A. Junaedi Karso- Department of Government Studies, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar, Makassar, Indonesia
Introduction: Indigenous communities in Indonesia remain among the most vulnerable actors in natural resource governance despite constitutional recognition of their customary rights. Their marginalization is exacerbated by overlapping land claims, fragmented regulations, and limited representation in decision-making. This study analyses how governance law addresses these vulnerabilities and identifies legal–institutional pathways for stronger protection.
Methods: A qualitative design was employed. We conducted a thematic analysis of five core policy and legal documents and triangulated insights with reports from non-governmental and international organizations. A comparative review of global instruments—the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169—was used to benchmark Indonesian frameworks against international norms.
Results: Findings show that Indonesia’s legal pluralism remains weakly integrated, producing persistent uncertainty over the recognition of customary territories and inconsistent safeguards across sectors and jurisdictions. Institutional roles are diffuse, administrative procedures for recognizing customary communities and lands are uneven, and remedies for rights violations are limited. These gaps collectively sustain a protection deficit in resource governance.
Discussion: The study advances governance-law scholarship by proposing an integrated model that harmonizes state and customary systems through clear institutional mechanisms, standardized recognition procedures, and coordinated oversight. Aligning domestic rules with UNDRIP and ILO 169 principles would reduce normative fragmentation, clarify tenure security, and enhance participation. Policy implications include establishing a specialized national Indigenous Tribunal to deliver accessible adjudication and creating a unified land registration framework that formally records customary tenure. Together, these measures can promote more inclusive and sustainable resource governance in Indonesia and offer a transferable approach for other developing countries facing similar plural legal orders.
1 Introduction
Natural resource governance is a critical pillar of sustainable development, shaping how societies balance economic, social, and environmental priorities (Ali et al., 2017; Lockwood et al., 2010). Over the past decades, scholars and practitioners have increasingly recognized governance as the key to effective and equitable resource management (Aysan et al., 2023; McKinley et al., 2017; Ojha et al., 2016; Rusmiyati and Rahmadany, 2024). In this study, natural resource governance refers to the institutional arrangements, policies, and decision-making processes that determine how resources are accessed, utilized, and distributed among actors. At the same time, governance law is understood as the legal and regulatory framework, formal, hybrid, and participatory that defines the rules, authority, and accountability mechanisms guiding resource governance. Over the last twenty years, many governance institutions have shifted from rigid, top-down bureaucratic systems to more interactive, cooperative, and multidimensional arrangements in response to the shortcomings of state-centric governance (Mustalahti et al., 2020; Ojha et al., 2012; Tsani, 2013; Yuslaini and Maulidiah, 2024). Effective governance promotes balance between economic, social, and ecological needs (Shadabi and Adkisson, 2021; Yusuf et al., 2023). whereas weak or fragmented governance often triggers conflict, legal uncertainty, and environmental decline (Tashman, 2021; Wassie, 2020).
Conflicts frequently emerge when competing interests collide over the use and conservation of natural resources, or when communities feel excluded from the benefits generated by resource exploitation (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013; Dam-De Jong, 2015; Prianto et al., 2024). These disputes are further aggravated by practices of overexploitation that degrade forests, rivers, and land, undermining the livelihoods of local and indigenous populations who depend directly on these ecosystems (Amirova, 2022; Barratt and Allison, 2014). Ecological degradation—through deforestation, soil erosion, and water contamination not only disrupts biodiversity but also erodes the cultural and economic foundations of communities that have historically lived in balance with their environment. The dual challenges of conflict and ecological decline thus expose the fragility of governance systems that fail to protect both natural ecosystems and the people who depend on them.
Indigenous peoples, as an integral part of local communities, play an important role in the natural resource governance process (Côté et al., 2024; Thompson et al., 2020). This role is not only in the form of traditional knowledge and practices related to natural resource governance but also as entities that are directly affected by natural resource policies and governance themselves (Tengö et al., 2014; Whyte, 2013). In some cases, natural resource exploration by the government or private parties can disrupt their livelihood activities and access to vital resources (Errico and Claeys, 2020; Lerner et al., 2017; O’Faircheallaigh, 2013). Formal recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights is an urgent step to take (Fa et al., 2020; Tennant, 2017). This can create an inclusive space for indigenous peoples to play an active role in decision-making and policy implementation related to natural resources (Meadows et al., 2019; Short and Lennox, 2013; Wilson, 2019). Thereby helping to reduce conflicts and promote more sustainable governance (Acuña, 2015; Magni, 2017). To better understand the roots of these governance challenges, it is essential to consider how current inequalities are shaped by historical legal structures and colonial legacies. The transition from the discussion of indigenous participation to colonial influence thus reveals how long-standing legal hierarchies continue to determine who holds power over land and natural resources in Indonesia.
One of the key factors contributing to the marginalization of indigenous land rights within Indonesia’s legal system is the legacy of Dutch colonial policies. This historical dimension now serves as a bridge to understanding contemporary governance law and its structural biases (Fahmi, 2020; Fahmi et al., 2024). The Dutch colonial agrarian system implemented the domein verklaring principle, which declared that all land without formal ownership documentation was state land. This principle was later adopted into various sectoral regulations post-independence, including the Agrarian Law and other natural resource laws. The implications of this approach are significant in the process of land acquisition for development and investment purposes. In many cases, indigenous land claims are rejected on the grounds that communities lack formal legal documentation, even though they have traditionally occupied and managed the land for generations. This continuity between colonial and postcolonial governance frameworks underscores the persistent tension between state authority and customary systems. It also highlights the need for governance law to be reinterpreted not merely as a legal doctrine, but as an evolving framework that must reconcile legal pluralism, historical justice, and social inclusion.
In Indonesia, the issue of natural resource governance has been legally regulated in Article 33 paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution, which states that the earth, water and natural resources contained therein are controlled by the state and used for the greatest prosperity of the people (Djayaputra, 2021; Safa’at et al., 2022; Utomo and Heliaantoro, 2024). However, although the governance of natural resources has been constitutionally guaranteed, claims of control and governance of natural resources continue to occur and trigger legal uncertainty (Nasir et al., 2022; Tegnan et al., 2021). This legal uncertainty and the lack of official state guarantees of indigenous peoples’ rights is one of the inhibiting factors for indigenous peoples in Indonesia to governance and protect the natural resources where they live (Kadir and Murray, 2019; Muhdar et al., 2019). In many cases in areas in Indonesia such as Papua and Kalimantan, indigenous peoples are often involved in conflicts over land disputes with the government and corporations, both companies engaged in mining and plantations (Bakker, 2023; Filer et al., 2020; Ridwan et al., 2022; Robinson, 2016). The absence of a legal umbrella that officially guarantees the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights further exacerbates the vulnerability of communities in Indonesia in cases of natural resource governance disputes (Aryandini and Parvez, 2023; Putri, 2024; Spiegel, 2012).
This research aims to explore how the perspective of governance law can be strengthened in efforts to protect the rights of indigenous peoples concerning human resource governance in Indonesia. This research asks two fundamental questions: first, what is the vulnerability of indigenous peoples in Indonesia in natural resource governance; and second, what are the dynamics of protecting the rights of indigenous peoples in governing and protecting their resources from the perspective of governance law. Through these two questions, this research will provide an in-depth analysis of the relationship between governance law and the reality experienced by indigenous peoples in natural resource governance in Indonesia.
This research is inseparable from several studies that have been conducted previously related to natural resource governance and the rights of indigenous peoples (Alam and Al Faruque, 2019; Anaya, 2005; Northcott, 2012; Wagner, 2000). However, this research seeks to fill a significant gap in the in-depth analysis of the integration of governance law with indigenous peoples’ protection practices in the natural resource governance process (Charnley et al., 2017; Lal et al., 2002; Prell et al., 2016). This is because previous literature tends to focus on specific aspects of natural resource governance studies without any comprehensive attempt to elaborate on the relationship between governance law and indigenous peoples’ practices (Busse and Gröning, 2013; Clark et al., 2016; Ratner et al., 2017; Stern and Coleman, 2015). Furthermore, many previous studies have not been able to clearly identify the impact of insufficient legal protection on the vulnerability of indigenous peoples in the context of natural resource policies and utilization. This research is expected to encourage the development of natural resource governance policies that are more inclusive and responsive to the needs of indigenous peoples. Furthermore, this research can be used as a basis for reforming the pattern of natural resource governance arrangements that are more equitable and sustainable.
The exploitation of natural resources often disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups, particularly indigenous communities who rely heavily on their land for livelihoods and cultural identity. As climate change intensifies, these communities face growing risks such as displacement, environmental degradation, and the loss of traditional knowledge systems. By connecting Indonesia’s challenges in natural resource governance to broader global trends, this research underscores the importance of legal frameworks that not only protect indigenous rights but also promote sustainability and equity. These global dynamics highlight that natural resource exploitation is not merely a local issue but has significant implications for social and environmental justice on a global scale. Moreover, the findings of this study align with global movements advocating for indigenous rights and environmental protection, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Paris Agreement’s focus on climate justice. Countries like Brazil and Canada, which also have significant indigenous populations, face similar conflicts between corporate interests, government policies, and indigenous rights.
2 Conceptual framework
Governance law serves as an essential foundation for understanding how state authority, legal frameworks, and institutional mechanisms shape the management of natural resources and the protection of indigenous communities (Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010). Unlike conventional legal theory, which primarily examines normative principles or statutory interpretation, governance law emphasizes how legal norms operate within real governance processes linking law to policy implementation, institutional practice, and social outcomes. In the context of Indonesia, governance law determines how state policies align—or fail to align—with indigenous land rights, resource distribution, and sustainable environmental management. The absence of a comprehensive and inclusive legal framework has contributed to the systemic marginalization of indigenous communities, exposing them to legal uncertainties and socio-economic vulnerabilities (Sakapaji et al., 2024). By positioning governance law as the central analytical lens, this study critically assesses Indonesia’s legal landscape while also tracing its alignment with global legal norms and with the principles of justice, equity, and sustainability that underpin indigenous rights discourse.
Governance law, as a subfield of legal studies, examines the relationship between law, governance, and policy implementation (Ilmar, 2016). It extends beyond conventional legal analysis by incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives from political science, economics, and human rights studies (Jeddawi, 2020). At its core, governance law explains how rules are created, interpreted, and enforced through overlapping legal orders and governance institutions. To make this idea more accessible, it can be understood as the “law of governing”—a framework that studies how authority is exercised, how decisions are made, and how accountability is maintained within and across institutions. It focuses on the mechanisms through which legal systems regulate public and private interactions in various sectors, including environmental protection, resource management, and indigenous rights. The theoretical foundation of governance law is heavily influenced by the concept of legal pluralism, which acknowledges the coexistence of multiple legal orders within a single jurisdiction. In many postcolonial states, including Indonesia, legal pluralism manifests in the tension between state law, customary law, and international legal standards (Buana, 2016; Lukito, 2012). By clarifying these relationships, the framework used in this study establishes a bridge between theoretical discussion and empirical reality, guiding the analysis of how these different legal systems interact in practice—especially in Indonesia.
Governance law serves as a crucial framework for analyzing the intersection between state authority, legal pluralism, and indigenous land rights. In Indonesia, natural resource governance is shaped by overlapping legal frameworks that include state law, customary law, and international human rights law (McCarthy, 2011; Meinzen-Dick and Pradhan, 2001; Spiegel, 2012). While this pluralism theoretically offers space for diverse legal recognition, in practice it often generates friction. International instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169 recognize collective land ownership, self-determination, and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). Yet these global norms frequently clash with Indonesia’s state-centered interpretation of Article 33(3) of the 1945 Constitution, which positions the state as the ultimate authority over land and natural resources. However, the coexistence of these different legal systems does not necessarily translate into a just and effective governance structure for indigenous communities. Instead, legal pluralism in Indonesia operates within a hierarchical legal order where state law predominates, while customary law remains marginalized (Salim, 2015; Simonetti, 2023). For instance, in Indonesia, indigenous communities’ traditional claims to forests and rivers are often denied legal standing because national regulations require formal state certification. This creates legal contradictions where Indonesia formally endorses international commitments to protect indigenous rights while domestically maintaining regulatory mechanisms that constrain them. This dynamic has led to systemic legal uncertainty and has weakened indigenous land rights, particularly in resource-rich regions where land-tenure conflicts are prevalent. By incorporating these concrete examples, the conceptual framework not only clarifies how governance law operates across different normative systems but also highlights the practical implications of these interactions for indigenous vulnerability.
3 Research method
This study adopts a qualitative research design with a case study approach, chosen to provide an in-depth understanding of governance challenges affecting indigenous communities in Indonesia. The case study approach allows for the systematic examination of how governance law operates within specific socio-legal contexts, focusing particularly on indigenous land governance in Papua and Kalimantan. These regions were selected because they represent areas where legal pluralism—state, customary, and international law—intersects most visibly in disputes over land tenure and natural resource management. Each case reflects a distinct configuration of institutional power, community resistance, and legal contestation, thereby offering grounded insights into broader national patterns.
Data collection relied on multiple sources, including legal documents, policy papers, NGO reports, academic literature, and media coverage. Legal texts such as constitutional provisions and court rulings provided a regulatory foundation, while policy papers and government reports shed light on governance strategies. Advocacy group reports from AMAN and WALHI contributed perspectives on indigenous struggles. Academic sources helped frame theoretical discussions, and media reports provided context on contemporary developments. Although this research primarily employed a desk-based analysis, it was complemented by expert consultations with legal scholars, policymakers, and indigenous representatives to validate interpretations and ensure contextual accuracy. These expert inputs strengthened the reliability of findings by linking theoretical interpretations with real governance challenges. The selection of secondary data sources was guided by three criteria: (1) credibility, ensuring that the materials were published by reputable institutions or peer-reviewed sources; (2) relevance, aligning with the theoretical focus on governance law and legal pluralism; and (3) recency, prioritizing data published within the last decade to reflect contemporary governance dynamics.
Data analysis involved thematic analysis, comparative analysis, and critical legal examination. Thematic analysis identified key patterns such as governance failures, corporate influence, and indigenous resistance. Comparative analysis contextualized findings across different cases, highlighting commonalities and regional variations. Critical legal analysis assessed the efficacy of existing laws in protecting indigenous rights, exposing gaps between legislation and enforcement. Additionally, stakeholder mapping was conducted to analyze the interests and power dynamics among government bodies, corporations, and indigenous communities. The integration between methodology and theory is established through the use of governance law as an analytical lens to interpret empirical findings. Legal pluralism provides the conceptual foundation for comparing state and customary norms, while the principles of good governance—transparency, accountability, participation, and legal certainty—serve as evaluative criteria in the analysis. This alignment ensures that methodological choices directly address the theoretical objectives of the study. Limitations of this research include the reliance on secondary data due to limited field access during data collection. While this limits direct observation, the triangulation of multiple sources and expert validation mitigates potential bias. Reflexivity was maintained throughout, recognizing the researcher’s positionality in interpreting legal texts and indigenous narratives.
To enhance the contextual accuracy and validity of the analysis, this research also incorporated informal expert consultations with selected legal scholars, policymakers, and Indigenous representatives. These consultations were conducted to verify interpretations of legal frameworks, clarify recent policy developments, and ensure that the analysis accurately reflected practical governance realities. They were not designed as interviews or as formal data collection procedures, but rather as non-research discussions that complemented the document-based analysis. No personal or identifiable information was gathered, and all insights were used solely to cross-check secondary data and refine thematic interpretations. This approach contributed to methodological triangulation, ensuring that findings drawn from legal and policy documents were consistent with the perspectives of experienced practitioners while maintaining compliance with institutional ethical standards.
