JRSSEM 2022, Vol. 1, No. 6, 754 – 765

E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494

DOI : https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

LEGAL POLITICAL POLICY IN RESOLVING THE PAPUA

CONFLICT

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid

Doctoral Program in Law at Trisakti University, Jakarta

e-mail: methodius.kossay@gmail.com

*Correspondence: methodius.kossay@gmail.com

Submitted: August, 31

th

2022, Revised: September, 3

rd

2022, Accepted: September, 7

th

2022

Abstract. The Central Government's policy for Papua has been periodically carried out since the

integration of Papua until the enactment of Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for

the Papua Province. However, since the 20th anniversary of the implementation of Law Number 2

of 2021, the second amendment to Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for the

Papua Province, has so far not had a significant impact on development in Papua. The purpose of

the research in this paper is to find out and analyze how legal political policies are to resolve

conflicts. The research method that will be used in this study is a qualitative method, namely

describing the facts with primary secondary and tertiary legal materials. This is caused by the

various roots of the Papuan conflict that have not been resolved until now. Various policies under

the Papua Special Autonomy Law and regulations in the form of Presidential Instructions,

Presidential Regulations, Perdasi, Perdasus and sectoral regulations were issued using the Welfare

Approach and the Security Approach model. However, it still does not have an impact, especially

for the Indigenous Papuans (OAP) and does not reduce violent conflicts in the Land of Papua. The

purpose of this study is to find out and analyze how legal political policies are in resolving the

Papuan conflict. The research method that will be used in this study is a qualitative method with a

normative type of research. The theory used in this study is the Theory of the Rule of Law, Theory

of L.M. Friedman and the Theory of Justice. The result of the research is that the various policies of

the Central Government for Papua in resolving the Papuan conflict have not been able to resolve

the conflict in Papua. So one of the legal political policies that must be carried out is Peaceful

Dialogue through negotiations. The product of the negotiations between the parties is a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as an agreement to end the conflict completely in the Land

of Papua.

Keywords: Political Law, Policy, Conflict, Peaceful Dialogue

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 755

DOI : https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

INTRODUCTION

The Central Government's policy for

Papua was periodically carried out in 1998

when Suharto's leadership ended in

Indonesia, which marked the start of a new

approach to dealing with problems in

Papua (Mietzner, 2006). The security

approach, which during the New Order era

became the main way of resolving conflicts

by the government (Serrano & Kazda,

2020), was changed to an approach that

prioritized the welfare of the Papuan

people (Rakia et al., 2021). This change in

approach was marked by the abolition of

the status of the Military Operations Area

(DOM) in Papua and the continuous

implementation of the Special Autonomy

(Otsus Papua) policy and the acceleration

of development in Papua (Koibur, 2021).

Prioritizing the humanist method that

prioritizes improving welfare brings great

hope for an immediate end to the Papuan

conflict and improving the lives of Papuans

(Budiatri et al., 2018).

Special autonomy has been a

consistent policy choice used by the

government in the reform era since the

implementation of a new approach to

Papua (Smith, 2020). The choice of special

autonomy for Papua began to be a

discourse since President Habibie started

the reform era in 1999 (Zamjani, 2022), but

it was only two years later that it was

determined to be a legal political policy

(Crawley & Hagen

-

Zanker, 2019), namely

with the issuance of the Papua Special

Autonomy Law during the reign of

President Megawati Soekarno Putri

(Abdurahman & Dewansyah, 2019).

Special autonomy has become a legal

political policy which is the main regulation

in solving problems in Papua (Elisabeth,

2021).

