Mainstreaming Justice in the Establishment of Laws and Regulations Process: Comparing Case in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia

Rodiyah Rodiyah, S. H. Idris, Robert B. Smith
{"title":"Mainstreaming Justice in the Establishment of Laws and Regulations Process: Comparing Case in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia","authors":"Rodiyah Rodiyah, S. H. Idris, Robert B. Smith","doi":"10.15294/jils.v7i2.60096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper compares the cases of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia to examine how these countries incorporate principles of justice in the establishment of laws and regulations. It explores the significance of mainstreaming justice in lawmaking, emphasizing equitable representation, fair access to justice, and human rights considerations. The analysis highlights the legal frameworks and institutional structures in each country. In Indonesia, the role of the Constitutional Court and stakeholder involvement in the legislative process are examined. Malaysia's constitutional framework and efforts to address ethnic and religious diversity, as well as the role of judicial review, are discussed. Australia's common law system emphasizes parliamentary scrutiny, public consultations, and protection of individual rights through the High Court and parliamentary committees. This study provides insights into the diverse approaches and challenges faced by these countries in mainstreaming justice in their lawmaking processes. It contributes to understanding how justice can be effectively integrated into laws and regulations, offering valuable insights for policymakers and legal practitioners seeking to promote justice in legislative contexts.","PeriodicalId":32877,"journal":{"name":"JILS Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JILS Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v7i2.60096","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper compares the cases of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia to examine how these countries incorporate principles of justice in the establishment of laws and regulations. It explores the significance of mainstreaming justice in lawmaking, emphasizing equitable representation, fair access to justice, and human rights considerations. The analysis highlights the legal frameworks and institutional structures in each country. In Indonesia, the role of the Constitutional Court and stakeholder involvement in the legislative process are examined. Malaysia's constitutional framework and efforts to address ethnic and religious diversity, as well as the role of judicial review, are discussed. Australia's common law system emphasizes parliamentary scrutiny, public consultations, and protection of individual rights through the High Court and parliamentary committees. This study provides insights into the diverse approaches and challenges faced by these countries in mainstreaming justice in their lawmaking processes. It contributes to understanding how justice can be effectively integrated into laws and regulations, offering valuable insights for policymakers and legal practitioners seeking to promote justice in legislative contexts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律法规制定过程中的正义主流化:比较印度尼西亚、马来西亚和澳大利亚的案例
本文比较了印度尼西亚、马来西亚和澳大利亚的案例,考察了这些国家在制定法律法规时如何将正义原则纳入其中。它探讨了在立法中将正义主流化的重要性,强调公平代表权、公平诉诸司法和人权考虑。该分析强调了每个国家的法律框架和体制结构。在印度尼西亚,审查了宪法法院的作用和利益攸关方在立法过程中的参与。讨论了马来西亚的宪法框架和解决种族和宗教多样性的努力,以及司法审查的作用。澳大利亚的普通法制度强调议会审查、公众咨询以及通过高等法院和议会委员会保护个人权利。本研究深入了解了这些国家在立法过程中将司法纳入主流方面所采取的不同方法和面临的挑战。它有助于理解如何将司法有效地纳入法律法规,为寻求在立法背景下促进司法的政策制定者和法律从业人员提供宝贵的见解。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Under-Legislation in Electronic Trials and Renewing Criminal Law Enforcement in Indonesia (Comparison with United States) Development of a Restitution Model in Optimizing Legal Protection for Victims of Human Trafficking in Indonesia The Driving Factors for Recidivism of Former Terrorism Convicts in Socio-Legal Perspective Indonesian Travel Policy during the Outbreaks: Vaccination and Quarantine Legal Culture and Policy on Indonesian Air Transportation The Intersection of the Progressive Law Theory and the Self-Declaration Concept of MSEs Halal Certification
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1