4 Result and discussion
4.1 The dynamics of vulnerability among indigenous communities in natural resource governance in Indonesia
4.1.1 Conflict and violence in resource governance
The inability of the state to balance economic, social, and environmental interests in governing natural resources is often the root of various conflicts (Hackett, 2019; Le Billon, 2001). When economic priorities, such as increasing investment and exploitation of resources, are prioritized without considering social and environmental impacts, tensions with the affected communities are inevitable (Maconachie et al., 2015; Marimuthu et al., 2021; Siciliano et al., 2015). From the perspective of governance law, this imbalance reflects a failure to uphold the principles of good governance—particularly transparency, participation, and accountability—in decision-making processes concerning land use and licensing. These tensions often turn into open conflicts marked by various forms of violence, such as criminalisation, intimidation, arrests, and physical violence such as shootings and abuse (Deonandan and Bell, 2019; Terwindt and Schliemann, 2017a,b). In Indonesia, conflicts over mining, plantation, and forestry governance remain frequent. Empirically, this pattern demonstrates how weak enforcement and legal loopholes enable corporations and state actors to exploit land through opaque concession systems, revealing how governance law interacts with power asymmetries between the state and indigenous peoples. Cases such as in Kalimantan (Fanselow, 2015; Levang et al., 2018), Sumatera (Côté, 2022; Kinseng et al., 2023; Wendra and Sutrisno, 2024), and also in Papua (Herman and Sota, 2014; Kusumaryati, 2021; McKenna, 2016; Suryani, 2016), where various forms of violence often mark the exploitation of natural resources by large companies. During the period July 2023–June 2024, Kontras as one of the NGOs that focuses on the issue of Missing Persons and Victims of Violence noted that there were 52 cases of violence in natural resource conflicts carried out by one of the state apparatus institutions (see Figure 1). These data indicate a systemic governance failure rather than isolated incidents, demonstrating that the absence of legal accountability mechanisms perpetuates impunity for rights violations.
Figure 1. Cases of violence in natural resource conflicts 2023–2024. Source: Databoks Katadata (2024).
4.1.2 Land tenure, legal recognition, and vulnerability
In many cases, conflicts over natural resource governance make indigenous peoples particularly vulnerable (Acuña, 2015; Ratner et al., 2017). The use of community land by the government or private parties often does not involve indigenous peoples (Fontana and Grugel, 2016), who have historically inhabited and have spiritual ties to the land (Dawson et al., 2021). From the lens of legal pluralism, such exclusion represents a breakdown in integrating customary law within the state’s legal hierarchy, where recognition of communal tenure is conditional rather than guaranteed. Land governance for corporate or state projects not only eliminates indigenous peoples’ livelihoods but also affects their identity (Boiral et al., 2020; Gebara, 2018).
In Indonesia, the vulnerability of indigenous peoples begins with the status of land ownership (McCarthy and Robinson, 2016a; van der Muur, 2018). Most areas have not been certified. Statistics on the recognition of indigenous peoples’ land ownership status in Indonesia show that only 4.08% of indigenous areas have been certified (see Figure 2). According to the report of the Indigenous Territory Registration Agency, 1,499 indigenous areas have been registered, with a total area of 30.1 million ha spread across 32 provinces and 166 districts or cities throughout Indonesia. Of the total registered customary areas, 7.6 million ha were recorded, 17.68 million ha were in registration status, 3.02 ha were in the verification process, and 1.81 ha had been certified. These statistics highlight how fragmented administrative recognition reproduces legal inequality: under governance law, certification acts as the gateway to legal protection, but the process itself is inaccessible to many indigenous communities due to bureaucratic complexity and uneven local capacity.
Figure 2. Recapitulation of indigenous territory status. Source: Indigenous Territory Registration Agency (2024).
4.1.3 Institutional fragmentation and governance gaps
The absence of a dedicated Law on Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia has resulted in the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights being fragmented and handled according to various sectoral laws and regulations. This piecemeal approach has created inconsistencies in how indigenous peoples are treated across different regions and sectors, leading to gaps in their protection and recognition. This fragmentation reflects the weakness of Indonesia’s governance law architecture, where overlapping institutional mandates lead to inconsistent application of rights. Each sector, whether it be land, environment, or culture, tends to address indigenous issues from its own perspective, without a coordinated effort to ensure that these communities are comprehensively recognized and supported across all areas of their rights. One of the key consequences of this absence is the lack of a national institution specifically tasked with overseeing and advocating for indigenous peoples’ rights. Without a centralized body, there is no clear point of responsibility for ensuring the enforcement of indigenous peoples’ rights and addressing violations when they occur. Furthermore, the lack of such institutions means there are no coordinated national programs that can promote the well-being of indigenous peoples, safeguard their land, culture, and livelihoods, or address their ongoing struggles with land conflicts and marginalization. Indigenous communities are often left to navigate this complex legal landscape without adequate support or representation.
From a governance-law standpoint, such fragmentation violates the principle of legal certainty (rechtzekerheid), undermining the predictability of rights enforcement. The lack of a national institution responsible for indigenous affairs exacerbates this issue, leaving no authoritative mechanism to resolve conflicts or monitor compliance. In legal-pluralism terms, the state’s failure to harmonize statutory and customary systems creates a “grey zone” of legality—where rights are recognized rhetorically but denied administratively. This situation perpetuates vulnerability not merely as a socio-economic condition but as a governance failure, rooted in institutional incoherence and the absence of inclusive legal reform.
The fragmentation of the legal framework also means that indigenous peoples are often subject to policies that do not fully reflect their needs and perspectives. Sectoral laws can fail to account for the interconnectedness of indigenous peoples’ rights, particularly when it comes to land tenure, natural resource use, and cultural practices. For instance, land rights and resource management might be governed by different laws, leading to conflicts and uncertainty regarding indigenous land claims. In the absence of a unified law that acknowledges and integrates all of these issues, indigenous peoples find themselves caught in a legal limbo, unable to fully exercise or protect their rights. This situation calls for the urgent need for a comprehensive Law on Indigenous Peoples that can provide a clear and cohesive framework for the protection and recognition of their rights. Such a law would not only ensure that indigenous communities are legally recognized across all sectors, but also establish a national institution that can advocate for their rights, oversee implementation, and ensure that programs addressing indigenous issues are effectively coordinated. With a dedicated law, the government would be better equipped to create policies that take into account the holistic needs of indigenous peoples, addressing their social, cultural, environmental, and economic rights in an integrated manner. Ultimately, the absence of a Law on Indigenous Peoples creates a fragmented and ineffective approach to their protection and recognition. A comprehensive legal framework, supported by a dedicated institution and coordinated national programs, is necessary to ensure that indigenous peoples in Indonesia are not only recognized but also protected and empowered to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
4.2 Legal framework of governance in the protection of indigenous communities in Indonesia
4.2.1 Fragmented legal recognition and local disparities
The vulnerability of indigenous peoples comes from various policies that do not favor the needs of indigenous peoples (O’Faircheallaigh, 2013). The number of legal products that are born without considering the conditions of the community further exacerbates their vulnerability (Veland et al., 2013). In fact, indigenous groups also have the same rights as other community groups, especially in the utilization of natural resources (Garnett et al., 2018; Sjaastad and Bromley, 2017). However, in practice, these rights are mediated through fragmented legal instruments that vary widely across regions, reflecting the decentralized yet uncoordinated nature of Indonesia’s governance law. Data released by the Indigenous Territory Registration Agency (see Figure 3) show that numerous regional legal products recognizing indigenous peoples have been issued across Indonesian provinces. Most of these regulations, however, originate from provincial or district governments rather than the national level, illustrating how recognition depends heavily on local political will.
Figure 3. Recapitulation of legal products for the recognition of indigenous peoples. Source: Indigenous Territory Registration Agency (2024).
