Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations
Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This r...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Suparto Suparto [verfasserIn] Fadhel Arjuna Adinda [verfasserIn] Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov [verfasserIn] Zamira Esanova Normurotovna [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System - Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022, 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:4 ; year:2024 ; number:1 ; pages:75-100 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ092821618 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ092821618 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240413110724.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240412s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a K520-5582 | |
| 050 | 0 | |a JZ2-6530 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a Suparto Suparto |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. | ||
| 653 | 0 | |a Comparative law. International uniform law | |
| 653 | 0 | |a International relations | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Fadhel Arjuna Adinda |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Zamira Esanova Normurotovna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |d Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 |g 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 |w (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 |x 28072812 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:4 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g pages:75-100 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 4 |j 2024 |e 1 |h 75-100 | ||
| author_variant |
s s ss f a a faa a e e aee z e n zen |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:28072812:2024----::diitaieiceinnnoeintelnamnsrtvcutu |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2024 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
K |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| allfields |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Suparto Suparto verfasserin aut Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. Comparative law. International uniform law International relations Fadhel Arjuna Adinda verfasserin aut Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov verfasserin aut Zamira Esanova Normurotovna verfasserin aut In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 28072812 nnns volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 kostenfrei https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 4 2024 1 75-100 |
| spelling |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Suparto Suparto verfasserin aut Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. Comparative law. International uniform law International relations Fadhel Arjuna Adinda verfasserin aut Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov verfasserin aut Zamira Esanova Normurotovna verfasserin aut In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 28072812 nnns volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 kostenfrei https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 4 2024 1 75-100 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Suparto Suparto verfasserin aut Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. Comparative law. International uniform law International relations Fadhel Arjuna Adinda verfasserin aut Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov verfasserin aut Zamira Esanova Normurotovna verfasserin aut In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 28072812 nnns volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 kostenfrei https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 4 2024 1 75-100 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Suparto Suparto verfasserin aut Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. Comparative law. International uniform law International relations Fadhel Arjuna Adinda verfasserin aut Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov verfasserin aut Zamira Esanova Normurotovna verfasserin aut In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 28072812 nnns volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 kostenfrei https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 4 2024 1 75-100 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 doi (DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Suparto Suparto verfasserin aut Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations 2024 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. Comparative law. International uniform law International relations Fadhel Arjuna Adinda verfasserin aut Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov verfasserin aut Zamira Esanova Normurotovna verfasserin aut In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 (DE-627)DOAJ078605237 28072812 nnns volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 kostenfrei https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ AR 4 2024 1 75-100 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 |
| sourceStr |
In Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100 volume:4 year:2024 number:1 pages:75-100 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Comparative law. International uniform law International relations |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Suparto Suparto @@aut@@ Fadhel Arjuna Adinda @@aut@@ Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov @@aut@@ Zamira Esanova Normurotovna @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2024-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
DOAJ078605237 |
| id |
DOAJ092821618 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ092821618</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413110724.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240412s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ092821618</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K520-5582</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">JZ2-6530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Suparto Suparto</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative law. International uniform law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">International relations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fadhel Arjuna Adinda</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zamira Esanova Normurotovna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System</subfield><subfield code="d">Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ078605237</subfield><subfield code="x">28072812</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:75-100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">75-100</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
K - Law |
| author |
Suparto Suparto |
| spellingShingle |
Suparto Suparto misc K520-5582 misc JZ2-6530 misc Comparative law. International uniform law misc International relations Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| authorStr |
Suparto Suparto |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)DOAJ078605237 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
K520-5582 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
28072812 |
| topic_title |
K520-5582 JZ2-6530 Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| topic |
misc K520-5582 misc JZ2-6530 misc Comparative law. International uniform law misc International relations |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc K520-5582 misc JZ2-6530 misc Comparative law. International uniform law misc International relations |
| topic_browse |
misc K520-5582 misc JZ2-6530 misc Comparative law. International uniform law misc International relations |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
DOAJ078605237 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)DOAJ078605237 |
| title |
Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ092821618 (DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 |
| title_full |
Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| author_sort |
Suparto Suparto |
| journal |
Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |
| journalStr |
Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System |
| callnumber-first-code |
K |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2024 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
75 |
| author_browse |
Suparto Suparto Fadhel Arjuna Adinda Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov Zamira Esanova Normurotovna |
| container_volume |
4 |
| class |
K520-5582 JZ2-6530 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Suparto Suparto |
| doi_str_mv |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
administrative discretion in indonesia & netherland administrative court: authorities and regulations |
| callnumber |
K520-5582 |
| title_auth |
Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| abstract |
Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. |
| abstractGer |
Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3 https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189 https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979 https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Fadhel Arjuna Adinda Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov Zamira Esanova Normurotovna |
| author2Str |
Fadhel Arjuna Adinda Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov Zamira Esanova Normurotovna |
| ppnlink |
DOAJ078605237 |
| callnumber-subject |
K - General Law |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189 |
| callnumber-a |
K520-5582 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T13:46:23.966Z |
| _version_ |
1803565802688872448 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ092821618</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240413110724.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">240412s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ092821618</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">K520-5582</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">JZ2-6530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Suparto Suparto</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Administrative Discretion in Indonesia & Netherland Administrative Court: Authorities and Regulations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2024</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Discretion is used by state administrators (executives) to resolve complex government situations while still paying attention to the public interest. The practice of discretion still causes problems and debates. This research seeks to examine issues in discretionary authority and its testing. This research is normative juridical research using primary and secondary legal materials. The research approach was carried out using a statutory and conceptual approach. An analysis of the regulations and practices of discretionary testing at SAC was also added to complete the arguments that will be compared between Indonesia and the Netherlands. The findings of this research show that regulations in Indonesia contain provisions governing the limits and scope of discretion as a reference for the government in issuing discretion, as well as instructions for testing discretion at the State Administrative Court. The authority to use discretion, which has encountered problems that have arisen, includes aspects of the meaning of discretion, which also include factual actions, aspects of the regulation of discretion which are carried out in detail in the law, procedural aspects in the use of discretion which require prior permission, and aspects of the possibility of rejection of discretion by superior officials. Regarding the comparison of discretionary tests in the SAC, in Indonesia, the discretionary test is not substantially regarding discretion but instead is on the abuse of authority in exercising discretion concerning the terms and objectives of the discretion and conformity with the AUPB. Meanwhile, the SAC carries out a 'reasonableness test'—limited to whether administrative powers have been exercised fairly. Therefore, the conditions for restricting the use of discretion must be carried out strictly and need to be based on the AUPB so that discretion is issued that is not arbitrary in the public interest because discretionary authority cannot be tested in the SAC.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparative law. International uniform law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">International relations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fadhel Arjuna Adinda</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Azamat Esirgapovich Esanov</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zamira Esanova Normurotovna</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System</subfield><subfield code="d">Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia, 2022</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2024), 1, Seite 75-100</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)DOAJ078605237</subfield><subfield code="x">28072812</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2024</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:75-100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i1.189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/38494c1abdd14e7f8d2c31fdc94eb3b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.jhcls.org/index.php/JHCLS/article/view/189</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2979</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2807-2812</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2024</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">75-100</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.402337 |