Characteristic and Legality of Non-Litigation Regulatory Dispute Resolution Based on Constitutional Interpretation

M. R. Winata, Z. Aditya
{"title":"Characteristic and Legality of Non-Litigation Regulatory Dispute Resolution Based on Constitutional Interpretation","authors":"M. R. Winata, Z. Aditya","doi":"10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.02.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Hyper-regulation and disharmonization of regulations is a serious challenge in Indonesia. Ministry of Law and Human Right make a breakthrough stipulates regulation on Regulatory Dispute Resolution through Non-litigation. This mechanism is unique because commonly alternative dispute resolution (ADR) used in civil law however, this instrument exercised in constitutional law. There are two research questions: First, what are the typical characteristics of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution on Indonesia norm harmonization system; Second, how is the legality of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution, mainly based on constitutional perspective. Author use statute, conceptual, and historical approach as research methods. The research result found the typical characteristics of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution that most distinguish from litigation resolution: the resolution institution is Ministry under the executive branch, the final results limited only give a recommendation, and the nature of recommendation not final and binding. Next, the legality of the authority found even though only regulated at the level of Ministerial of Law and Human Rights Regulation. However, in the analysis of constitutional interpretation methods shows clearly this authority is legally based (1) Textual interpretation; (2) Structural interpretation; (3) Prudential interpretation; and (4) Consensus interpretation. Although, by nature, this process limited to resolve the conflict between norms and overregulation because it is voluntary and the result only recommendation, but the important thing is it can open alternative resolution to stimulate the harmonization and streamlining of regulations.","PeriodicalId":31451,"journal":{"name":"Brawijaya Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brawijaya Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2019.006.02.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Hyper-regulation and disharmonization of regulations is a serious challenge in Indonesia. Ministry of Law and Human Right make a breakthrough stipulates regulation on Regulatory Dispute Resolution through Non-litigation. This mechanism is unique because commonly alternative dispute resolution (ADR) used in civil law however, this instrument exercised in constitutional law. There are two research questions: First, what are the typical characteristics of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution on Indonesia norm harmonization system; Second, how is the legality of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution, mainly based on constitutional perspective. Author use statute, conceptual, and historical approach as research methods. The research result found the typical characteristics of non-litigation regulatory dispute resolution that most distinguish from litigation resolution: the resolution institution is Ministry under the executive branch, the final results limited only give a recommendation, and the nature of recommendation not final and binding. Next, the legality of the authority found even though only regulated at the level of Ministerial of Law and Human Rights Regulation. However, in the analysis of constitutional interpretation methods shows clearly this authority is legally based (1) Textual interpretation; (2) Structural interpretation; (3) Prudential interpretation; and (4) Consensus interpretation. Although, by nature, this process limited to resolve the conflict between norms and overregulation because it is voluntary and the result only recommendation, but the important thing is it can open alternative resolution to stimulate the harmonization and streamlining of regulations.
基于宪法解释的非诉讼规制争议解决的特征与合法性
监管过度和监管不协调是印尼面临的严峻挑战。法律人权部对规制纠纷非诉讼解决制度进行了突破性的规定。这种机制是独特的,因为通常在民法中使用替代性争议解决(ADR),但这一工具在宪法中行使。本文主要研究两个问题:一是印尼规范协调制度下非诉讼规制争议解决的典型特征是什么;其次,非诉讼规制纠纷解决的合法性如何,主要基于宪法视角。作者使用法令、概念和历史方法作为研究方法。研究结果发现,非诉讼监管性争议解决最典型的区别于诉讼解决的特点是:解决机构是行政部门下属的部委,最终结果仅限于给出建议,且建议的性质不具有终局性和约束力。其次,当局的合法性发现,即使只在法律和人权条例的部长级管制。然而,在对宪法解释方法的分析中可以清楚地显示出这种权威是有法律依据的(1)文本解释;(2)结构解释;(3)审慎解释;(4)共识解释。虽然,从本质上讲,这一过程限制了规范与过度监管之间的冲突,因为它是自愿的,结果只是建议,但重要的是它可以打开替代解决方案,以促进监管的协调和精简。
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
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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