《国家行政司法法》改革紧迫性的辩证法

M. Endang, M. Fadli, Istislam Istislam, Dewi Cahyandari
{"title":"《国家行政司法法》改革紧迫性的辩证法","authors":"M. Endang, M. Fadli, Istislam Istislam, Dewi Cahyandari","doi":"10.20884/1.jdh.2022.22.1.3194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dialectically, previously the handling and settlement of state administrative disputes used Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning the Administrative Court Law which was twice revised with Law Number 9 of 2004 and Law Number 51 of 2009 as the legal instrument of the procedure ( thesis). However, currently, the procedural law used in resolving state administrative and government administrative disputes also uses the Supreme Court Regulation instrument. This is because the Administrative Court Law Law cannot accommodate the development of material administrative law requirements and administrative law enforcement provided by sectoral laws. Apart from that, in practice, there have been changes and shifts in most of the content of procedural law (material and formal) in the Administrative Court Law. This shift was influenced by the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and sectoral laws which later became the basis for the formation of a Supreme Court Regulation. The two regulations later became guidelines for proceedings in the Administrative Court Law which had a paradoxical relationship. In one aspect, there is an interrelation between the law on Administrative Court Laws, the law on government administration, and the regulations of the Supreme Court, but in other aspects, it creates an antinomy of norms. Therefore, it is important in legal reform to encourage systematic thinking to synchronize and harmonize the material and formal content of the material and formal procedural laws that are unified as a synthesis.Keywords: dialectics, harmonization of law, shifting, state administration judicial procedural law","PeriodicalId":280058,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dialectics of the Urgency of Reforming The Law of State Administrative Justice as a Synthesis\",\"authors\":\"M. Endang, M. Fadli, Istislam Istislam, Dewi Cahyandari\",\"doi\":\"10.20884/1.jdh.2022.22.1.3194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dialectically, previously the handling and settlement of state administrative disputes used Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning the Administrative Court Law which was twice revised with Law Number 9 of 2004 and Law Number 51 of 2009 as the legal instrument of the procedure ( thesis). However, currently, the procedural law used in resolving state administrative and government administrative disputes also uses the Supreme Court Regulation instrument. This is because the Administrative Court Law Law cannot accommodate the development of material administrative law requirements and administrative law enforcement provided by sectoral laws. Apart from that, in practice, there have been changes and shifts in most of the content of procedural law (material and formal) in the Administrative Court Law. This shift was influenced by the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and sectoral laws which later became the basis for the formation of a Supreme Court Regulation. The two regulations later became guidelines for proceedings in the Administrative Court Law which had a paradoxical relationship. In one aspect, there is an interrelation between the law on Administrative Court Laws, the law on government administration, and the regulations of the Supreme Court, but in other aspects, it creates an antinomy of norms. Therefore, it is important in legal reform to encourage systematic thinking to synchronize and harmonize the material and formal content of the material and formal procedural laws that are unified as a synthesis.Keywords: dialectics, harmonization of law, shifting, state administration judicial procedural law\",\"PeriodicalId\":280058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2022.22.1.3194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Dinamika Hukum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2022.22.1.3194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

辩证地说,以前国家行政纠纷的处理和解决以1986年《行政法院法》第5号法作为程序的法律文书,该法经过两次修订,分别是2004年第9号法和2009年第51号法(论文)。然而,目前解决国家行政和政府行政纠纷的程序法也使用最高法院规制文书。这是因为《行政法院法》不能适应部门法规定的实质性行政法要求和行政执法的发展。除此之外,在实践中,《行政法院法》程序法的大部分内容(实质性的和形式上的)都发生了变化和转移。这一转变受到2014年颁布的关于政府行政和部门法律的第30号法律的影响,该法律后来成为制定最高法院条例的基础。这两项规定后来成为《行政法院法》的诉讼准则,两者之间存在矛盾关系。一方面,《行政法院法》、《政府行政法》和《最高法院条例》之间存在着相互关系,但在另一方面,它又造成了一种规范的矛盾。因此,鼓励系统思维,使统一为一体的实体程序法和形式程序法的实质内容和形式内容同步协调起来,在法律改革中具有重要意义。关键词:辩证法,法律协调,移转,国家行政司法程序法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dialectics of the Urgency of Reforming The Law of State Administrative Justice as a Synthesis
Dialectically, previously the handling and settlement of state administrative disputes used Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning the Administrative Court Law which was twice revised with Law Number 9 of 2004 and Law Number 51 of 2009 as the legal instrument of the procedure ( thesis). However, currently, the procedural law used in resolving state administrative and government administrative disputes also uses the Supreme Court Regulation instrument. This is because the Administrative Court Law Law cannot accommodate the development of material administrative law requirements and administrative law enforcement provided by sectoral laws. Apart from that, in practice, there have been changes and shifts in most of the content of procedural law (material and formal) in the Administrative Court Law. This shift was influenced by the enactment of Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration and sectoral laws which later became the basis for the formation of a Supreme Court Regulation. The two regulations later became guidelines for proceedings in the Administrative Court Law which had a paradoxical relationship. In one aspect, there is an interrelation between the law on Administrative Court Laws, the law on government administration, and the regulations of the Supreme Court, but in other aspects, it creates an antinomy of norms. Therefore, it is important in legal reform to encourage systematic thinking to synchronize and harmonize the material and formal content of the material and formal procedural laws that are unified as a synthesis.Keywords: dialectics, harmonization of law, shifting, state administration judicial procedural law
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信