In some areas, such as West Java and Southeast Sulawesi, the recognition of indigenous peoples relies exclusively on district or city regulations, while other regions lack any legal instruments at all. This uneven landscape of legal recognition demonstrates how decentralization, when not guided by a coherent national legal framework, produces structural inequality between regions. From the perspective of governance law, this pattern reflects weak vertical coordination between central and local authorities and a lack of legal certainty (rechtzekerheid). Although local governments have made attempts to protect indigenous rights through regional regulations, the absence of a strong and binding national legal umbrella results in inconsistent implementation, fragmented authority, and limited enforcement capacity. Under the logic of legal pluralism, such inconsistencies leave indigenous communities navigating a complex web of overlapping jurisdictions—acknowledged in some areas yet invisible in others—thus perpetuating legal inequality and governance failure.
4.2.2 Gaps between constitutional commitment and sectoral regulation
The reliance on local regulations demonstrates that the recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights in Indonesia is largely determined by the initiative and political will of local governments. This decentralized dependency creates structural inequality in the fulfillment of recognition across regions, leading to unequal protection and discrimination among indigenous groups. From the standpoint of governance law, this pattern indicates weak vertical coordination and the absence of binding national standards that ensure consistency in rights enforcement. The fragmented national framework for community protection perpetuates policy incoherence, while the lack of a strong legal umbrella reveals limited state commitment to safeguarding indigenous living spaces. This situation also suggests that indigenous interests are often subordinated to economic and political priorities, particularly within national strategic projects that prioritize investment and infrastructure expansion. Juridically, the diversity of legal products across regions reflects an ad hoc and unintegrated approach to indigenous protection. Even in regions like Kalimantan and Papua, where relatively comprehensive legal instruments exist, the absence of a coordinated national framework diminishes their effectiveness. These regional laws possess limited authority when confronted with stronger economic and political interests, highlighting how Indonesia’s governance law privileges centralized state power over local autonomy and participatory justice.
Constitutionally, recognition of indigenous peoples in Indonesia can be found in Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 18B paragraph (2) affirms the state’s commitment to recognize and respect the unity of customary law communities along with their traditional rights as long as they are still alive and following the development of society and the principles of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia as regulated by Law (Putri, 2024). However, until now the recognition of the existence of indigenous peoples is still not universal. Mainstream recognition is limited to cultural recognition such as identity, as stipulated in Article 28 I paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that the cultural identity and rights of traditional communities are respected in line with the development of the times and civilisation. Substantial matters such as the recognition of natural resources and living space are often overlooked. These are integral to the existence of indigenous peoples, without which recognition of their identity is not enough to ensure the sustainability of their lives. Furthermore, these conditions further exacerbate conflicts of interest between indigenous peoples, the state and the private sector in the process of natural resource utilization. For example, in several cases in Indonesia, some areas should be the home of indigenous peoples, but have been converted to use and control by third parties, be it the state for infrastructure development or national strategic projects, or the private sector for natural resource exploitation. Furthermore, these conflicts not only harm indigenous peoples, but also have the potential to disrupt the ecological balance that indigenous peoples have long maintained.
Although the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 18B (2) and Article 28I (3), recognizes and respects the existence of indigenous communities and their rights, the legal reality in Indonesia reveals a significant gap between this constitutional recognition and its implementation in sectoral regulations. A striking example is the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), which only acknowledges individual land ownership and does not provide a strong legal foundation for recognizing communal land rights of indigenous peoples. In this context, Article 2 of the UUPA still upholds the principle that the state has full control over all land unless proven otherwise through individual ownership rights, as regulated under eigendomrecht in Article 570 of the Indonesian Civil Code. Consequently, customary land that lacks individual ownership certificates is often classified as state land, which can then be transferred to investors through the eminent domain mechanism, as outlined in Articles 720 and 721 of the Civil Code. Such a system perpetuates inequality under the guise of legality. In practice, it allows corporations to obtain exploitation permits without free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from affected communities—contradicting international norms on indigenous rights. This condition illustrates the tension inherent in Indonesia’s legal pluralism, where customary law is formally recognized but substantively subordinated to state and corporate interests.
This legal framework has triggered recurring land disputes, particularly in the extractive sectors such as mining, oil and gas, and large-scale plantations. Numerous cases illustrate how indigenous communities have lost their ancestral lands as the state grants exploitation permits to corporations without consulting or obtaining the consent of indigenous peoples. These recurring disputes underline that indigenous vulnerability is not merely the result of weak enforcement but a manifestation of governance failure embedded in the very structure of Indonesia’s legal system. Addressing this requires comprehensive legal reform that aligns sectoral regulations with constitutional recognition and international principles of justice, participation, and sustainability.
4.2.3 Governance reform and the urgency of a national indigenous law
The increasingly vulnerable existence of indigenous peoples during massive natural resource governance projects underscores the urgent need for the ratification of the Draft Law on the Protection of Indigenous Peoples as a national framework. In fact, since 2014, a draft law on indigenous peoples has been proposed. However, until 2024, it has not yet been passed by the government to become a law (Jayus, 2020). A long and challenging journey occurred in the process of ratifying the Draft Law on Indigenous Peoples. The draft law involves various interests, both from the government, the private sector, and indigenous peoples themselves. Some consider that one of the major challenges facing the ratification of the Bill is that it intersects with the economic interests of capital (Arisandi and Pareke, 2024). As a result, the Indigenous Peoples Bill continues to be delayed and is included in the National Legacy Program, with no certainty as to when it will be passed (Ari et al., 2021).
The findings in this study align with and expand on existing literature regarding indigenous rights and natural resource governance in Indonesia. Previous research by Mustalahti and Agrawal (2020) has thoroughly examined governance failures in natural resource management, emphasizing the dominance of state-centered decision-making structures. However, this study goes further by showing how overlapping legal frameworks and the lack of formal recognition of customary law exacerbate governance challenges, particularly in land rights disputes (Kadir and Murray, 2019; McCarthy and Robinson, 2016a). Legal pluralism remains a key issue in Indonesia’s natural resource governance, as noted by van der Muur (2018), who highlighted the conflict between national law and customary law. The lack of integration between these legal systems creates ongoing ambiguity in land ownership, leaving indigenous communities vulnerable to eviction and legal disputes. This study supports van der Muur’s findings and further argues that the absence of national indigenous rights laws worsens their vulnerability by failing to provide a strong legal framework for customary land claims (Putri and Ehsonov, 2024). Political representation of indigenous communities is a key factor determining their ability to secure land rights. Legal recognition and enforcement mechanisms are more direct and actionable solutions. McCarthy and Robinson (2016b) emphasize that even in areas where indigenous groups have formal political representation, land disputes continue due to legal uncertainty and bureaucratic inefficiency. These findings support the argument that a stronger national legal framework is necessary to complement indigenous political participation.
From the perspective of governance law, the prolonged delay in ratifying the Indigenous Peoples Bill reveals a deeper institutional weakness: the state’s inability to translate constitutional recognition into operational governance mechanisms. The absence of a national legal framework leaves indigenous protection dependent on fragmented regional initiatives, producing systemic inequality across jurisdictions. In legal pluralism terms, this demonstrates how customary law continues to occupy a subordinate position within Indonesia’s hierarchical legal order, recognized symbolically but marginalized in enforcement.
Comprehensive legal reform through the Indigenous Peoples Law would thus function not merely as legislative codification but as a structural correction to Indonesia’s governance model. It would realign the principles of good governance—transparency, participation, accountability, and legal certainty—with the practical realities of indigenous land governance. By embedding indigenous rights into the formal legal hierarchy, the law would institutionalize participatory decision-making, harmonize state and customary systems, and strengthen the legitimacy of Indonesia’s governance law in the eyes of both domestic and international observers. Ultimately, the enactment of this law represents a critical test of Indonesia’s commitment to justice, sustainability, and pluralistic democracy in natural resource governance.
4.3 Comparative perspectives on indigenous resource governance: lessons from global cases
In examining the governance of natural resources and its impact on indigenous communities, it is crucial to place Indonesia’s situation within a global context. Many countries face similar challenges in balancing economic development, environmental sustainability, and indigenous rights. By drawing comparisons with other nations like Brazil, Canada, and Australia, we can better understand the broader dynamics at play and identify potential pathways for improving Indonesia’s legal and governance frameworks. This section presents a comparative analysis of these countries, highlighting both the commonalities and differences in their approaches to indigenous resource governance. Brazil, like Indonesia, is home to vast natural resources and a significant indigenous population, particularly in the Amazon rainforest (da Cunha and De Almeida, 2000; Pallemaerts, 1986). The Brazilian government’s policies often prioritize economic growth, leading to large-scale deforestation and mining activities that encroach on indigenous territories (Conceição et al., 2021; Rorato et al., 2021; Urzedo and Chatterjee, 2022). Despite having laws in place to protect indigenous lands, Brazil struggles with weak enforcement and political resistance, much like Indonesia. The indigenous peoples of Brazil, particularly in the Amazon, have been actively resisting these intrusions, often facing violence and displacement (Carrara, 2020; Rorato et al., 2021). This mirrors the experiences of Indonesia’s indigenous communities in regions such as Papua and Kalimantan, where resource extraction projects have resulted in similar conflicts (Hidayat et al., 2014; Susanto et al., 2018). The Brazilian case underscores the importance of robust legal enforcement and international advocacy in protecting indigenous rights.
In contrast, Canada has made significant progress in recognizing and safeguarding the rights of its indigenous populations through treaties and legal frameworks, such as comprehensive land claims agreements (Asch, 1997; Borrows, 2005). Although challenges remain, particularly in resource-rich areas like Alberta and British Columbia, Canada’s approach to indigenous governance offers valuable lessons for Indonesia. The inclusion of indigenous communities in decision-making processes, alongside the legal recognition of their land rights, has helped reduce conflicts in many cases. Canada’s experience demonstrates that legal recognition is a necessary but insufficient condition; it must be accompanied by genuine participation of indigenous peoples in resource governance (Barelli, 2009; Ward, 2011; Wiessner, 2011). Indonesia could benefit from adopting a similar model, where indigenous voices are actively incorporated into the governance of natural resources. Australia presents yet another instructive comparison. With the enactment of the Native Title Act in 1993, Australia formally recognized the land rights of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Kloth, 1994; Neate, 2002; Young, 2017). However, the implementation of this law has faced numerous challenges, particularly when it comes to competing interests between indigenous communities, mining corporations, and the government. Australia’s experience emphasizes the need for strong institutions that can mediate between these conflicting interests. The country’s approach to land rights also highlights the importance of continual legal reform to adapt to new challenges. Indonesia, which has faced criticism for the slow passage of the Indigenous Peoples Bill, can learn from Australia’s experience in balancing legal recognition with the complexities of modern resource extraction.
Indonesia’s legal framework for indigenous land rights diverges significantly from international best practices, particularly when compared to legal systems in Canada, Australia, and Brazil. These countries have established clearer mechanisms for recognizing and protecting indigenous land tenure, whereas Indonesia continues to struggle with inconsistent implementation, weak enforcement, and a lack of binding legal pathways for indigenous communities to secure their land rights. Canada has developed a robust system for indigenous land governance through constitutional protections and legal precedents that affirm indigenous sovereignty over traditional territories (Borrows, 2010; Clark, 1990). The Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) ruling reinforced that indigenous land rights are constitutionally protected and cannot be extinguished without consent (Walters, 1992). Moreover, the Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004) decision established the principle of the state’s duty to consult and accommodate indigenous groups before approving resource extraction projects (McNeil, 2005). These legal protections create a framework where indigenous communities have a formal mechanism to negotiate land claims, ensuring their participation in governance processes. In contrast, Indonesia lacks a comprehensive land claims system and does not provide an equivalent level of constitutional protection, leaving indigenous land tenure highly dependent on administrative recognition by local governments.
Australia’s approach to indigenous land rights was transformed by the Mabo v. Queensland (1992) ruling, which overturned the colonial-era doctrine of terra nullius and affirmed that indigenous communities have inherent land rights based on their traditional occupancy (Dravid, 2023). This decision led to the enactment of the Native Title Act of 1993, which provides a legal framework for indigenous groups to claim land rights through the Native Title Tribunal. While challenges remain in the practical implementation of native title claims, the existence of a structured legal mechanism ensures that indigenous land rights are legally recognized and protected. Indonesia, on the other hand, lacks a specialized judicial or administrative body dedicated to handling indigenous land disputes. Although the 2012 Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 ruled that customary forests should not be classified as state forests, its enforcement has been inconsistent, with many indigenous land claims remaining unresolved. Brazil presents another important comparison, as its 1988 Constitution explicitly recognizes indigenous peoples’ permanent rights to their traditional lands. The landmark event in Raposa Serra do Sol in 2009 reinforced this by ruling that indigenous lands cannot be fragmented or occupied by non-indigenous actors (Burckhart, 2023). Despite these strong legal provisions, Brazil still faces major enforcement challenges, particularly as land conflicts intensify due to economic pressures from agribusiness and resource extraction. Similarly, Indonesia struggles with weak enforcement of legal protections, allowing corporate and state interests to override indigenous land claims, particularly in resource-rich areas like Papua and Kalimantan. Both countries illustrate that legal recognition alone is insufficient without effective enforcement mechanisms and strong political will.
These global comparisons are particularly relevant when considering the looming threat of climate change, which disproportionately affects indigenous communities worldwide. In Canada and Brazil, indigenous communities are recognized as key stakeholders in the fight against climate change, with their traditional knowledge contributing to conservation efforts. Indonesia, home to some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, has an opportunity to integrate indigenous knowledge into its national climate change strategies. By protecting indigenous land rights and promoting sustainable governance practices, Indonesia could strengthen both its environmental conservation efforts and its resilience to climate change impacts. This would not only address issues of social justice but also enhance the country’s ability to meet global climate commitments. Furthermore, the comparative analysis reveals that the governance of natural resources is intrinsically linked to broader global movements for indigenous rights and environmental justice. International frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Paris Agreement underscore the need for inclusive governance models that ensure the participation of indigenous peoples in resource management. Both Brazil and Canada have taken steps to align their national policies with these international standards, albeit with varying degrees of success. Indonesia’s participation in these global frameworks presents an opportunity for the country to enhance its legal protections for indigenous communities and promote more sustainable natural resource management practices.
While countries such as Canada and Brazil have ratified international instruments such as ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) to strengthen the protection of indigenous land rights, Indonesia has yet to take similar steps. As such, comparative approaches with countries that have adopted these instruments may be less relevant. Instead, a more suitable approach would be to examine the protection of indigenous land rights through other international legal frameworks that Indonesia has ratified, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (Fahmi, 2024). Under ICESCR, indigenous land is not merely seen as a property right but also as a cultural symbol, collective identity, and an economic resource essential for indigenous livelihoods. Article 1 of ICESCR explicitly recognizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, including control over their natural resources. Additionally, Article 11 emphasizes the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes access to sustainable land and natural resources for indigenous peoples. Thus, even though Indonesia has not ratified ILO 169, existing international legal frameworks can still be leveraged to advocate for the recognition of indigenous land rights within the national legal system.
The governance of indigenous land rights in Indonesia remains one of the most complex and contentious legal issues in the country. Despite constitutional provisions recognizing indigenous communities and their customary rights, legal protections remain weak, fragmented, and inconsistently enforced. The absence of a comprehensive and coherent indigenous land rights framework has resulted in protracted land disputes, legal uncertainty, and widespread dispossession of indigenous territories. This situation is exacerbated by Indonesia’s economic reliance on extractive industries, which has placed indigenous lands at the center of conflicts between state policies, corporate interests, and traditional land tenure systems. Addressing these governance failures requires a structured roadmap for legal reform that strengthens indigenous land tenure, establishes institutional safeguards, and aligns Indonesia’s legal framework with international best practices.