Now, with the same model, the

Central Government is carrying out various

policies to resolve the Papuan conflict

under the legal umbrella of Law No. 2 of

2021 (Ungirwalu et al., 2021), the second

amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001

concerning the Special Autonomy of the

Papua Province (Rahadatul’Aisy et al.,

2021). The central government's policies

through the regulations issued in their

implementation do not have a significant

impact in reducing conflict in Papua

a(Halkis, 2020) nd do not even have a

significant impact on the Orang Asli Papua

(OAP). The mandate of the Special

Autonomy Law has not been able to answer

the root problems in Papua and West

Papua. Government policies in the

administration of centralized governance

and development fail to realize a sense of

justice, people's welfare, law enforcement

and respect for human rights in Papua in a

specific context. The policy of the Papua

Special Autonomy Law is intended to

support the acceleration of development in

various fields in Papua, such as; the field of

education, health, economy, culture and

social, politics and law by giving wider

authority to the province and the people of

Papua in regulating and managing

themselves within the framework of the

Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia

(NKRI). Although there have been many

changes since the implementation of

special autonomy in Papua until now, they

have not resolved the root causes of the

756 | Legal Political Policy In Resolving The Papua Conflict

conflict in Papua. The impact is not fully felt

by the Papuan people, especially the

Papuan Indigenous People (OAP) in

improving the welfare and justice for the

indigenous Papuans.

In addition, the approach in

implementing public policy in resolving

conflict problems in Papua tends to be top-

down, meaning a one-sided approach from

top to bottom. In the implementation

process the role of the government is very

large, in this approach the assumption that

occurs is that decision makers are key

actors in the success of implementation,

while other parties involved in the

implementation process are considered to

be obstacles, so that decision makers

underestimate strategic initiatives that

come from the bureaucratic level. low and

other policy subsystems. So a bottom-up

public policy approach is needed, where

this approach comes from the bottom (the

community). The bottom-up approach is

based on the type of public policy that

encourages people to work on the

implementation of their policies

themselves or still involves government

officials but only at a low level. The

underlying assumption of this approach is

that implementation takes place in a

decentralized decision-making

environment. This model provides a

mechanism for moving from the lowest

levels of the bureaucracy to the highest

levels of decision making in the public and

private sectors. So that the aspirations of

the community are well accommodated by

the authorized officials in making decisions

related to solving problems in Papua.

Based on the results of research from

the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) in

2008, there are four root problems in Papua

that must be resolved, namely; First; The

problem of marginalization and the effects

of discrimination against indigenous

Papuans due to economic development,

political conflict and mass migration to

Papua since 1970, Second; failure of

development, especially in the fields of

education, health and people's economic

empowerment. Third; the existence of

historical contradictions and the

construction of political identity between

Papua and Jakarta. Fourth; accountability

for past state violence against Indonesian

citizens in Papua (Widjojo et al., 2010).

Conflict issues that occur in Papua cannot

be separated from the four root problems

described above so that they must be

resolved thoroughly and completely, not

partially. One way to root out Papua's

problems is through dialogue. Dialogue is

one way to solve problems in Papua.

Another problem is that there is no

integrated planning that is in accordance

with the geographical conditions and the

distribution of the Papuan population, the

cultural values of the Papuan people and

budget transparency. Every individual who

sits and works in local government does

not yet fully have the ability to run the

bureaucracy. The local government has not

managed to properly manage the special

autonomy funds which should really

benefit the Papuan people, especially the

indigenous Papuans. The management of

these funds must be based on the

principles of order, effectiveness, efficiency,

economy, transparency, accountability,

fairness, propriety and pro-society.

However, on the contrary, the use of the

special autonomy funds is not well targeted

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 757

and what may happen is the corrupt

practice of the special autonomy funds by

local elites in Papua.

Political law policy is one of the relevant

policies to resolve the conflict in Papua.

One of the concepts in the legal politics

policy to resolve the Papuan conflict is a

peaceful dialogue between the Central

Government and the Papuan people.

Politics Legal politics in its implementation

is fundamental to determine the direction,

form and content of the law to be formed

and what will be used as criteria in resolving

conflicts in Papua. With a collaborative

planning, which is a decision-making

process in which various stakeholders, who

see problems from various angles, sit

together to explore differences

constructively, then look for appropriate

solutions to resolve problems in Papua.

With the description above, the authors are

interested in researching with the title;

"politic law policy to resolve the Papuan

conflict".

The purpose of the research in this

paper is to find out and analyze how legal

political policies are to resolve conflicts (Ali,

2019).

METHODS

The research method that will be

used in this study is a qualitative method,

namely describing the facts with primary

secondary and tertiary legal materials. In

addition, according to Zainnudin Ali in his

book entitled Legal Research Methods, he

said that research methods in legal science

are all activities based on scientific

disciplines to collect, classify, analyze, and

interpret legal facts and relationships in the

legal field and in other relevant fields. for

the life of law, and based on the knowledge

gained, scientific principles and scientific

methods can be developed to respond to

these facts and relationships.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Indonesia as a state of law, places the

law as the ultimum remedium in upholding

the rule of law in Indonesia. This is as

mandated in the 1945 Constitution (UUD)

Article 1 (3) which reads; "The state of

Indonesia is a state of law". In the concept

of the rule of law, it is idealized that what

should be the commander in the dynamics

of state life is law, not politics or economics.

State of law or rechtsstaat According to

Aristotle, a good state is a state that is

ordered by the constitution and has legal

sovereignty, therefore the important thing

is to educate people to be good citizens,

because from a just attitude the happiness

of the lives of its citizens will be guaranteed.

According to Scheltema, the elements of

rechstaat are a) legal certainty; b) equality;

c) democracy; d) government that serves

the public interest. (Aziz & Zuhro, 2018).

However, the constitutional mandate in

enforcing the law in its implementation has

not been as expected. In the context of

Papua, law enforcement is the embodiment

of the rule of law in Indonesia. So one of

the elements of the birth of the Special

Autonomy Law for Papua is to uphold the

rule of law in the Land of Papua. The

granting of the Papua Special Autonomy

Law is one of the legal political policies

given by the Central Government to resolve

758 | Legal Political Policy In Resolving The Papua Conflict

DOI : https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

problems in Papua. However, the

implementation of the Special Autonomy

Law did not have a significant impact in

resolving the conflict in Papua. In law

enforcement, conflict resolution in Papua

has been accommodated in the Papua

Special Autonomy Law Article 45 Paragraph

(1) and Paragraph (2), which reads:

(1) The Government, Provincial

Government and Residents of the Papua

Province are obligated to uphold, promote,

protect and respect Human Rights in the

Papua Province. (2) In order to carry out the

matters as referred to in paragraph (1), the

Government establishes representatives of

the National Human Rights Commission,

the Human Rights Court and the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission in the Papua

Province in accordance with the laws and

regulations.

However, the implementation of the

mandate of the Special Autonomy Law

article 45 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)

has not run until now, especially regarding

the establishment of a Human Rights Court

in Papua and the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission (KKR), which should have been

stipulated according to the Presidential

Decree, which was canceled by the

Presidential Decree. Decision of the

Constitutional Court (MK) Number

006/PUU-IV/2006 regarding the review of

Law Number 27 of 2004 concerning the

Truth and Reconciliation Commission,

which states that Law Number 27 of 2004 is

contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the

Republic of Indonesia so that the Act has

no legal force. tie.

However, in this case, development

policies have not been optimal in

accelerating the level of welfare, especially

Papuan Indigenous People (OAP) in Papua

and have not been able to resolve conflicts

in Papua. There are several main problems

related to policy implementation that are at

the root of Papua's development problems.

First; whether or not the grand design of

Papua's long-term development and

increasing the commitment of all Papuan

development actors. So far the policy

umbrella for Papua is the Papua Special

Autonomy Law with its derivatives to

accelerate development in the form of

government work guidelines in the form of

a Presidential Decree or Presidential

Instruction. However, the government does

not have a master plan that describes in

operational detail how the planning,

implementation, monitoring, and

development targets of Papua will run in

the long term. In addition, the government

does not have a design that contains the

role of development and how collaboration

is carried out by each development actor,

especially the central and local

governments.

The policy to accelerate development

in Papua often mandates the preparation of

an action plan for Papua's development

that refers to the RPJMN and the Provincial

Mid-Term Development Plan (RPJMP), but

the RPJMN and RPJMP are not grand

designs because both have a short time

period, only five years according to the

time period at one time. reign period only.

