Main Article Content
In May 2016, a government-appointed human rights team of local civil society actors was installed in Indonesia for the resolution of a dozen alleged cases of human rights violations in (West) Papua between 1996 and 2014. This article discusses findings of thesis research into potential challenges to the legitimacy of above justice mechanism among Papuan civil society, based on qualitative field research in May-June 2017 among indigenous Papuan people, local civil society experts and documentary research. The key indicators of legitimacy are the mechanism's level of transparency and inclusion, (legal) scope of work, representation and victims’ needs assessment. The perceived flaws in these aspects lead to an overall belief that the team is subject to State influence. This could lead to the counter-effective outcome of a (further) division, instead of bridging a gap between Indonesian State institutions and the Papuan indigenous community. Also, this could lead to a division within the Papuan community itself. Overall, a State-appointed justice mechanism theoretically could be legitimate if certain conditions are met, yet the particular challenge of this mechanism is that it appears intrinsically counter-effective, as it is influenced by political interests that deviate from the purported objective of solving human rights cases, i.e. avoiding international interference with human rights violations in Papua and curbing independence sentiments. Presumably, Indonesian politics and the present-day poor safety conditions in Papua would render any government-appointed justice mechanism illegitimate, but also ineffective.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The views, opinions, and pictures expressed in this journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and viewpoints of the editor and the editorial board. All rights are reserved by the authors and the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies of Mahidol University. No part of this journal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the journal’s editor, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Non-commercial use of information in this journal must be properly referenced.
Amnesty International. (2011, January 29). Papua Digest. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/amnesty_international_papua_digest_29-01-2011.pdf
Amnesty International. (2018, July 2). Indonesia: “Don’t bother, just let him die”: Killing with impunity in Papua. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/8198/2018/en/
Antara News. (2016, July 15). Indonesia hails MSG`s decision to reject ULMWP as member. https://en.antaranews.com/news/105670/indonesia-hails-msgs-decision-to-reject-ulmwp-as-member
Beetham, D. (2016). Max Weber and the legitimacy of the modern state. Analyse & Kritik, 13(1), 34–45, https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-1991-0102
Bernhard, H. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). AltaMira Press.
Capriati, M. (2016), Assessment report on the conflict in the West Papuan Region of Indonesia: An overview of the issues and recommendations for the UK and the international community. University of Warwick. https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/ierg/westpapua/assessment_report_international_version_final_pdf.pdf
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research methods: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.opendemocracy.net/jason-macleod/papuan-struggle-enters-new-phase
Human Rights Watch. (2007). Indonesia: Out of sight: Endemic abuse and impunity in Papua’s central highlands. Human Rights Watch, 19(10).
International Center for Transitional Justice & KontraS. (2011). Derailed: Transitional justice in Indonesia since the fall of Soeharto. https://www.ictj.org/sites/default/files/ICTJ-Kontras-Indonesia-Derailed-Report-2011-English_0.pdf
Jakarta Globe. (2015a, June 25). Indonesia granted 'Associate Member' status of MSG, West Papua bid unsuccessful. Jakarta Globe. https://jakartaglobe.id/news/indonesia-granted-associate-member-status-msg-west-papua-bid-unsuccessful/
Jakarta Globe. (2015b, March 2). Retno rushes to scuttle melanesian recognition of Papua as 'Occupied State'. Jakarta Globe. http://jakartaglobe.id/news/indonesias-foreign-minister-melanesian-shuttle-diplomacy/
Macleod, J. (2010, July 26). Papua struggle enters new phase. Open Democracy.
Mambor, V. (2016, April 26). After meeting with Luhut, Papua governor expresses disappointment. Tabloid Jubi. http://tabloidjubi.com/eng/after-meeting-with-luhut-papua-governor-expresses-disappointment/
Mambor, V. (2016, June 27). Jubi: Free West Papua movement rally against minister Panjaitan in Canberra. West Papua Media. https://westpapuamedia.info/2016/06/27/jubi-free-west-papua-supporters-rally-against-minister-panjaitan-in-canberra/
Pratikno, P. & Kurniawan, N. I. (2010). Struggle to gain representation: Mixed politics in democratising Indonesia. PCD Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.22146/pcd.25723
Sapiie, M. A. (2016, June 16). Papuan rights issues will be solved without deception: Luhut. The Jakarta Post. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/06/16/papuan-rights-issues-will-be-solved-without-deception-luhut.html
Savirani, A., & Tornquist, O. (Eds.). (2015). Reclaiming the state: Overcoming problems of democracy in post-Soeharto Indonesia. Penerbit Research Centre for Politics and Government.
Tempo.co. (2016, June 18). Luhut invites ambassadors to monitor human rights cases handling. Tempo.co. https://en.tempo.co/read/news/2016/06/18/055781100/Luhut-Invites-Ambassadors-to-Monitor-Human-Rights-Cases-Handling
The Alliance of Independent Journalists, National Papuan Solidarity, Tapol, The Asian Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Peace for Papua, & West Papua Netzwerk. (2014). Human Rights in West Papua. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/droi/dv/132_wpapua_/132_wpapua_en.pdf
The Jakarta Post. (2016, May 24). Police, military pose problem in attempt to solve Papua rights abuse cases. The Jakarta Post. https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/05/24/police-military-pose-problem-in-attempt-to-solve-papua-rights-abuse-cases-kontras.html
UPR Indonesia. (2017). National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21* at the UPR of the United Nations Human Rights Council, General Assembly, Working Group on the UPR Twenty-seventh session on 1-12 May 2017’, 20 February, A/HRC/WG.6/27/IDN/120
Utama, A. (2016, May 19). Janji luhut selesaikan kasus HAM Papua. CNN Indonesia. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20160519114219-12-131881/janji-luhut-selesaikan-kasus-ham-papua?
Weigand, F. (2015). Investigating the role of legitimacy in the political order of conflict-torn spaces. Security in Transition.
Widjojo, M. S. (Ed.). (2010). Papua road map: Negotiating the past, improving the present and securing the future, short version. The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).