Legal Politics of Land Rights Certification in The Indonesian Context: Between Agrarian Conflicts and Demands for Legal Certainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This writing aims to analyze and identify the legal regulations and politics of registration (certification) of land rights in the context of Indonesian land law, particularly in Law No.5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Regulations (UUPA) amidst various agrarian conflicts and legal certainty documents over land rights that occur in Indonesia. This research will also seek to find comparisons that regulate and the politics of registering land rights in other countries. This is a normative legal research method with a statute approach and a comparative law approach. The results of the research show that the UUPA is a legal product in the field of agriculture that is unification for all Indonesians which is a mandate of the provisions of Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Various agrarian conflicts that occur in Indonesia are caused by problems with land titles. Legal certainty through the certification of land rights is the answer to what agrarian law politics wants, considering that to create agrarian politics that makes people prosperous, protection of the rights inherent in land is needed. Through a clear foundation of rights will be able to increase economic value for landowners and improve the welfare of the Indonesian people at large. The regulation and politics of land registration law in several other countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico and Ethiopia also show the certification of land rights as an effort to provide protection and legal certainty for land that is used for community welfare.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".