In fact, cooperation and implementation of

development in Papua cannot only be done

in a short period of time and needs to be

continuous between periods of

government. Not only that, the RPJMN or

even the National Long-Term Development

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 759

Plan (RPJMN) which is a development

guide for a period of 20 years also cannot

be positioned as a grand design for Papua's

development because it contains

development programs in Indonesia that

are very general and do not discuss

operational details in detail. specifically

Papuan development. Meanwhile, the

RPJPP and RPJMP also cannot be

positioned as grand designs because their

substance focuses on the work of regional

governments, namely provincial and

district/city governments. Whereas the

grand design must discuss the

collaboration and coordination of all

development actors (planners and

implementers) in Papua.

The absence of a master

development plan in Papua means that

policies for accelerating development are

drawn up based on the priorities of each

head of government through Presidential

Regulations (Perpres) or Presidential

Instructions (Inpres). Therefore, Presidential

Instruction 5/2007, Presidential Regulation

65/2011, Presidential Instruction 9/2017

and Presidential Instruction 9/2020 are

translated as a general basis for making

programs from technical ministries to the

central government as well as regional

offices. The current situation shows that

there is a void in the grand design of

development as a reference policy that

regulates strategic development steps in

Papua in the long term and binds the

commitment of development actors.

Whereas Papua is the region with the most

backward level of development compared

to other provinces in Indonesia, and has

conflict characteristics that deserve special

attention in relation to specific, detailed,

and well structured development targets

and plans. This is important as a basis for

coordination and cooperation of

institutions, be it government or non-

government, in working to develop Papua.

Second; weak coordination between

Papuan development actors, especially

internal government. Efforts to accelerate

have brought consequences for the large

budget and the variety of programs

implemented in Papua. Central and local

governments have different budget and

program management responsibilities. It is

appropriate, as members of the executive

branch, the central and regional

governments to synergize and coordinate

with each other to carry out development

in Papua. However, this did not work as it

should. The problem of weak coordination

does not only occur in central-regional

relations, but also occurs between

institutions at the same government level

(between K/L or between agencies)

because of the sectoral ego of each

institution. Coordination problems also

take place between agencies within the

local government environment in Papua.

Weak coordinative work between

government agencies like this is certainly

very influential on the results of

development that are not optimal, it

becomes a matter of regret, if the problems

that have been recognized for a long time

until now have not yet met the end point.

Third; policy inconsistencies due to

vacancies and overlapping laws. The

Special Autonomy Law for Papua becomes

a special legal political policy that gives

great authority to the Regional

760 | Legal Political Policy In Resolving The Papua Conflict

Government to manage development in

Papua and West Papua. The Special

Autonomy Law also provides a special

allocation of funds which are the main

source for accelerating development in

Papua. However, the specifics of the Special

Autonomy Law seem to be gradually failing

because its implementation then refers to

national (general) national regulations

(Enembe, 2016). This occurs due to the

vacancy of Government Regulations (PP),

Special Regional Regulations (Perdasus)

and Provincial Regulations (Perdasi) which

should be derivative rules and regulate

technical matters from what Otsus Papua

wants.

Referring to the articles that focus on

socio-economic development issues in the

Papua Special Autonomy Law, there are

seven perdasi/perdasus in Papua Province

and 16 perdasus/perdasi in West Papua

Province which should have existed to

support development in Papua but have

not been realized. . Meanwhile, at least four

of the Papua Special Autonomy Laws that

should be regulated in a PP-level technical

regulation have also not been

implemented to this day, including on

central government facilitation through the

provision of guidelines, training and

supervision, repressive supervision of

perdasus, perdasi, and governor decisions,

supervision functional for the

implementation of local government and

evaluation of the implementation of the

Special Autonomy Law in Papua. The void

of technical regulations that should

describe the special mandate of Otsus

Papua is, of course, a big problem. Without

this technical rule, what is regulated in the

Special Autonomy Law may not be

implemented and/or lose its special

dignity. This situation will ultimately hinder

development in Papua.