One of the most critical legal gaps in Indonesia is the absence of a binding law specifically dedicated to indigenous land rights. While Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution acknowledges indigenous communities, its vague wording allows for broad discretionary interpretation by the state. As a result, recognition of customary land tenure remains contingent upon local government approval, which has often been denied due to political and economic considerations. The long-delayed Indigenous Peoples Bill (RUU Masyarakat Adat) has the potential to provide a stronger legal foundation for indigenous land rights, but its legislative process has been slow, hindered by conflicting interests between indigenous advocacy groups, corporate stakeholders, and government agencies. If enacted, this bill should establish automatic recognition of indigenous land tenure without requiring communities to undergo burdensome bureaucratic procedures. In many cases, indigenous communities have occupied and managed their lands for generations, yet they continue to face legal challenges due to the lack of formal documentation. A legal reform that guarantees land recognition based on historical and customary occupation would eliminate many of the existing barriers that prevent indigenous communities from securing tenure rights.
Beyond legal recognition, effective enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensuring that indigenous land rights are not merely symbolic but also practically upheld. Indonesia currently lacks a dedicated legal institution to handle indigenous land disputes, which has led to prolonged legal battles and inconsistent rulings. The establishment of a specialized Indigenous Land Tribunal, modeled after Australia’s Native Title Tribunal, would provide a clear and structured process for resolving disputes. This tribunal should have the authority to adjudicate land claims independently from political influence, ensuring that indigenous communities receive fair treatment in legal proceedings. In addition to resolving disputes, the tribunal should oversee the implementation of land demarcation efforts, which remain a critical issue in Indonesia. Many indigenous communities continue to face encroachment by plantations, mining companies, and infrastructure projects due to the lack of legally recognized territorial boundaries. A tribunal with the power to enforce land demarcation would play a crucial role in preventing land conflicts and ensuring that customary lands are protected from external claims.
The issue of enforcement is further complicated by the dominance of corporate interests in land governance. In many instances, large-scale land acquisitions have proceeded without proper consultation with indigenous communities, despite international legal standards emphasizing the importance of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). The FPIC principle, recognized under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention No. 169, requires states to engage in meaningful consultations with indigenous groups before approving projects that affect their lands and resources. However, Indonesia has yet to institutionalize FPIC into its legal framework, leaving indigenous communities vulnerable to forced land acquisitions. To address this, FPIC must be legally mandated in all resource extraction and development projects. Its implementation should go beyond symbolic consultation processes and ensure that indigenous communities have genuine decision-making power in determining whether projects proceed on their lands. This would require the creation of an independent oversight body tasked with monitoring compliance with FPIC requirements, as well as imposing penalties on corporations and state agencies that fail to adhere to the principle.
Another key aspect of governance law reform is the alignment of Indonesia’s legal framework with international norms on indigenous rights. While Indonesia has ratified several international human rights treaties, it has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169, one of the most comprehensive international instruments protecting indigenous land tenure. Ratification of this convention would demonstrate Indonesia’s commitment to upholding indigenous rights and provide a stronger legal foundation for domestic reforms. Furthermore, Indonesia should integrate key provisions of UNDRIP into its national governance law, particularly those relating to land tenure security, self-governance, and access to justice. In countries such as Canada and Brazil, constitutional provisions explicitly recognize indigenous land rights as fundamental legal principles, providing indigenous communities with stronger protections against land dispossession. Indonesia must move towards a similar approach, ensuring that indigenous land tenure is embedded within the country’s core legal framework rather than treated as an issue subject to political discretion.
The roadmap for policy reform must also include practical steps for strengthening institutional capacity. One of the main challenges in enforcing indigenous land rights in Indonesia is the lack of coordination among government agencies. The Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs, and local governments often have overlapping jurisdictions, leading to conflicting policies and regulatory uncertainty. The creation of a centralized Indigenous Land Authority could help streamline land governance, ensuring that indigenous land claims are processed efficiently and in accordance with established legal protections. This authority should be tasked with overseeing land registration, monitoring compliance with legal protections, and providing technical and legal assistance to indigenous communities seeking to formalize their land tenure. In addition to institutional reforms, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent abuses of power and ensure that indigenous land rights are effectively upheld. One of the main reasons why land dispossession continues to occur is the lack of legal consequences for state actors and corporate entities that violate indigenous land tenure. Strengthening accountability mechanisms would require the introduction of stricter penalties for illegal land seizures, including corporate liability for companies that fail to respect indigenous rights. Independent monitoring bodies should be established to track violations and provide indigenous communities with accessible legal avenues to challenge unlawful land acquisitions. These mechanisms should include not only judicial remedies but also administrative and financial sanctions to deter future violations.
The roadmap for legal and policy reform must be structured into clear phases to ensure effective implementation. In the short term, Indonesia must prioritize the passage of the Indigenous Peoples Bill and initiate land demarcation efforts to provide immediate legal recognition for indigenous territories. This should be accompanied by the development of legal frameworks institutionalizing FPIC and strengthening indigenous participation in governance processes. In the medium term, the establishment of an Indigenous Land Tribunal and an independent oversight body would provide structural mechanisms for dispute resolution and enforcement. This period should also focus on strengthening institutional coordination and aligning national laws with international standards. In the long term, broader constitutional reforms may be necessary to fully integrate indigenous land rights into Indonesia’s governance system, ensuring that legal protections remain robust and resistant to political fluctuations. Ultimately, the protection of indigenous land rights in Indonesia is not only a matter of legal reform but also a fundamental issue of justice, sustainability, and human rights. Indigenous communities have long been stewards of their territories, maintaining ecological balance and contributing to environmental conservation. The failure to protect their land rights not only exacerbates social and economic inequalities but also undermines Indonesia’s broader commitments to sustainable development and climate resilience. Legal reforms must therefore be approached with a long-term perspective, recognizing that securing indigenous land tenure is not just about legal recognition but also about ensuring that indigenous communities have the resources, institutional support, and political agency necessary to defend their rights. Strengthening governance law through a structured roadmap would provide a critical foundation for a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable land governance system in Indonesia.
5 Conclusion
This study concludes that the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights in Indonesia remains weak and fragmented, revealing a profound gap between constitutional recognition and actual implementation. Despite the existence of sectoral laws and local regulations, overlapping jurisdictions and the dominance of state–corporate interests have created legal uncertainty, perpetuating land tenure conflicts and the marginalization of indigenous communities. The findings demonstrate that these vulnerabilities are rooted in the structural failure of Indonesia’s governance law to harmonize state, customary, and international legal systems, resulting in institutional fragmentation and the erosion of accountability. Academically, this research contributes to the development of governance law and legal pluralism by framing indigenous vulnerability as a manifestation of governance failure rather than a mere policy deficit. It enriches theoretical discourse by explaining how power asymmetries and incoherent regulatory frameworks sustain systemic inequality, while also emphasizing the importance of integrating indigenous knowledge and customary norms into inclusive and sustainable governance models. Practically, the study offers several concrete policy recommendations: first, the expedited ratification of the Indigenous Peoples Bill to establish a comprehensive and unified legal foundation for protecting indigenous rights; second, the institutionalization of customary land rights recognition through a national registry and the establishment of a specialized Indigenous Land Tribunal to ensure fair and efficient dispute resolution; and third, the strengthening of community-based mechanisms that guarantee participation and consent in all development and resource governance processes, guided by the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Ultimately, achieving justice and sustainability in Indonesia’s natural resource governance demands progressive legal reform that harmonizes state and customary systems, reinforces transparency, participation, and accountability, and upholds collective land rights as a cornerstone of equitable and ecologically resilient development.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
AK: Validation, Data curation, Visualization, Project administration, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Conceptualization, Software, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
I would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Department of Government Studies at Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar for their support and affiliation throughout this research. The resources and academic environment provided by the department have been instrumental in the completion of this study.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author declares that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Acuña, R. M. (2015). The politics of extractive governance: indigenous peoples and socio-environmental conflicts. Extr. Ind. Soc. 2, 85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.exis.2014.11.007
Alam, S., and Al Faruque, A. (2019). From sovereignty to self-determination: emergence of collective rights of indigenous peoples in natural resources management. Geo. Envtl. L. Rev. 32:59.
