【作者】中國法與社會研究院
【內(nèi)容提要】
Asian Journal of Law and Society
【編者按】《亞洲法與社會雜志》（Asian Journal of Law and Society）是由上海交通大學中國法與社會研究院（CISLS）及其前身法社會學研究中心（LSC）為凱原法學院與劍橋大學出版社合作出版的全英文學術(shù)期刊。目前訂購數(shù)超過8500戶，其中超過6000是機構(gòu)訂戶。僅在劍橋出版社的期刊平臺，僅在2018年，這份新興期刊的全文下載數(shù)就達到10000次以上。據(jù)最近獲得的權(quán)威信息，本刊在SCOPUS引文數(shù)據(jù)庫排行榜已經(jīng)上升到第二方陣，也已經(jīng)被納入ESCI (Emerging Scholars Citation Index)引文數(shù)據(jù)庫，并有望在近期達到SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) 數(shù)據(jù)庫的收錄標準。
本期集中推送雜志第8卷第3期（2021年10月）的目錄，以方便讀者查閱和引用，也可方便研究者了解本刊錄用稿件的方針和特色。歡迎大家積極參與全英文學術(shù)期刊Asian Journal of Law and Society的建設(shè)，在這個平臺上構(gòu)筑一個跨學科、跨國界的知識共同體！
#01
REFUGEES IN INDONESIA
印度尼西亞的難民
The False Promise of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016?
2016年第125號總統(tǒng)條例的虛假承諾？
Susan Kneebone，墨爾本法學院亞洲法律中心教授研究員和助理，墨爾本大學法學院
Antje Missbach，社會科學學院高級研究員兼講師，莫納什大學
Balawyn Jones，墨爾本法學院亞洲法律中心和印度尼西亞法律、伊斯蘭教和社會中心博士生
Abstract: In this Introduction, Indonesia’s approach towards refugee protection is contextualized historically and regionally in light of the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). In particular, we describe the legal and policy framework for refugee protection in Indonesia and analyze its underlying norms and values, including the constitutional right to asylum. We explain how the legal framework competes with Law No. 6 of 2011 on Immigration, which facilitates a discretionary, securitized, and ‘humanitarian’ approach to refugee policy, which is inconsistent with Indonesia’s legal responsibilities. In conclusion, we assess both the challenges and opportunities provided by the PR.
摘要：以下引言總結(jié)了印度尼西亞在歷史與區(qū)域性背景下對2016年頒布的難民待遇第125號總統(tǒng)條例中難民保護的立場。我們會特別對印度尼西亞的難民保護相關(guān)法律和政策框架展開論述，并分析其基本規(guī)范和價值取向，包括避難者擁有的憲法性權(quán)利。我們會論述其法律框架與2011年第6號的移民法矛盾之處。后者對難民政策采取自由裁量、安全化及 “人道主義”的價值取向，與印度尼西亞的法律責任不一致。 最后，我們會評估難民待遇將面臨的挑戰(zhàn)與機遇。
Keywords: Indonesia, refugee law and policy, refugee protection, immigration law and humanitarianism
關(guān)鍵詞：印度尼西亞，難民法及政策，難民保護，移民法和人道主義
What Are Refugees Represented to Be? A Frame Analysis of the Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 Concerning the Treatment of Refugees “from Abroad”
難民代表了什么？2016年總統(tǒng)條例第125號關(guān)于“來自國外”的難民待遇的框架分析
Mahardhika Sjamsoe’oed Sadjad，鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯大學國際社會研究所博士生
Abstract: The Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR) was a promising step to a better humanitarian response for refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Indonesia. It also provided a much-needed legal framework to validate refugees’ presence and to ground civil -society organizations’ advocacy on their behalf. However, a closer look at the PR and earlier drafts of the document shows serious compromises that: (1) reproduce the notion that refugees are only transiting in Indonesia; (2) frame refugees as passive objects, failing to recognize them as subjects with rights; and (3) prioritize security concerns that position refugees at odds with Indonesian society (masyarakat). Using the “What’s the Problem Represented to be” approach, this article highlights what is included and excluded from the PR and how it falls short of guaranteeing meaningful protection for refugees while living in Indonesia.