Fourth; The Papua Development

Policy still applies a top-down approach, or

should be interpreted as a policy made

solely by government decisions (especially

at the central level) without consideration

and does not involve the public and/or

levels of government below it. The top-

down policy for Papua is closely related to

the policies implemented during the New

Order era, for example, through the

implementation of the five-year

development plan (Repelita), Military

Operation Areas (DOM), to the

Transmigration policy. After the end of the

New Order, the top-down policy

orientation began to change by applying a

bottom-up approach that gave local

governments and the public greater space

to be involved in making government

policies and programs for Papua. For

example; Since 2017, the Papuan Special

Autonomy Development Plan

(Musrembang) based on customary areas

in Papua and West Papua has been held to

involve the wider public in the utilization of

Papua's Special Autonomy programs and

funds. Despite efforts to change, the top-

down policy did not stop and continues to

this day in Papua.

One of the basic characteristics of

top-down policies is the weak involvement

of the public and/or government at levels

below the policy makers. The low level of

public participation, especially the Papuan

people in seven (7) customary areas. The

top-down policy will result in two (2) things,

namely; The policy is not in accordance

with the needs and values of the

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 761

DOI : https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

community, and creates a sense of

alienation so that it does not succeed in

creating a strong sense of ownership of the

policy. This then results in weak support for

the policy, and even resistance to the

policy.

Fifth; Misuse and poor budget

management. The budget is one of the

most important elements of a development

program because without an adequate

budget, it is impossible for the program to

be implemented properly. From the aspect

of the quantity of the total budget, it is

undeniable that the government's budget

allocation for the development of Papua is

very large. However, the thing that is still a

problem is budget management that has

not been optimally carried out and has

many gaps in the problem. These

budgeting issues can be seen from the

financial accountability reports which still

show many problems in budget

management, budget allocations that are

not in accordance with the mandate of the

policy and misuse of Papua's development

budget.

Good and bad financial management

by local governments is influenced by many

factors, including the quality of human

resource capacity (HR) within the regional

bureaucracy, supervision of financial

management, receipt of central transfers by

regions and others. For example; Papua

Province is considered less than optimal in

managing Prospect funds due to the

problem of limited human resource

capacity for financial management at the

district and village levels. The problem of

HR which then intersects with the

supervisory function of financial

management also occurs due to the limited

number of internal control officers

(Inspectorates) of only 19 people to

supervise 51 Regional Apparatus Work

Units (SKPD). In addition, there are also

other problems that often affect the ability

of local governments to manage APBD

funds, particularly Papua Special Autonomy

funds, namely; delay in the Special

Autonomy funds from the Central

Government.

One of the legal political policy

solutions that must be carried out to end

the conflict in Papua is through Peaceful

Dialogue. The dialogue between the central

government and the Papuan people is not

expected to be an opportunity for both

parties to accuse and argue with each

other. Because these things do not help the

process of resolving the Papua conflict.

Dialogue participants meet not to add new

problems or to embarrass each other but

on the contrary to seek together ways to

solve various problems that have not been

resolved. Dialogue should also not be

dominated by one party. To prevent things

that are not desirable and place the

dialogue in its proper position, the Central

Government and the Papuan People must

reach agreement on a number of principles

that underlie the dialogue. Before the

dialogue process is carried out, the parties

from both the Central Government and the

Papuan Community must reach an

agreement that:

1. The Papuan conflict must be

resolved peacefully and therefore, not

through violence.

762 | Legal Political Policy In Resolving The Papua Conflict

2. The Papuan conflict must be

resolved in its entirety and therefore not

partially.

3. The Papuan conflict must be

resolved with dignity, namely with mutual

respect and respect and therefore no party

should feel that they have lost face.

4. And there must be a follow-up and

concrete action on the agreement that has

been reached.

In addition, both parties need to

agree that the entire dialogue process will

be based on the spirit of universal

principles such as. Love (Compassion),

Freedom (Freedom), Justice (Justice) and

truth (truth). Mutual agreement on these

principles will be the basic and main capital

in efforts to resolve the Papua conflict

through a dignified way, namely peaceful

dialogue.