Ali, S. H., Giurco, D., Arndt, N., Nickless, E., Brown, G., Demetriades, A., et al. (2017). Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature 543, 367–372. doi: 10.1038/nature21359
Amirova, I. (2022). The overexploitation of natural resources in arid Central Asia. The case of hungry steppe: can a collapse be a solution? Int. J. Commons 16, 120–136. doi: 10.5334/ijc.1144
Anaya, J. (2005). Indigenous peoples’ participatory rights in relation to decisions about natural resource extraction: the more fundamental issue of what rights indigenous peoples have in lands and resources. Ariz. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 22:7.
Ari, P., Serfiyani, C. Y., and Kusumaputra, A. (2021). Measuring opportunities to prevention criminalization of indigenous peoples in Indonesia through the indigenous peoples draft bill instrument. SSRN Electron. J. 1, 1–12. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3881661
Arisandi, F., and Pareke, J. T. (2024). Law and policy recognition and protection of indigenous peoples right in Indonesia. Journal Scientia Iustitiae 2, 45–53. doi: 10.36085/jsi.v2i1.6722
Aryandini, H., and Parvez, A. (2023). Community based forest management license: the urgency of forest management for human development in indigenous peoples. Veteran Law Rev. 6, 14–33. doi: 10.35586/velrev.v6i1.4686
Asch, M. (1997). Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada: Essays on law, equity, and respect for difference. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Aysan, A. F., Bakkar, Y., Ul-Durar, S., and Kayani, U. N. (2023). Natural resources governance and conflicts: retrospective analysis. Resour. Policy 85:103942. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103942
Bakker, L. (2023). Custom and violence in Indonesia’s protracted land conflict. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 8:100624. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100624
Barelli, M. (2009). The role of soft law in the international legal system: the case of the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Int. Comp. Law Q. 58, 957–983. doi: 10.1017/S0020589309001559
Barratt, C., and Allison, E. H. (2014). Vulnerable people, vulnerable resources? Exploring the relationship between people’s vulnerability and the sustainability of community-managed natural resources. Dev. Stud. Res. 1, 16–27. doi: 10.1080/21665095.2014.904079
Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., and Brotherton, M. C. (2020). Improving environmental management through indigenous peoples’ involvement. Environ. Sci. Pol. 103, 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.10.006
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Renard, Y., Pimbert, M. P., and Kothari, A. (2013). Sharing power: A global guide to collaborative management of natural resources. Canberra: Routledge.
Buana, M. S. (2016). Living adat law, indigenous peoples and the state law: a complex map of legal pluralism in Indonesia. Int. J. Indones. Stud. 1, 104–119.
Burckhart, T. (2023). Indigenous peoples’ rights in Brazil: a conceptual framework on indigenous constitutional law. Athens J. Law 9:459. doi: 10.30958/ajl.9-3-8
Busse, M., and Gröning, S. (2013). The resource curse revisited: governance and natural resources. Public Choice 154, 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11127-011-9804-0
Carrara, A. F. A. (2020). The struggle for indigenous territories in the Brazilian Amazon. Florida: University of Florida.
Charnley, S., Carothers, C., Satterfield, T., Levine, A., Poe, M. R., Norman, K., et al. (2017). Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making. Environ. Sci. Pol. 73, 80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002
Clark, B. A. (1990). Native liberty, crown sovereignty: the existing aboriginal right of self-government in Canada, vol. 4. Ontario: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.
Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., Van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., et al. (2016). Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4615–4622. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900231108
Conceição, K. V., Chaves, M. E. D., Picoli, M. C. A., Sánchez, A. H., Soares, A. R., Mataveli, G. A. V., et al. (2021). Government policies endanger the indigenous peoples of the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 108:105663. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105663
Côté, I. (2022). Internal migration and resource conflict: evidence from Riau, Indonesia. J. Glob. Secur. Stud. 7:ogab025. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogab025
Côté, I., Grant, J. A., Mitchell, M. I., and Panagos, D. (2024). The plan Nord in northern Québec, Canada: pathway to peace and prosperity or powder keg? Ethnopolitics 23, 273–293. doi: 10.1080/17449057.2022.2157105
da Cunha, M. C., and De Almeida, M. W. B. (2000). Indigenous people, traditional people, and conservation in the Amazon. Daedalus 129, 315–338.
Dam-De Jong, D. (2015). International law and governance of natural resources in conflict and post-conflict situations. In International law and governance of natural resources in conflict and post-conflict situations (Issue 121). Cambridge University Press. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316145425 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Databoks Katadata. (2024). Ada 52 kasus kekerasan polisi dalam konflik sumber daya alam 2023–2024. Available online at: https://databoks.katadata.co.id/demografi/statistik/ed3d58591a2fa73/ada-52-kasus-kekerasan-polisi-dalam-konflik-sumber-daya-alam-2023-2024
Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Sterling, E. J., Loveridge, R., Gross-Camp, N. D., Wongbusarakum, S., et al. (2021). The role of indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26:19. doi: 10.5751/ES-12625-260319
Deonandan, K., and Bell, C. (2019). Discipline and punish: gendered dimensions of violence in extractive development. Can. J. Women Law 31, 24–56. doi: 10.3138/cjwl.31.1.03
Djayaputra, D. G. (2021). Analysis of natural resources management in Indonesia: environmental law perspective. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Public Policy 3, 1–13. doi: 10.33642/ijsspp.v3n1p1
Errico, S., and Claeys, P. (2020). Human rights and the commons: exploring approaches to the governance of land and natural resources beyond indigenous peoples’ rights. The case of peasants. Int. J. Minor. Group Rights 27, 1–33. doi: 10.1163/15718115-02604123
Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E. M., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., et al. (2020). Importance of indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of intact Forest landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 18, 135–140. doi: 10.1002/fee.2148
Fahmi, C. (2020). The Dutch colonial economic’s policy on natives land property of Indonesia. Petita: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Syariah 5:105. doi: 10.22373/petita.v5i2.99
Fahmi, C. (2024). The application of international cultural rights in protecting indigenous peoples’ land property in Indonesia. AlterNative 20, 157–166. doi: 10.1177/11771801241235261
Fahmi, C., Stoll, P.-T., Shabarullah, S., Rahman, M., and Syukri, S. (2024). The state’s business upon indigenous land in Indonesia: a legacy from Dutch colonial regime to modern Indonesian state. Samarah: Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Dan Hukum Islam 8, 1566–1596. doi: 10.22373/sjhk.v8i3.19992
Fanselow, F. (2015). Indigenous and anthropological theories of ethnic conflict in Kalimantan. Zinbun, 45, 131–147. Available online at: www.hrw.org/reports/.
Filer, C., Mahanty, S., and Potter, L. (2020). The FPIC principle meets land struggles in Cambodia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Land 9:67. doi: 10.3390/land9030067
Fontana, L. B., and Grugel, J. (2016). The politics of indigenous participation through “free prior informed consent”: reflections from the Bolivian case. World Dev. 77, 249–261. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.023
Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., et al. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374. doi: 10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6
Gebara, M. F. (2018). Tenure reforms in indigenous lands: decentralized forest management or illegalism? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, 60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.008
Hackett, S. C. (2019). Environmental and natural resources economics: theory, policy and the sustainable society. In Environmental and natural resources economics: Theory, policy and the sustainable society. Routledge. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315289939 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Herman, H., and Sota, Y. (2014). Papua’s threatened forests: conflict of interest government versus local indigenous people. South Pac. Stud. 34, 1–28.
Hidayat, H., Yamamoto, S., Yamamoto, S., and Yamamoto, M. (2014). Papua‘s threatened forests: conflict of interest government versus local indigenous people. South Pac. Stud. 34, 71–98.