摘要：2016年第125號關(guān)于難民待遇的總統(tǒng)條例被視為來到印度尼西亞的難民和尋求庇護者走向更人道主義政策的首步。條例還提供了現(xiàn)需的法律框架，用于證實現(xiàn)有難民的存在，并為難民民間社會組織的宣傳奠定基礎(chǔ)。然而，細思難民待遇文件和此前期草稿，會發(fā)現(xiàn)其存有相當程度的妥協(xié)性：（一）再次強調(diào)難民僅在印度尼西亞過境的立場；（二）把難民當作被動客體，不承認他們?yōu)闄?quán)利主體；(三) 優(yōu)先考慮難民與印度尼西亞社不協(xié)調(diào)的安全性問題（masyarakat）。本文采取“所代表的問題是什么”的研究立場，重點論述難民待遇所包含與排除的內(nèi)容，及總統(tǒng)條例如何未能為難民在印度尼西亞生活期間提供有意義的保護。
Keywords: refugees, frame analysis, Indonesia, prolonged transit, human rights
關(guān)鍵詞：難民，框架分析，印度尼西亞，長時間過境，人權(quán)
Assessment of the Responsibility of Local Governments in Indonesia for the Management of Refugee Care
印度尼西亞地方政府難民管理的責任評估
I Nyoman Suyatna，印度尼西亞烏達亞納大學法學院行政法系講師
I Made Budi Arsika，印度尼西亞烏達亞納大學法學院國際法系講師
Ni Gusti Ayu Dyah Satyawati，印度尼西亞烏達亞納大學法學院行政法系講師
Rohaida Nordin，馬來西亞國民大學法學院教授
Balawyn Jones，澳大利亞墨爾本大學墨爾本法學院博士研究生
Abstract: This article assesses the responsibility of local governments in Indonesia for the management of refugee care, following the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (the “PR”). It highlights the limited authority of local governments in handling refugee issues—which is an issue that cuts across several national legal and administrative regimes including Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, and Immigration. This article focuses on the constraints of local political dynamics and budgeting in allocating local government funds for refugee care. In addressing these concerns, the authors argue that the PR should be amended to explicitly define the role of local governments in managing refugee issues and to include the regional revenue and expenditure budget as a source of funding. In addition, the authors argue that local governments that are hosting refugees should establish relevant local regulations for implementation of the PR.
摘要：本文評估了在“2016年關(guān)于難民待遇的第125號總統(tǒng)令”（“總統(tǒng)令”）頒布后，印度尼西亞地方政府在管理難民照料方面的責任。本文強調(diào)了在處理難民問題上地方政府的有限權(quán)力——其中，難民問題涉及了包括外交事務、人權(quán)和移民在內(nèi)的多個國家法律和行政制度。本文著重討論了地方政治動態(tài)和預算對地方政府分配難民照料資金的限制。為了解決這些問題，筆者認為，應修訂“總統(tǒng)令”以明確界定地方政府在管理難民問題方面的作用，并將地區(qū)收入和支出預算列為資金來源之一。此外，筆者認為，收容難民的地方政府應為執(zhí)行“總統(tǒng)令”制定相關(guān)的地方法規(guī)。
Keywords: refugees, local government, financial responsibility, Indonesia
關(guān)鍵詞：難民，地方政府，財政責任，印度尼西亞
The Role of Local Governments in Accommodating Refugees in Indonesia: Investigating Best-Case and Worst-Case Scenarios
印度尼西亞地方政府在安置難民方面的作用：調(diào)查最佳情況和最壞情況
Antje Missbach，德國比勒費爾德大學社會學院助理研究員
Yunizar Adiputera，印度尼西亞日惹卡渣瑪達大學國際關(guān)系系博士研究生
Abstract: This article analyses the “l(fā)ocal turn” in refugee governance in Indonesia through a comparative case-study of two cities: Makassar and Jakarta. It compares how these two cities have responded to the obligations to provide alternative accommodation to detention, imposed upon them by the Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). While the shift to non-custodial community shelters has been widely praised, we discuss issues that arose when the national government shifted the responsibility for providing accommodation for refugees to local governments, without the allocation of the required funds. The outcome has been a general lack of engagement by local governments. By locating this case-study in the wider global trend of “l(fā)ocal turns” in the management of refugee issues, we argue that, in Indonesia, the “l(fā)ocal turn” in responsibility for refugees is not fostering a protection approach but has worsened the conditions for refugees.
