【编者按】《亚洲法与社会杂志》（Asian Journal of Law and Society）是由上海交通大学中国法与社会研究院（CISLS）及其前身法社会学研究中心（LSC）为凯原法学院与剑桥大学出版社合作出版的全英文学术期刊。目前订购数超过8500户，其中超过6000是机构订户。仅在剑桥出版社的期刊平台，仅在2018年，这份新兴期刊的全文下载数就达到10000次以上。据最近获得的权威信息，本刊在SCOPUS引文数据库排行榜已经上升到第二方阵，也已经被纳入ESCI (Emerging Scholars Citation Index)引文数据库，并有望在近期达到SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) 数据库的收录标准。

本期集中推送杂志第8卷第3期（2021年10月）的目录，以方便读者查阅和引用，也可方便研究者了解本刊录用稿件的方针和特色。欢迎大家积极参与全英文学术期刊Asian Journal of Law and Society的建设，在这个平台上构筑一个跨学科、跨国界的知识共同体！

REFUGEES IN INDONESIA

印度尼西亚的难民

The False Promise of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016?

2016年第125号总统条例的虚假承诺？

Susan Kneebone，墨尔本法学院亚洲法律中心教授研究员和助理，墨尔本大学法学院

Antje Missbach，社会科学学院高级研究员兼讲师，莫纳什大学

Balawyn Jones，墨尔本法学院亚洲法律中心和印度尼西亚法律、伊斯兰教和社会中心博士生

Abstract: In this Introduction, Indonesia’s approach towards refugee protection is contextualized historically and regionally in light of the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). In particular, we describe the legal and policy framework for refugee protection in Indonesia and analyze its underlying norms and values, including the constitutional right to asylum. We explain how the legal framework competes with Law No. 6 of 2011 on Immigration, which facilitates a discretionary, securitized, and ‘humanitarian’ approach to refugee policy, which is inconsistent with Indonesia’s legal responsibilities. In conclusion, we assess both the challenges and opportunities provided by the PR.

摘要：以下引言总结了印度尼西亚在历史与区域性背景下对2016年颁布的难民待遇第125号总统条例中难民保护的立场。我们会特别对印度尼西亚的难民保护相关法律和政策框架展开论述，并分析其基本规范和价值取向，包括避难者拥有的宪法性权利。我们会论述其法律框架与2011年第6号的移民法矛盾之处。后者对难民政策采取自由裁量、安全化及 “人道主义”的价值取向，与印度尼西亚的法律责任不一致。 最后，我们会评估难民待遇将面临的挑战与机遇。

Keywords: Indonesia, refugee law and policy, refugee protection, immigration law and humanitarianism

关键词：印度尼西亚，难民法及政策，难民保护，移民法和人道主义

What Are Refugees Represented to Be? A Frame Analysis of the Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 Concerning the Treatment of Refugees “from Abroad” 

难民代表了什么？2016年总统条例第125号关于“来自国外”的难民待遇的框架分析

Mahardhika Sjamsoe’oed Sadjad，鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯大学国际社会研究所博士生

Abstract: The Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR) was a promising step to a better humanitarian response for refugees and asylum seekers arriving in Indonesia. It also provided a much-needed legal framework to validate refugees’ presence and to ground civil -society organizations’ advocacy on their behalf. However, a closer look at the PR and earlier drafts of the document shows serious compromises that: (1) reproduce the notion that refugees are only transiting in Indonesia; (2) frame refugees as passive objects, failing to recognize them as subjects with rights; and (3) prioritize security concerns that position refugees at odds with Indonesian society (masyarakat). Using the “What’s the Problem Represented to be” approach, this article highlights what is included and excluded from the PR and how it falls short of guaranteeing meaningful protection for refugees while living in Indonesia.

摘要：2016年第125号关于难民待遇的总统条例被视为来到印度尼西亚的难民和寻求庇护者走向更人道主义政策的首步。条例还提供了现需的法律框架，用于证实现有难民的存在，并为难民民间社会组织的宣传奠定基础。然而，细思难民待遇文件和此前期草稿，会发现其存有相当程度的妥协性：（一）再次强调难民仅在印度尼西亚过境的立场；（二）把难民当作被动客体，不承认他们为权利主体；(三) 优先考虑难民与印度尼西亚社不协调的安全性问题（masyarakat）。本文采取“所代表的问题是什么”的研究立场，重点论述难民待遇所包含与排除的内容，及总统条例如何未能为难民在印度尼西亚生活期间提供有意义的保护。

Keywords: refugees, frame analysis, Indonesia, prolonged transit, human rights

关键词：难民，框架分析，印度尼西亚，长时间过境，人权

Assessment of the Responsibility of Local Governments in Indonesia for the Management of Refugee Care

