Constructing Human Rights Justiciability in Human Rights Courts in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Indonesia, human rights courts are ad hoc and are only intended for serious human rights courts. This means that there is no special human rights court that deals with the justiciability of human rights, particularly the justiciability for the fulfillment of limited economic, social and cultural rights. This condition is different from civil and political rights which have the principle of non-derogable rights. The research question is how the implementation of human rights justiciability in Indonesia and several other countries in order to build the construction of human rights justiciability in human rights courts in Indonesia. This paper uses the normative juridical as a research method. The results showed that Indonesia already has regulations on the justiciability of the rights to health, education and work which are part of economic, social and cultural rights. In practice, cases of violation of economic, social and cultural rights are often linked to civil and even criminal cases. In addition, the human rights court mechanism is more inclined towards a constitutional court within the authority of the Constitutional Court, because providing remedies cannot be done at the Supreme Court. Countries that have human rights courts under the Constitutional Court include South Africa, Germany, Spain, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Bavaria and Croatia. Meanwhile, countries that regulate remedies through the Supreme Court include the United States, Canada and Japan. Therefore, it is recommended to make material changes in the Human Rights Law, including changes to the definition of human rights violations, the definition of human rights justiciability, and human rights courts in the Constitutional Court.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".