Reformulating the Legal Framework for International Refugee Protection under the in Dubio Pro Humanitate Principle in Indonesia

Untung Setyardi

doi:10.55927/fjas.v5i4.46

Authors

Untung Setyardi Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55927/fjas.v5i4.46

Keywords:

In Dubio Pro Humanitate, International Refugee Law, Refugee Protection

Abstract

This study aims to reformulate the legal framework for international refugee protection in Indonesia based on the in dubio pro humanitate principle, offering a normative reconstruction that prioritizes humanitarian considerations. Employing a qualitative doctrinal approach, this research analyzes statutory regulations, international legal instruments, and relevant jurisprudence, supported by a conceptual and comparative analysis. Data were collected through literature review covering developments from 2016 to 2025, particularly following Presidential Regulation No. 125/2016. The findings reveal normative gaps and inconsistencies in Indonesia’s refugee protection regime. This study proposes a humanitate-based framework to strengthen legal certainty and protection standards, with implications for aligning national law with international human rights obligations.

References

Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2000). Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization, 54(3), 421–456.

Alexy, R. (2002). A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press.

Allain, J. (2001). The jus cogens nature of non-refoulement. International Journal of Refugee Law, 13(4), 533–558.

Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others: Aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge University Press.

Besson, S. (2017). General principles in international law—Whose principles? In S. Besson & J. d’Aspremont (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on the sources of international law. Oxford University Press.

Betts, A. (2013). Survival migration: Failed governance and the crisis of displacement. Cornell University Press.

Brun, C. (2015). Active waiting and changing hopes: Toward a time perspective on protracted displacement. Social Analysis, 59(1), 19–37.

Carens, J. H. (2013). The ethics of immigration. Oxford University Press.

Chetail, V. (2014). International migration law. Oxford University Press.

Chimni, B. S. (2009). The birth of a “discipline”: From refugee to forced migration studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 22(1), 11–29.

Costello, C. (2016). The human rights of migrants and refugees in European law. Oxford University Press.

Crawford, J. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Davies, S. E. (2008). Legitimising rejection: International refugee law in Southeast Asia. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 27(3), 27–42.

Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press.

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press.

Feller, E., Türk, V., & Nicholson, F. (Eds.). (2003). Refugee protection in international law. Cambridge University Press.

Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law. Yale University Press.

Gammeltoft-Hansen, T. (2011). Access to asylum: International refugee law and the globalisation of migration control. Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin-Gill, G. S., & McAdam, J. (2021). The refugee in international law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Guild, E. (2018). The UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. International Journal of Refugee Law, 30(4), 716–719.

Hathaway, J. C. (2021). The rights of refugees under international law (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Hatton, T. J. (2017). Refugees and asylum seekers, the crisis in Europe and the future of policy. Economic Policy, 32(91), 447–496.

Hollifield, J. F., Martin, P. L., & Orrenius, P. M. (2014). Controlling immigration: A global perspective (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.

Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119.

Klare, K. E. (1998). Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights, 14(1), 146–188.

Kneebone, S., Stevens, D., & Baldassar, L. (2014). Refugee protection and the role of law. Routledge.

Lauterpacht, E., & Bethlehem, D. (2003). The scope and content of the principle of non-refoulement. In E. Feller et al. (Eds.), Refugee protection in international law. Cambridge University Press.

Loescher, G., & Milner, J. (2005). Protracted refugee situations. Forced Migration Review, 23, 22–23.

McAdam, J. (2012). Climate change, forced migration, and international law. Oxford University Press.

McConville, M., & Wing, H. K. (Eds.). (2017). Research methods for law. Edinburgh University Press.

Meron, T. (2006). The humanization of humanitarian law. American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 239–278.

Missbach, A. (2017). Troubled transit: Asylum seekers stuck in Indonesia. ISEAS Publishing.

Neuman, G. L. (2016). Humanitarian law and human rights law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 1–20.

Nonet, P., & Selznick, P. (2001). Law and society in transition: Toward responsive law. Transaction Publishers.

Nowak, M. (2005). UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR commentary (2nd ed.). N.P. Engel.

Peters, A. (2018). Beyond human rights: The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University Press.

Samuels, H. (2020). Refugee protection in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of International Law, 10(2), 1–15.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage Publications.

Scott, M. (2016). Climate change, displacement and international law. In Routledge handbook of environmental displacement. Routledge.

Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.

Taylor, S., & Rafferty-Brown, B. (2019). Refugees and asylum seekers in Indonesia: A humanitarian challenge. Asian Journal of International Law, 9(2), 1–20.

Teitelbaum, M. S. (2015). International migration and international law. Population and Development Review, 41(4), 703–726.

Teubner, G. (1983). Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law & Society Review, 17(2), 239–285.