印度尼西亚地方政府难民管理的责任评估

I Nyoman Suyatna，印度尼西亚乌达亚纳大学法学院行政法系讲师

I Made Budi Arsika，印度尼西亚乌达亚纳大学法学院国际法系讲师

Ni Gusti Ayu Dyah Satyawati，印度尼西亚乌达亚纳大学法学院行政法系讲师

Rohaida Nordin，马来西亚国民大学法学院教授

Balawyn Jones，澳大利亚墨尔本大学墨尔本法学院博士研究生

Abstract: This article assesses the responsibility of local governments in Indonesia for the management of refugee care, following the enactment of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (the “PR”). It highlights the limited authority of local governments in handling refugee issues—which is an issue that cuts across several national legal and administrative regimes including Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, and Immigration. This article focuses on the constraints of local political dynamics and budgeting in allocating local government funds for refugee care. In addressing these concerns, the authors argue that the PR should be amended to explicitly define the role of local governments in managing refugee issues and to include the regional revenue and expenditure budget as a source of funding. In addition, the authors argue that local governments that are hosting refugees should establish relevant local regulations for implementation of the PR.

摘要：本文评估了在“2016年关于难民待遇的第125号总统令”（“总统令”）颁布后，印度尼西亚地方政府在管理难民照料方面的责任。本文强调了在处理难民问题上地方政府的有限权力——其中，难民问题涉及了包括外交事务、人权和移民在内的多个国家法律和行政制度。本文着重讨论了地方政治动态和预算对地方政府分配难民照料资金的限制。为了解决这些问题，笔者认为，应修订“总统令”以明确界定地方政府在管理难民问题方面的作用，并将地区收入和支出预算列为资金来源之一。此外，笔者认为，收容难民的地方政府应为执行“总统令”制定相关的地方法规。

Keywords: refugees, local government, financial responsibility, Indonesia

关键词：难民，地方政府，财政责任，印度尼西亚

The Role of Local Governments in Accommodating Refugees in Indonesia: Investigating Best-Case and Worst-Case Scenarios

印度尼西亚地方政府在安置难民方面的作用：调查最佳情况和最坏情况

Antje Missbach，德国比勒费尔德大学社会学院助理研究员

Yunizar Adiputera，印度尼西亚日惹卡渣玛达大学国际关系系博士研究生

Abstract: This article analyses the “local turn” in refugee governance in Indonesia through a comparative case-study of two cities: Makassar and Jakarta. It compares how these two cities have responded to the obligations to provide alternative accommodation to detention, imposed upon them by the Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees (PR). While the shift to non-custodial community shelters has been widely praised, we discuss issues that arose when the national government shifted the responsibility for providing accommodation for refugees to local governments, without the allocation of the required funds. The outcome has been a general lack of engagement by local governments. By locating this case-study in the wider global trend of “local turns” in the management of refugee issues, we argue that, in Indonesia, the “local turn” in responsibility for refugees is not fostering a protection approach but has worsened the conditions for refugees.

摘要：本文通过对望加锡和雅加达两个城市的案例比较研究，分析了印度尼西亚难民治理中的“地方转向”。本文对这两个城市如何应对提供拘留替代住所的义务进行了比较。该等义务由“2016年关于难民待遇的第125号总统令”（“总统令”）强加于它们。虽然向非拘留性社区收容所的转变受到了广泛赞扬，但我们发现了当国家政府将为难民提供住所的责任转移给地方政府而没有向其分配所需资金时产生的问题。最后的结果是，地方政府普遍缺乏参与。通过将这一案例研究置于难民问题管理的“地方转向”这一更广泛的全球趋势中，我们认为，难民责任的“地方转向”并没有在印度尼西亚形成一种保护，反而恶化了难民的状况。

Keywords: local turn in refugee governance, Indonesia, immigration detention, refugee rights

关键词：难民治理的地方转变，印度尼西亚，移民拘留，难民权利

Identity Politics and Refugee Policies in Kupang, Eastern Indonesia: A Politico-Historical Perspective

印尼东部古邦的身份政治和难民政策：一个政治—历史的视角

Andrey Damaledo，印度尼西亚古邦阿尔萨·瓦卡纳基督教大学、日本京都大学东南亚研究中心

Abstract: This article assesses the implementation of Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees and how it relates to different kinds of bureaucratic labelling of refugees as it unfolds in Indonesia‘s region of Kupang. From a politico-historical perspective, Kupang is a useful case-study for elucidating the policy implications of the labelling of refugees, as the region has been hosting different kinds of refugees due to its strategic geographical location that borders Australia and Timor-Leste. Drawing on my fieldwork in Kupang between October 2012 and October 2013, and my intermittent return to the region between January 2017 and February 2019, this article argues that labels for refugees evolve over time in response to the larger sociopolitical situation, but they are formed mostly to serve the interest of the host country rather than those of displaced people. Furthermore, while labelling displaced people as “refugees” has been effective in justifying funding and support, it can also lead to a manipulation of refugee status, and the marginalization and exclusion of refugees.

摘要：本文评估了关于难民待遇的 2016 年第 125 号总统条例的实施情况，以及它与印度尼西亚古邦地区出现的各种官僚化（这里主要是担心翻译成官僚主义，带有中国式的负面性的理解）难民标签的关系。从政治历史的角度来看，古邦是一个有用的案例研究，可用于阐明难民标签的政策含义，由于该地区与澳大利亚和东帝汶接壤的战略地理位置，其一直在接收不同类型的难民。根据我2012年10月至2013年10月期间在古邦的实地考察，以及我在2017年1月至2019年2月期间间歇性返回该地区的观察，本文认为，难民的标签循时而变，以应对更广阔的社会政治局势，但它们的形成主要是为了服务于东道国的利益而非流离失所者的利益。此外，虽然给流离失所者贴上“难民”的标签在资助和支持的正当化方面很有效，但它也可能导致对难民身份的操纵，以及对难民的边缘化和排斥。

Keywords: refugees, internally displaced persons, conditional labelling, sociopolitical factors, East Timor, Indonesian West Timor

关键词：难民，国内流离失所者，有条件的标签，社会政治因素，东帝汶，印度尼西亚西帝汶

Connecting the Obligation Gap: Indonesia’s Non-Refoulement Responsibility Beyond the 1951 Refugee Convention

弥合义务缺口：印度尼西亚在 1951 年难民公约之外的不推回责任

Dio Herdiawan Tobing，印度尼西亚日惹加札马达大学，东盟研究中心

Abstract: This article explains the extent to which Indonesia has international obligations to comply with the non-refoulement principle in the absence of ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention. While Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees provides the general impression that Indonesia respects the non-refoulement principle, there is no specific text within Indonesian law and policy that regulates the matter. This article argues that Indonesia is legally bound by non-refoulement obligations under international human rights treaties to which it is a party, as well as under customary international law. It examines the extent of Indonesia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and customary international law. It concludes that the Presidential Regulation was a missed opportunity for Indonesia to reinforce its non-refoulement obligations, as illustrated by the recent treatment of Rohingya asylum seekers near Aceh.

摘要：本文解释了印度尼西亚在没有批准1951年《难民公约》的情况下，需要在多大程度上遵守不推回原则的国际义务。虽然关于难民待遇的2016年第125号总统条例提供了印度尼西亚尊重不推回原则的总体印象，但在印度尼西亚的法律和政策中并没有具体的文本来规范这一问题。本文认为，印度尼西亚在法律上受到它所加入的国际人权条约以及习惯国际法规定的不推回义务的约束。本文研究了印度尼西亚在《禁止酷刑公约》、《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》、《儿童权利公约》和国际习惯法下的不推回义务的程度。本文结论是，总统条例是印度尼西亚错失的一个加强其不推回义务的机会，最近在亚齐附近的罗辛亚寻求庇护者的待遇就说明了这一点。

Keywords: Indonesia, refugees, non-refoulement, international law, human rights and refugee law, humanitarianism

关键词：印度尼西亚, 难民, 不推回, 国际法, 人权和难民法, 人道主义

The Constitutional Right to Asylum and Humanitarianism in Indonesian Law: “Foreign Refugees” and PR 125/2016

印度尼西亚法律中的宪法庇护权和人道主义："外国难民"和2016年第125号总统条例

Bilal Dewansyah，荷兰莱顿大学法学院范沃伦霍芬法律、治理和社会研究所签约博士生 、印度尼西亚帕贾扎兰大学法学院宪法学系

Ratu Durotun Nafisah，澳大利亚墨尔本大学法学院

Abstract: Article 28G(2) in Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution reflects a human rights approach to asylum; it guarantees “the right to obtain political asylum from another country,” together with freedom from torture. It imposes an obligation upon the state to give access to basic rights to those to whom it offers asylum, following an appropriate determination procedure. By contrast, in Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016 concerning the Treatment of Refugees, the Indonesian government’s response to asylum seekers and refugees is conceptualized as “humanitarian assistance,” and through a politicized and securitized immigration-control approach. We argue that the competition between these three approaches—the human right to asylum, humanitarianism, and immigration control—constitutes a “triangulation” of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia, in which the latter two prevail. In light of this framework, this article provides a socio-political and legal analysis of why Article 28G(2) has not been widely accepted as the basis of asylum and refugee protection in Indonesia.

