Kusuma Dewi]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Minority Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/zrh23x71
<![CDATA[Disability rights scholarship and minority-rights scholarship have often developed through separate analytical frameworks, potentially overlooking individuals who simultaneously belong to more than one marginalized group. This article examines the double exclusion experienced by persons with disabilities within religious and indigenous minority communities in Indonesia. The study investigates how disability, minority identity, institutional design, and cultural practices interact to shape access to worship, education, community participation, public services, and legal remedies. Using an intersectional socio-legal approach, the research analyzes disability legislation, minority-rights frameworks, constitutional guarantees, and selected institutional and community practices. The article argues that single-category legal protection is insufficient because disability policies may overlook cultural and religious contexts, while minority-rights policies may fail to address accessibility and reasonable accommodation. As a result, persons with disabilities within minority communities can remain invisible within both systems. The study proposes an integrated framework based on intersectionality, substantive equality, accessibility, reasonable accommodation, and community participation. It further argues that inclusion should not require individuals to choose between their cultural or religious identity and their disability rights. The article concludes that minority justice must account for internal diversity within minority communities and recognize that marginalized identities can intersect to create distinct forms of vulnerability. This approach expands the conceptual scope of minority justice and provides a basis for more inclusive legal and policy interventions in Indonesia.]]>
<![CDATA[From Conflict to Constitutional Repair: What Indonesia's Minority Rights Cases Teach Us About Transformative Justice ]]>
<![CDATA[Surya Pamungkas]]>
<![CDATA[ Indonesian Minority Justice Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): July, 2026 ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[COLLEGIUM JUSTICIA INDONESIA ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
|
DOI: 10.65815/yredhv81
<![CDATA[Legal disputes involving minority communities frequently end with individual judicial decisions, yet the structural conditions producing discrimination may remain unchanged. This article examines whether Indonesian minority-rights litigation can function as a mechanism of transformative constitutional justice rather than merely dispute resolution. The study comparatively analyzes selected cases involving religious minorities, indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups to identify recurring patterns in judicial reasoning, institutional responsibility, and remedies. Employing a comparative normative and case-law methodology, the research applies transformative justice theory to evaluate whether judicial decisions address underlying structures of exclusion. The analysis suggests that minority litigation can produce important constitutional recognition, but its transformative potential depends on the scope of judicial remedies, institutional compliance, and the willingness of public authorities to reform discriminatory practices. Decisions that focus exclusively on the legality of individual administrative actions may provide limited relief without changing the institutional conditions that generated the dispute. The article therefore proposes a framework of constitutional repair consisting of recognition, institutional reform, effective remedies, and continuing judicial oversight. It argues that minority-rights adjudication should be evaluated not only according to whether a particular claimant wins or loses but also according to whether the decision reduces structural inequality and prevents recurrence. The article concludes that transformative minority justice requires courts to connect individual rights with broader constitutional responsibilities to dismantle persistent systems of exclusion.]]>