摘要：本文通過對望加錫和雅加達兩個城市的案例比較研究，分析了印度尼西亞難民治理中的“地方轉(zhuǎn)向”。本文對這兩個城市如何應對提供拘留替代住所的義務進行了比較。該等義務由“2016年關(guān)于難民待遇的第125號總統(tǒng)令”（“總統(tǒng)令”）強加于它們。雖然向非拘留性社區(qū)收容所的轉(zhuǎn)變受到了廣泛贊揚，但我們發(fā)現(xiàn)了當國家政府將為難民提供住所的責任轉(zhuǎn)移給地方政府而沒有向其分配所需資金時產(chǎn)生的問題。最后的結(jié)果是，地方政府普遍缺乏參與。通過將這一案例研究置于難民問題管理的“地方轉(zhuǎn)向”這一更廣泛的全球趨勢中，我們認為，難民責任的“地方轉(zhuǎn)向”并沒有在印度尼西亞形成一種保護，反而惡化了難民的狀況。
Keywords: local turn in refugee governance, Indonesia, immigration detention, refugee rights
關(guān)鍵詞：難民治理的地方轉(zhuǎn)變，印度尼西亞，移民拘留，難民權(quán)利
Identity Politics and Refugee Policies in Kupang, Eastern Indonesia: A Politico-Historical Perspective
印尼東部古邦的身份政治和難民政策：一個政治—歷史的視角
Andrey Damaledo，印度尼西亞古邦阿爾薩·瓦卡納基督教大學、日本京都大學東南亞研究中心
Abstract: This article assesses the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees and how it relates to different kinds of bureaucratic labelling of refugees as it unfolds in Indonesia‘s region of Kupang. From a politico-historical perspective, Kupang is a useful case-study for elucidating the policy implications of the labelling of refugees, as the region has been hosting different kinds of refugees due to its strategic geographical location that borders Australia and Timor-Leste. Drawing on my fieldwork in Kupang between October 2012 and October 2013, and my intermittent return to the region between January 2017 and February 2019, this article argues that labels for refugees evolve over time in response to the larger sociopolitical situation, but they are formed mostly to serve the interest of the host country rather than those of displaced people. Furthermore, while labelling displaced people as “refugees” has been effective in justifying funding and support, it can also lead to a manipulation of refugee status, and the marginalization and exclusion of refugees.
摘要：本文評估了關(guān)于難民待遇的 2016 年第 125 號總統(tǒng)條例的實施情況，以及它與印度尼西亞古邦地區(qū)出現(xiàn)的各種官僚化（這里主要是擔心翻譯成官僚主義，帶有中國式的負面性的理解）難民標簽的關(guān)系。從政治歷史的角度來看，古邦是一個有用的案例研究，可用于闡明難民標簽的政策含義，由于該地區(qū)與澳大利亞和東帝汶接壤的戰(zhàn)略地理位置，其一直在接收不同類型的難民。根據(jù)我2012年10月至2013年10月期間在古邦的實地考察，以及我在2017年1月至2019年2月期間間歇性返回該地區(qū)的觀察，本文認為，難民的標簽循時而變，以應對更廣闊的社會政治局勢，但它們的形成主要是為了服務于東道國的利益而非流離失所者的利益。此外，雖然給流離失所者貼上“難民”的標簽在資助和支持的正當化方面很有效，但它也可能導致對難民身份的操縱，以及對難民的邊緣化和排斥。
Keywords: refugees, internally displaced persons, conditional labelling, sociopolitical factors, East Timor, Indonesian West Timor
關(guān)鍵詞：難民，國內(nèi)流離失所者，有條件的標簽，社會政治因素，東帝汶，印度尼西亞西帝汶
Connecting the Obligation Gap: Indonesia’s Non-Refoulement Responsibility Beyond the 1951 Refugee Convention
彌合義務缺口：印度尼西亞在 1951 年難民公約之外的不推回責任
Dio Herdiawan Tobing，印度尼西亞日惹加札馬達大學，東盟研究中心
Abstract: This article explains the extent to which Indonesia has international obligations to comply with the non-refoulement principle in the absence of ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. While Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees provides the general impression that Indonesia respects the non-refoulement principle, there is no specific text within Indonesian law and policy that regulates the matter. This article argues that Indonesia is legally bound by non-refoulement obligations under international human rights treaties to which it is a party, as well as under customary international law. It examines the extent of Indonesia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and customary international law. It concludes that the Presidential Regulation was a missed opportunity for Indonesia to reinforce its non-refoulement obligations, as illustrated by the recent treatment of Rohingya asylum seekers near Aceh.