摘要:印度尼西亚1945年《宪法》第28 G(2)条反映了处理庇护问题的人权方案；该条保障了“从他国获得政治庇护的权利”以及免受酷刑的自由，同时规定国家有义务在经过适当的确定程序后，对那些其提供了庇护的人赋予基本权利。相比之下，在有关难民待遇的2016年第125号总统条例中，印度尼西亚政府对寻求庇护者和难民的回应被概念化为 “人道主义援助”，并通过政治化和安全化的移民控制方法予以实施。我们认为，庇护人权、人道主义和移民控制这三种方法之间的竞争构成了印度尼西亚庇护和难民保护的 "三角关系"，其中后两者占上风。根据这一框架，本文旨在提供一种社会政治和法律层面的分析，以说明为什么在印度尼西亚，第28G(2)条没有被广泛接受为庇护和难民保护的基础。

Keywords: constitutional right to asylum, humanitarianism, immigration control, Presidential Regulation No. 125 of 2016, Indonesia

关键词：宪法庇护权，人道主义，移民控制，2016年第125号总统条例，印度尼西亚

信息来源？

The Politics of Intolerant Laws against Adherents of Indigenous Beliefs or Aliran Kepercayaan in Indonesia

印度尼西亚法律之不容忍土著信仰者或Aliran Kepercayaan背后的政治

Victor Imanuel W. Nalle，印度尼西亚达尔玛森迪卡天主教大学

Abstract: Earlier studies have examined the discriminatory effects of laws and policies against the adherents of indigenous beliefs—Aliran Kepercayaan—in Indonesia. However, those studies do not show how the politics of law were developed through the prior sociopolitical processes in Indonesia’s legislative history. This study analyzes how and why the government initiated and later put an end to discrimination against adherents of Aliran Kepercayaan—at least in the realm of population administration. Under the New Order era, political battles gave birth to the politics of law discriminating against the Aliran Kepercayaan adherents. Weakening political resistance in the Reformasi era as well as judicial review before the Constitutional Court forced the government to partially relax its discriminatory laws and policies. Nonetheless, progressive initiatives from secular nationalist parties have yet to be taken in order to further ensure equality for all minority—religious—groups within Indonesian society before the law.

摘要:早期的研究已经考察了印度尼西亚在法律与政策上针对土著信仰的信徒，即Aliran Kepercayaan的歧视性影响。然而，这些研究并未说明法律的政治性是如何在印度尼西亚立法史上通过此前的社会政治进程发展而来的。本研究分析了政府如何以及为何发起，并在后来（至少在人口管理领域）结束了对Aliran Kepercayaan信徒的歧视。新秩序时代下，政治斗争催生了歧视Aliran Kepercayaan信徒的法律政治。而在改革时代，政治阻力的减弱以及宪法法院的司法审查迫使政府部分放松了歧视性的法律和政策。然而，世俗民族主义政党尚未采取进步举措，以进一步确保印度尼西亚社会中所有少数宗教群体在法律面前的平等。

Keywords：Aliran Kepercayaan, history of law, politics of law, discrimination, human rights

关键词：Aliran Kepercayaan，法律史，法律政治，歧视，人权

BOOK REVIEW

书评

Malaysia’s language shift and post-colonial common law - Language Choice in Postcolonial Law: Lessons from Malaysia’s Bilingual Legal System By Richard POWELL Singapore: Springer, 2021. 324 pp. Paperback $10.00

Azirah Hashim

“马来西亚的语言转变与后殖民普通法”，作者Azirah Hashim

《后殖民法中的语言选择：来自马来西亚双语法律系统的经验》，Richard POWELL

Cross-border dispute resolutions in Asia and beyond - New Frontiers in Asia-Pacific International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution By Luke Nottage, Shahla ALI, Bruno JETIN, & Nobumichi TERAMURA, eds. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International BV, 2020. 370 pp. Hardcover $161.00

Leon Wolff

“亚洲及以外的跨境争议解决”，作者Leon Wolff

《亚太国际仲裁和争议解决的新边界》，Luke Nottage

China’s criminal justice institutions - Construction of Guilt: An Empirical Account of Routine Chinese Injustice By Yu MOU Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2020. 280 pp. Hardcover, $79.00

Xiaochen Liang

“中国的刑事司法制度”，Xiaochen Liang

《罪的建构：日常中国不正义的经验描述》，Yu MOU