One of the determining factors in the

peace dialogue is community participation.

The community, the main factor in their

involvement, was also given the

opportunity to express their aspirations

through an official forum, namely dialogue.

Community participation that needs to be

involved in dialogue consists of two

components, namely 1) the participation of

indigenous Papuans, 2) the participation of

Papuans. Peaceful Dialogue is one solution

in solving problems in the Land of Papua.

Dialogue between the parties, both the

central government and the Papuan

people, must be carried out in order to end

the conflict in the Land of Papua. The

dialogue model currently offered by the

Central Government is the Sectoral

Dialogue to be able to resolve the conflict

in Papua. Sectoral dialogue involves the

two conflicting parties in a forum attended

by parties representing both parties who

are competent to resolve problems. This

Papuan conflict is a conflict of interest and

a conflict that has a long history since the

integration of Papua into Indonesia until

now. If sectoral dialogue is one of the

government's goals to resolve the conflict

in Papua. So according to the author,

sectoral dialogue will not have a significant

impact and constructive solution, because

sectoral dialogue is only a dialogue of

certain sub-sectors, such as the political

and legal sectors. Whereas the Papuan

conflict has become an international issue

and has a long history to date.

On the other hand, the Papuan

people want dialogue to be carried out like

the Helsinki Agreement through a

memorandum of understanding between

the Government of Indonesia and the Free

Aceh Movement (GAM) which was signed

in Helsinki on August 15, 2005. This is due

to mutual suspicion and lack of mutual

trust. From the central government's

perspective, there is a suspicion that if

dialogue is carried out, the Papuan people

will take advantage of the dialogue

opportunity to demand and at the same

time discuss Papuan independence.

Therefore, before the dialogue, so as not to

be suspicious of each other, a written and

verbal commitment was made. Thus,

according to the author, one of the

solutions to resolve the Papua conflict is

through agreement negotiations or

Peaceful Dialogue.

The commitment of the central

government and the Papuan people to end

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 763

the conflict in Papua has been expressed

through the media and in meetings.

Already have the intention and willingness

of the parties to resolve the Papua conflict.

However, the intention and willingness to

resolve the conflict through dialogue has

not yet been implemented. The attitude of

mutual suspicion and distrust between the

parties has led to the absence of dialogue.

So, one of the steps that must be taken is

to build trust and not be suspicious of each

other by making a joint commitment

before going to the negotiating table.

The parties must commit first. The

commitments that will be taken by the

parties include things that should not be

discussed in the peace dialogue. The

commitment must be agreed and signed

by the parties both in writing and verbally

before advancing to the negotiating table.

The author believes that the central

government is committed to ending the

Papuan conflict. This author's belief is

based on the fact that the central

government already has experience in

dialogue with separatist parties and/or

facilitating dialogue or negotiations for

separatist groups and governments in

other countries. Learning from these

experiences, the government knows not

only how important it is to resolve conflicts

peacefully but also how to resolve conflicts

through dialogue.

His experience in dialogue, both as a

participant and as a facilitator has taught

the central government about the basic

things that need to be possessed and

shown by both parties before the dialogue

process begins, when the dialogue is

carried out and after the dialogue ends. The

central government certainly wants a

dialogue that is carried out on trust and

various agreements reached in the

dialogue for the two parties to the conflict.

So to have a dialogue with the Papuan

people according to the late Dr. Neles

Tebay, The central government wants an

attitude that is stated clearly and openly

from the Papuan people, especially from

the ULMWP. The Central Government looks

forward to a commitment in a decision

from the ULMWP stating that it will not

discuss West Papuan independence in the

dialogue. This decision needs to be

declared by the leaders of the United

Liberation Movement for west Papua

(ULMWP) or the Union of the West Papua

liberation movement, both orally and in

writing and announced through national

and international media, so that the central

government and international institutions

know about it.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the research above can

be concluded that the legal political policy

to resolve the Papuan conflict is through

Peaceful Dialogue. Because the central

government's policy to resolve the conflict

in Papua has not had a significant impact.

