The proposal to dissolve the Ministry of Human Rights by advocate\nHotman Paris emerged within the context of differing views with Minister\nof Human Rights Natalius Pigai regarding the handling of street robbers\nand the use of force by authorities. However, when disagreement with an\nofficial\u2019s views evolves into an argument regarding the unnecessary\nnature of the institution they lead, the issue is no longer merely about\nsecurity or law enforcement, but touches upon how to understand the\nfunction of human rights and the role of the state in a modern\nconstitutional system.<\/p>\n
The issue does not lie in whether one agrees or disagrees with the\nMinister of Human Rights\u2019 views. The issue lies in the framework of\nthinking used to reach the conclusion that disagreement with a\nparticular view is sufficient to question the existence of the human\nrights function within the government. This way of thinking relies on\nseveral conceptual reductions regarding law, human rights, and the state\nthat require closer examination.<\/p>\n
The first reduction is the assumption that humanitarian issues are\nresolved as long as legal procedures have been met. This view ignores\nthe most important lesson from the development of modern human rights\npost-World War II: that legality is not always identical to respect for\nhuman dignity. Slavery, racial segregation, apartheid, and various forms\nof discrimination once occurred through valid legal mechanisms.<\/p>\n
Therefore, human rights do not exist outside the law, but rather\nserve as the normative standard used to assess the legitimacy of laws\nand state actions. When humanity is reduced to mere legality, the\nsuffering of victims, human vulnerability, and the social impact of a\npolicy can easily be ignored simply because they do not appear as formal\nlegal violations.<\/p>\n
The development of modern human rights since the second half of the\n20th century shows that human rights issues relate not only to actions\ntaken or omitted by the state, but also to the state\u2019s failure to\nprevent discrimination, social exclusion, and inequality that hinder\ncitizens\u2019 enjoyment of basic rights. Consequently, human rights\nencompass civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and\ncultural rights, which demand changes in policy, budgeting, public\nservices, and governance.<\/p>\n
Thus, there is a fundamental difference between the mechanism of\nrights enforcement and the human rights protection system. The former\nworks primarily through legal instruments, while the latter encompasses\nthe entirety of the state\u2019s obligations to build conditions that allow\nthese rights to be realised in practice.<\/p>\n
Advocates play a role in fighting for and restoring rights through\nlegal instruments, whereas the state bears a broader obligation to\nrespect, protect, and fulfil human rights. Equating the two is a\ncategorical error that reduces structural and constitutional issues to\nmere legal matters.<\/p>\n
The third reduction is equating state institutions with the\nindividuals currently serving within them. This way of thinking ignores\nthe fundamental principle of the modern state that ministries are formed\nto perform permanent public functions, not to accommodate the views or\npersonalities of specific officials.<\/p>\n
In modern institutional theory, institutions are formed to perform\ncontinuous functions, while officials are merely temporary carriers of\nthose functions. Therefore, the existence of an institution is not\ndetermined by who is leading it, but by the state obligations it must\nfulfil. Disagreement with an official\u2019s views does not change the need\nfor the public function that forms the basis of the institution\u2019s\nestablishment.<\/p>\n
A further simplification is the assumption that the abundance of\nhuman rights norms and institutions is a reason why the Ministry of\nHuman Rights is no longer needed. This logic confuses the existence of\nnorms with the state\u2019s capacity for implementation. The Constitution,\nLaw Number 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, various international human\nrights instruments ratified by Indonesia, and their derivative\nregulations form increasingly broad and complex state obligations.<\/p>\n
Within this framework, sectoral ministries, national human rights\ninstitutions, courts, and independent bodies perform different and\ncomplementary mandates. From a governance perspective, the Ministry of\nHuman Rights functions to strengthen coordination, harmonisation, and\nthe mainstreaming of human rights within government administration,\nsupporting the state\u2019s responsibility in the protection, advancement,\nenforcement, and fulfilment of human rights as mandated by Article 28I\nparagraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
From a legal politics perspective, the issue is not how many norms\nare written, but to what extent the state possesses the institutional\ncapacity to transform norms into actions, policies, and protections that\ncan be felt by the community.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, human rights issues arise from the awareness that the\nprotection of human dignity cannot be left entirely to individual\ngoodwill, market mechanisms, religious teachings, or formal compliance\nwith the law. A modern constitutional state is built not on the\nassumption that all power holders will always act fairly, but on the\nneed to provide corrective mechanisms when law, bureaucracy, markets,\nand social majorities fail to protect the most vulnerable. It is in this\ncontext that the function of human rights remains relevant: ensuring\nthat human dignity never falls victim to legality, power, or the moral\nconvenience of groups in secure positions.<\/p>\n
In a modern system of government, the issue is not merely the\nexistence or non-existence of human rights norms, but the availability\nof institutional capacity specifically responsible for coordinating\ntheir implementation across sectors.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/hotmans-misunderstanding-of-human-rights-1780855372", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }