Unitary, Federalized, or Decentralized?: The Case Study of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as the Special Autonomous Regions in Indonesia

Ming-Hsi Sung, H. A. Hakim
{"title":"Unitary, Federalized, or Decentralized?: The Case Study of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as the Special Autonomous Regions in Indonesia","authors":"Ming-Hsi Sung, H. A. Hakim","doi":"10.18196/iclr.1210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The professed constitutional unitary state claim has been highly debated.  Some argue that Indonesia shall be a unitary state in name, pursuant to Article 1 Para. III of the Indonesian Constitution, but Constitutional reforms after 1998 when the autocratic President Gen. Soeharto stepped down granted broad authority to local government, leading Indonesia to a quasi-federation situation in practice. On the other hand, some stick to the aforementioned Article, insisting that decentralization embedded in the Constitution Article 18 Para. II is by no means making Indonesia federal.  This article takes the Act No. 13 of 2012 on Special Region of Yogyakarta (the Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta) granting autonomy to Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as a case study to argue for the latter, asserting that the case merely exemplifies the decentralization characteristic embedded in the Constitution. This paper first examines the political features of federalism through a historical legal perspective, showing that the current state system in Indonesia is decentralized but not federalized. This paper concludes  that the recognition of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as an autonomous region is simply a practice of constitutional decentralization. This paper also higlights that with recent political development, echoing that the decentralization theory is not a product of legal interpretation, but a constitutional and political reality.","PeriodicalId":298750,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Comparative Law Review","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Comparative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18196/iclr.1210","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The professed constitutional unitary state claim has been highly debated.  Some argue that Indonesia shall be a unitary state in name, pursuant to Article 1 Para. III of the Indonesian Constitution, but Constitutional reforms after 1998 when the autocratic President Gen. Soeharto stepped down granted broad authority to local government, leading Indonesia to a quasi-federation situation in practice. On the other hand, some stick to the aforementioned Article, insisting that decentralization embedded in the Constitution Article 18 Para. II is by no means making Indonesia federal.  This article takes the Act No. 13 of 2012 on Special Region of Yogyakarta (the Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta) granting autonomy to Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as a case study to argue for the latter, asserting that the case merely exemplifies the decentralization characteristic embedded in the Constitution. This paper first examines the political features of federalism through a historical legal perspective, showing that the current state system in Indonesia is decentralized but not federalized. This paper concludes  that the recognition of Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta as an autonomous region is simply a practice of constitutional decentralization. This paper also higlights that with recent political development, echoing that the decentralization theory is not a product of legal interpretation, but a constitutional and political reality.
单一化、联邦化还是去中心化?:印尼的Daerah istimea和Yogyakarta作为特别自治区的案例研究
宣称的宪法单一制国家的主张一直备受争议。一些人认为,根据第1条第2款,印度尼西亚在名义上应是一个统一的国家。但1998年独裁总统苏哈托将军下台后的宪法改革赋予了地方政府广泛的权力,导致印度尼西亚在实践中处于准联邦状态。另一方面,一些人坚持上述条款,坚持权力下放嵌入宪法第18条第2款。第二步绝不是让印尼成为联邦。本文以2012年关于日惹特区(Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta)授予日惹特区自治权的第13号法案(the Act No. 13)为案例研究,以支持后者,声称该案例仅体现了宪法中嵌入的权力下放特征。本文首先从历史法律的角度考察了联邦制的政治特征,表明印度尼西亚目前的国家制度是分权的,而不是联邦制。本文的结论是,承认日惹为自治区只是宪法分权的一种实践。本文还强调,随着近代政治的发展,分权理论不是法律解释的产物,而是一种宪法和政治现实。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信