International Journal of Indonesian Studies Volume 1, Issue 3 | Page 116

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INDONESIAN STUDIES
SPRING 2016
Conclusion
In today’s world, jurisprudence has become more inclusive than exclusive. The dichotomies
among legal paradigms tend to merge with each other, most notably in the case of natural
law and legal formalism. However, there are still fundamental differences among them, due
to a difference in point of view: external vis-à-vis internal. The wise policy would be to
synthesise these legal paradigms, in order to correspond to a country’s legal, social and
political context.
The state legalistic system must also be balanced by appreciating other non-legalist
theories, including sociological jurisprudence, sociology of law in general and legal pluralism
and living law theories in particular. An appreciation and reception of these theories is
important to ease the rigidity of the state legal system and to create a legal equilibrium.
Shifting the legal paradigm is necessary, but is not necessary in a radical way by ignoring
state sovereignity. Thus, the idea of implementing strong legal pluralism is rather naive.
Instead, state legal pluralism should be enforced.
From a modern law perspective, living adat law is a pre-modern communal lifestyle
whose its existence depends on communality. There is less freedom of will and intellectual
independency, as intellectuality is limited by communal decisions. This communality may
lead to a purification, which would eventually create exclusivism and a patron-client
relationship. However, the negative effects of communality can be controlled by
implementing state legal pluralism and affirmative action policy, which protect the
community’s rights, limit the tendency toward segregation, while empowering the
individuals within the community.
With regards to ‘development’ practice, the state in general, and judicial institutions
in particular, must embrace the idea of human rights, thus development practice must be
based on human rights principles, not the interests of corporations and elites.

Reference
Abdurrahman. (2002). “Penyelesaian Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup menurut Hukum Adat Dayak
[“Dispute Resolution on Environmental Cases according to Dayak’s Law”]. PhD
Thesis,.University of Indonesia.
Abel, R.L. (1994). ‘Conservative Conflict and the Reproduction of Capitalism: The Role of Informal
Justice’ in Roger Cotterrall (ed), Dartmounth: Law and Society, International Library of Essay in
Law and Legal Theory.
Allott, A.N.(1995). ‘The Judicial Ascertainment of Customary Law in British Africa’ in Alison Dundes
Renteln (ed) Folk Law: Essay in the Theory and Practice of Lex Non Scripta. Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press.
AMAN. (2003).“Sistem Peradilan Adat dan Lokal di Indonesia: Peluang dan Tantangan” [The System
of Adat and Local Court in Indonesia: Opportunities and Challenges], Partnership for
Governance Reform.
Astor, H & Chinkin, C. (2002) .Dispute Resolution in Australia. Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths.

116 | P a g e