Konsep Kewarganegaraan Ganda dalam Tinjauan Hukum Positif dan Hukum Islam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research discusses the concept of dual citizenship in the perspective of Indonesian positive law and Islamic law. Dual citizenship refers to the legal status in which a person is recognized as a citizen by more than one country, a phenomenon that is increasingly relevant in the era of globalization. In Indonesian positive law, dual citizenship is generally not recognized, except in special cases such as children from mixed marriages. However, increasing global mobility and individual rights have prompted discussion on the need for wider recognition of dual citizenship. Meanwhile, Islamic law provides a more flexible approach by considering the maqasid al-shariah principle which emphasizes the protection of basic human rights. Through a normative juridical and sociological approach, this research explores how the two legal systems deal with dual citizenship and what the implications are for individuals as well as the state. A comparative study of dual citizenship Dual Citizenship, Positive Law, Islamic Law, Maqasid al-Shariah, Citizenship Regulation practices in several other countries, such as the United States, Canada, Egypt and Pakistan, was also conducted to gain greater insight and understand the best practices that can be adapted in Indonesia. The results show that despite resistance to dual citizenship, its implementation can provide significant benefits, both in terms of protecting individual rights and strengthening international relations. Therefore, it is recommended that Indonesia consider a more comprehensive and inclusive policy regarding dual citizenship, which is in line with positive legal values and Islamic legal principles. This research can hopefully serve as a reference for policy makers and academics in developing regulations that are adaptive to global dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".