@techreport{NugrahaSatrio, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Nugraha, Ignatius Yordan and Satrio, Abdurrachman}, title = {Is This a Constitutional Democracy}, series = {Verfassungsblog}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, doi = {10.59704/055af6dc9b63dbfc}, abstract = {Indonesia, a country that has experimented with constitutional democracy since 1998, inaugurated its new president, Prabowo Subianto, on October 20, 2024. His so-called "Red and White Cabinet" may appear peculiar from the perspective of Western democracies due to its concentration of power. Prabowo assembled a "bloated cabinet" of 48 ministers constituting a hodge-podge of anti-Sharia pluralists, nationalists, Islamists, and others, all swearing fealty to the magico-religious Pancasila. We argue that Prabowo's cabinet parallels the "family state", which envisions the state as a large Indonesian family working together to maintain familial harmony.}, language = {en} } @incollection{Nugraha, author = {Nugraha, Ignatius Yordan}, title = {Deferring to Consensus and Procedural Rationality: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights' Approach to Majoritarian Will}, series = {The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law}, volume = {8}, booktitle = {The Asian Yearbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law}, editor = {Vanhullebusch, Matthias and Forster, Steve and Stanford, Ben}, publisher = {Brill | Nijhoff}, isbn = {978-90-04-70647-7}, doi = {10.1163/9789004706477_007}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {166 -- 198}, abstract = {The purpose of this paper is to explore how the European Court of Human Rights has tackled majoritarian will when dealing with 'hard cases' of human rights. Under its jurisprudence, the Court has long relied on the existence of a 'European consensus' to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court has inconsistently shifted between deference to and rejection of internal consensus, which refers to the prevailing view held by the majority in a particular state. On the one hand, the Court has deferred to an internal consensus that favours restrictions on abortion, but on the other hand, in cases concerning sexual minorities, it has rejected the use of internal consensus to restrict rights. At the same time, with the Court undergoing a procedural turn where the assessment of proportionality is focused on the quality of domestic decision-making rather than a substantive analysis, today the Court is more likely to defer to reasoned and thoughtful internal consensus, which indicates a new Strasbourg-style majoritarian approach to human rights.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Nugraha, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Nugraha, Ignatius Yordan}, title = {Deferring to Consensus and Procedural Rationality: Assessing the European Court of Human Rights' Approach to Majoritarian Will}, publisher = {SSRN}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.4995862}, pages = {30}, abstract = {The purpose of this paper is to explore how the European Court of Human Rights has tackled majoritarian will when dealing with 'hard cases' of human rights. Under its jurisprudence, the Court has long relied on the existence of a 'European consensus' to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Court has inconsistently shifted between deference to and rejection of internal consensus, which refers to the prevailing view held by the majority in a particular state. On the one hand, the Court has deferred to an internal consensus that favours restrictions on abortion, but on the other hand, in cases concerning sexual minorities, it has rejected the use of internal consensus to restrict rights. At the same time, with the Court undergoing a procedural turn where the assessment of proportionality is focused on the quality of domestic decision-making rather than a substantive analysis, today the Court is more likely to defer to reasoned and thoughtful internal consensus, which indicates a new Strasbourg-style majoritarian approach to human rights.}, language = {en} } @techreport{Nugraha, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Nugraha, Ignatius Yordan}, title = {Godly Constitution and Divine Enlightenment: The Indonesian Constitutional Court's Recent Theocratic Judgment}, series = {Verfassungsblog}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, publisher = {Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH}, address = {Berlin}, doi = {10.59704/1bf50643de038c99}, language = {en} }