So a new reconstruction is needed in the

policy to resolve the Papuan conflict,

namely through the Peaceful Dialogue. The

product of legal politics in peace dialogue

is a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU)

through negotiators carried out by the

parties. The dialogue is carried out by

involving the participation of the

community, namely indigenous Papuans

764 | Legal Political Policy In Resolving The Papua Conflict

DOI : https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

and Papuans in the Land of Papua and the

ULMWP. This Papuan conflict is a conflict of

interest and a conflict that has a long

history since the integration of Papua into

Indonesia until now.

REFERENCES

Abdurahman, A., & Dewansyah, B. (2019).

Asymmetric Decentralization and

Peace Building: A Comparison of Aceh

dan Northern Ireland. PADJADJARAN

Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law),

6(2).

Ali, H. Z. (2019). Metode Penelitian Hukum,

Edisi Kesatu, Cetakan Kesebelas.

Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Aziz, N. L. L., & Zuhro, R. S. (2018). Politik

Pengelolaan Dana Otonomi Khusus

dan Istimewa. Yayasan Pustaka Obor

Indonesia.

Budiatri, A. P., Haris, S., Romli, L., Nuryanti,

S., Nurhasim, M., Amalia, L. S.,

Darmawan, D., & Hanafi, R. I. (2018).

Personalisasi partai politik di

Indonesia era reformasi. Yayasan

Pustaka Obor Indonesia.

Crawley, H., & Hagen-Zanker, J. (2019).

Deciding where to go: Policies, people

and perceptions shaping destination

preferences. International Migration,

57(1), 20–35.

Elisabeth, A. (2021). Mosaik

Cenderawasih-Pembangunan dan

Kesejahteraan di Tanah Papua.

Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.

Enembe, L. (2016). Papua, antara uang dan

kewenangan. RMBooks.

Halkis, M. H. D. (2020). The

implementation of penta helix

counterinsurgency (coin) strategic

model in reconstructing special

autonomy for papua. Society, 8(1),

234–248.

Koibur, S. O. D. (2021). Papua Conflict

Reconciliation Model and Strategies.

Konfrontasi: Jurnal Kultural, Ekonomi

Dan Perubahan Sosial, 8(4), 293–303.

Mietzner, M. (2006). The politics of military

reform in post-Suharto Indonesia: Elite

conflict, nationalism, and institutional

resistance.

Rahadatul’Aisy, S., Hakim, H. A., Krisnan, J.,

Hardyanthi, T., & Masithoh, M. Q. D.

(2021). Customary criminal law in the

Eastern of Indonesia: the special

autonomy Province of Papua.

Borobudur Law Review, 3(2), 148–

160.

Rakia, A. S. R. S., Suaib, H., & Simanjuntak,

K. W. (2021). Continuing the limited

authority of the Majelis Rakyat Papua;

A missed opportunity. Cosmopolitan

Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary

Journal, 13(3), 34–50.

Serrano, F., & Kazda, A. (2020). The future

of airports post COVID-19. Journal of

Air Transport Management, 89,

101900.

Smith, C. Q. (2020). Liberal and illiberal

peace-building in East Timor and

Papua: establishing order in a

democratising state. Conflict, Security

& Development, 20(1), 39–70.

Ungirwalu, A., Awang, S. A., Runtuboi, Y.,

Peday, M., Marwa, J., Maitar, B.,

Murdjoko, A., & Fatem, S. M. (2021).

Methodius Kossay, Eriyantouw Wahid | 765

Customary Forests in West Papua:

Contestation of Desires or Needs?

Widjojo, M. S., Elizabeth, A., al Rahab, A.,

Pamungkas, C., & Dewi, R. (2010).

Papua road map: Negotiating the

past, improving the present, and

securing the future. Yayasan Pustaka

Obor Indonesia.

Zamjani, I. (2022). Managing Global and

Local Institutional Pressures:

Decentralisation and the Legitimacy

Project in Indonesia. In The Politics of

Educational Decentralisation in

Indonesia (pp. 91–132). Springer.

for possible open accesspublication

under the terms and conditions of the Creative

Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license