摘要：本文解釋了印度尼西亞在沒有批準1951年《難民公約》的情況下，需要在多大程度上遵守不推回原則的國際義務。雖然關(guān)于難民待遇的2016年第125號總統(tǒng)條例提供了印度尼西亞尊重不推回原則的總體印象，但在印度尼西亞的法律和政策中并沒有具體的文本來規(guī)范這一問題。本文認為，印度尼西亞在法律上受到它所加入的國際人權(quán)條約以及習慣國際法規(guī)定的不推回義務的約束。本文研究了印度尼西亞在《禁止酷刑公約》、《公民權(quán)利和政治權(quán)利國際公約》、《兒童權(quán)利公約》和國際習慣法下的不推回義務的程度。本文結(jié)論是，總統(tǒng)條例是印度尼西亞錯失的一個加強其不推回義務的機會，最近在亞齊附近的羅辛亞尋求庇護者的待遇就說明了這一點。
Keywords: Indonesia, refugees, non-refoulement, international law, human rights and refugee law, humanitarianism
關(guān)鍵詞：印度尼西亞, 難民, 不推回, 國際法, 人權(quán)和難民法, 人道主義
The Constitutional Right to Asylum and Humanitarianism in Indonesian Law: “Foreign Refugees” and PR 125/2016
印度尼西亞法律中的憲法庇護權(quán)和人道主義："外國難民"和2016年第125號總統(tǒng)條例
Bilal Dewansyah，荷蘭萊頓大學法學院范沃倫霍芬法律、治理和社會研究所簽約博士生 、印度尼西亞帕賈扎蘭大學法學院憲法學系
Ratu Durotun Nafisah，澳大利亞墨爾本大學法學院
Abstract: Article 28G(2) in Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution reflects a human rights approach to asylum; it guarantees “the right to obtain political asylum from another country,” together with freedom from torture. It imposes an obligation upon the state to give access to basic rights to those to whom it offers asylum, following an appropriate determination procedure. By contrast, in Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees, the Indonesian government’s response to asylum seekers and refugees is conceptualized as “humanitarian assistance,” and through a politicized and securitized immigration-control approach. We argue that the competition between these three approaches—the human right to asylum, humanitarianism, and immigration control—constitutes a “triangulation” of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia, in which the latter two prevail. In light of this framework, this article provides a socio-political and legal analysis of why Article 28G(2) has not been widely accepted as the basis of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia.
摘要:印度尼西亞1945年《憲法》第28 G(2)條反映了處理庇護問題的人權(quán)方案；該條保障了“從他國獲得政治庇護的權(quán)利”以及免受酷刑的自由，同時規(guī)定國家有義務在經(jīng)過適當?shù)拇_定程序后，對那些其提供了庇護的人賦予基本權(quán)利。相比之下，在有關(guān)難民待遇的2016年第125號總統(tǒng)條例中，印度尼西亞政府對尋求庇護者和難民的回應被概念化為 “人道主義援助”，并通過政治化和安全化的移民控制方法予以實施。我們認為，庇護人權(quán)、人道主義和移民控制這三種方法之間的競爭構(gòu)成了印度尼西亞庇護和難民保護的 "三角關(guān)系"，其中后兩者占上風。根據(jù)這一框架，本文旨在提供一種社會政治和法律層面的分析，以說明為什么在印度尼西亞，第28G(2)條沒有被廣泛接受為庇護和難民保護的基礎(chǔ)。
Keywords: constitutional right to asylum, humanitarianism, immigration control, Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016, Indonesia
關(guān)鍵詞：憲法庇護權(quán)，人道主義，移民控制，2016年第125號總統(tǒng)條例，印度尼西亞
信息來源？
The Politics of Intolerant Laws against Adherents of Indigenous Beliefs or Aliran Kepercayaan in Indonesia
印度尼西亞法律之不容忍土著信仰者或Aliran Kepercayaan背后的政治
Victor Imanuel W. Nalle，印度尼西亞達爾瑪森迪卡天主教大學
Abstract: Earlier studies have examined the discriminatory effects of laws and policies against the adherents of indigenous beliefs—Aliran Kepercayaan—in Indonesia. However, those studies do not show how the politics of law were developed through the prior sociopolitical processes in Indonesia’s legislative history. This study analyzes how and why the government initiated and later put an end to discrimination against adherents of Aliran Kepercayaan—at least in the realm of population administration. Under the New Order era, political battles gave birth to the politics of law discriminating against the Aliran Kepercayaan adherents. Weakening political resistance in the Reformasi era as well as judicial review before the Constitutional Court forced the government to partially relax its discriminatory laws and policies. Nonetheless, progressive initiatives from secular nationalist parties have yet to be taken in order to further ensure equality for all minority—religious—groups within Indonesian society before the law.
摘要:早期的研究已經(jīng)考察了印度尼西亞在法律與政策上針對土著信仰的信徒，即Aliran Kepercayaan的歧視性影響。然而，這些研究并未說明法律的政治性是如何在印度尼西亞立法史上通過此前的社會政治進程發(fā)展而來的。本研究分析了政府如何以及為何發(fā)起，并在后來（至少在人口管理領(lǐng)域）結(jié)束了對Aliran Kepercayaan信徒的歧視。新秩序時代下，政治斗爭催生了歧視Aliran Kepercayaan信徒的法律政治。而在改革時代，政治阻力的減弱以及憲法法院的司法審查迫使政府部分放松了歧視性的法律和政策。然而，世俗民族主義政黨尚未采取進步舉措，以進一步確保印度尼西亞社會中所有少數(shù)宗教群體在法律面前的平等。
Keywords：Aliran Kepercayaan, history of law, politics of law, discrimination, human rights
關(guān)鍵詞：Aliran Kepercayaan，法律史，法律政治，歧視，人權(quán)
#02
BOOK REVIEW
書評
Malaysia’s language shift and post-colonial common law - Language Choice in Postcolonial Law: Lessons from Malaysia’s Bilingual Legal System By Richard POWELL Singapore: Springer, 2021. 324 pp. Paperback $10.00
Azirah Hashim
“馬來西亞的語言轉(zhuǎn)變與后殖民普通法”，作者Azirah Hashim
《后殖民法中的語言選擇：來自馬來西亞雙語法律系統(tǒng)的經(jīng)驗》，Richard POWELL
Cross-border dispute resolutions in Asia and beyond - New Frontiers in Asia-Pacific International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution By Luke Nottage, Shahla ALI, Bruno JETIN, & Nobumichi TERAMURA, eds. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International BV, 2020. 370 pp. Hardcover $161.00
Leon Wolff
“亞洲及以外的跨境爭議解決”，作者Leon Wolff
《亞太國際仲裁和爭議解決的新邊界》，Luke Nottage
China’s criminal justice institutions - Construction of Guilt: An Empirical Account of Routine Chinese Injustice By Yu MOU Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2020. 280 pp. Hardcover, $79.00
Xiaochen Liang
“中國的刑事司法制度”，Xiaochen Liang
《罪的建構(gòu)：日常中國不正義的經(jīng)驗描述》，Yu MOU