Indigenous Territory Registration Agency. (2024). Rekapitulasi status wilayah adat di Indonesia. Badan Registrasi Wilayah Adat (BRWA). Available online at: https://brwa.or.id/stats
Jayus, J. A. (2020). Urgency of legal indigenous communities’ position in Indonesian constitutional system. Jurnal Media Hukum 27, 79–98. doi: 10.18196/jmh.20200144
Jeddawi, M. (2020). Urgensi Penegakan Hukum Tata Pemerintahan. Jurnal Pallangga Praja (JPP) 2, 1–15. doi: 10.33701/jpp.v2i1.1637
Kadir, M. Y. A., and Murray, A. (2019). Resource nationalism in the law and policies of Indonesia: a contest of state, foreign investors, and indigenous peoples. Asian J. Int. Law 9, 298–333. doi: 10.1017/S204425131900002X
Kinseng, R. A., Buchori, D., Alatas, H., Tarigan, S. D., Zamani, N. P., Digdo, A. A., et al. (2023). Natural resource-based social conflict and principles of sustainable landscape approach: case study of kelola sendang project, south Sumatera, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 1220:12035. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1220/1/012035
Kloth, H. M. (1994). Aboriginal land rights in Australia: from the" Mabo" decision to the native title act 1993. Verfass. Recht Uebersee 27, 325–345. doi: 10.5771/0506-7286-1994-3-325
Kusumaryati, V. (2021). Freeport and the states: politics of corporations and contemporary colonialism in West Papua. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 63, 881–910. doi: 10.1017/S0010417521000281
Lal, P., Lim-Applegate, H., and Scoccimarro, M. (2002). The adaptive decision-making process as a tool for integrated natural resource management: focus, attitudes, and approach. Ecol. Soc. 5. doi: 10.5751/es-00306-050211
Le Billon, P. (2001). The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts. Polit. Geogr. 20, 561–584. doi: 10.1016/S0962-6298(01)00015-4
Lerner, A. M., Koshurina, V., Chistanova, O., and Wheeler, A. (2017). Mitigating the risks of resource extraction for industrial actors and northern indigenous peoples. Arct. Rev. Law Polit. 8, 23–51. doi: 10.23865/arctic.v8.659
Levang, P., Riva, W. F., and Orth, M. G. (2018). Oil palm plantations and conflict in Indonesia. The oil palm complex, 283–300. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1xz0km.13 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 754–766. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., and Griffith, R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23, 986–1001. doi: 10.1080/08941920802178214
Maconachie, R., Srinivasan, R., and Menzies, N. (2015). Responding to the challenge of fragility and security in West Africa: natural resources, extractive industry investment, and social conflict. Washington, DC: World Bank, 1–34.
Magni, G. (2017). Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development agenda. Eur. J. Educ. 52, 437–447. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12238
Marimuthu, R., Sankaranarayanan, B., Ali, S. M., Jabbour, A. B. L. d. S., and Karuppiah, K. (2021). Assessment of key socio-economic and environmental challenges in the mining industry: implications for resource policies in emerging economies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 27, 814–830. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.005
McCarthy, J. F. (2011). The limits of legality: state, governance and resource control in Indonesia. Leiden: Governance and Resource Control in Indonesia.
McCarthy, J. F., and Robinson, K. (2016a). Land, economic development, social justice and environmental management in Indonesia: the search for the people’s sovereignty. Land and development in Indonesia: Searching for the people’s sovereignty, 1–31. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814762106-006 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
McCarthy, J. F., and Robinson, K. (2016b). Land and development in Indonesia: Searching for the people’s sovereignty. Singapore: ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
McKenna, K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and natural resource conflict. In Corporate social responsibility and natural resource conflict. Routledge. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768755 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Cook-Patton, S. C., et al. (2017). Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol. Conserv. 208, 15–28. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015
McNeil, K. (2005). Aboriginal rights, resource development, and the source of the provincial duty to consult in Haida nation and Taku River. Supreme Court Law Rev. 29, 447–460. doi: 10.60082/2563-8505.1087
Meadows, J., Annandale, M., and Ota, L. (2019). Indigenous peoples’ participation in sustainability standards for extractives. Land Use Policy 88:104118. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104118
Meinzen-Dick, R. S., and Pradhan, R. (2001). Implications of legal pluralism for natural resource management. IDS Bull. 32, 10–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2001.mp32004002.x
Muhdar, M., Tavip, M., and Al Hidayah, R. (2019). State failure in recognition and protection of indigenous peoples over natural resource access in East Kalimantan. Asia Pac. Law Rev. 27, 127–143. doi: 10.1080/10192557.2019.1665921
Mustalahti, I., and Agrawal, A. (2020). Research trends: responsibilization in natural resource governance. Forest Policy Econ. 121:102308. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102308
Mustalahti, I., Gutiérrez-Zamora, V., Hyle, M., Devkota, B. P., and Tokola, N. (2020). Responsibilization in natural resources governance: a romantic doxa? Forest Policy Econ. 111:102033. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102033
Nasir, M., Bakker, L., and Van Meijl, T. (2022). Coal mining governance in Indonesia: legal uncertainty and contestation. Austl. J. Asian L. 22:53.
Neate, G. (2002). Indigenous land rights and native title in Queensland: a decade in review. Griffith L. Rev. 11:90.
Northcott, H. A. (2012). Realisation of the right of indigenous peoples to natural resources under international law through the emerging right to autonomy. Int. J. Hum. Rights 16, 73–99. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2011.611335
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2013). Extractive industries and indigenous peoples: a changing dynamic? J. Rural. Stud. 30, 20–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.003
Ojha, H. R., Ford, R., Keenan, R. J., Race, D., Carias Vega, D., Baral, H., et al. (2016). Delocalizing communities: changing forms of community engagement in natural resources governance. World Dev. 87, 274–290. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.06.017
Ojha, H. R., Hall, A., and Sulaiman, R. V. (2012). Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resource governance: an introduction. In Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resource governance: Rethinking participation, learning and innovation. Routledge. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136294 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Pallemaerts, M. (1986). Development, conservation, and indigenous rights in Brazil. Hum. Rts. Q. 8:374. doi: 10.2307/762266
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., and Reed, M. (2016). “Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management” in Handbook of applied system science (London and New York: Routledge), 367–383.
Prianto, A. L., Abdillah, A., and Yama, A. (2024). Multi-level governance as a climate change adaptation strategy in the coastal cities in Indonesia and Thailand. J. Gov. Polit. 6, 12–26. doi: 10.31764/jgop.v6i1.24292
Putri, S. (2024). The urgency of ratifying the draft law on indigenous communities as legal protection for indigenous communities in Indonesia. J. Soc. Sci. Human. Rev. 1, 68–75. doi: 10.64578/jsshr.v1i02.40
Putri, F. A. J., and Ehsonov, J. R. (2024). The impact of land reform policies on the sustainable management of natural resources in local communities. J. Hum. Rights Cult. Leg. Syst. 4, 510–537. doi: 10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.197
Ratner, B. D., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J., Mapedza, E., Unruh, J., Veening, W., et al. (2017). Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management. Int. J. Commons 11, 877–906. doi: 10.18352/ijc.768
Ridwan, A., Maryam, S., and Sari, S. P. (2022). Socio-economic perspective of indigenous community conflict with corporation. ICON 2021: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Economic and Education, ICON 2021, 14–15 December 2021, Padang-West Sumatra, Indonesia, 212. European Alliance for Innovation.
Robinson, K. (2016). “Mining, land and community rights in Indonesia” in Land and development in Indonesia, searching for the Peopleâ€TM s Sovereignity (Singapore: ISEAS Publising).
Rorato, A. C., Picoli, M. C. A., Verstegen, J. A., Camara, G., Silva Bezerra, F. G., and Escada, M. I. S. (2021). Environmental threats over Amazonian indigenous lands. Land 10:267. doi: 10.3390/land10030267
Rusmiyati, R., and Rahmadany, A. F. (2024). Transforming vision into action: exploring collaborative governance strategies in the development of the Nusantara new Capital City. Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 14, 64–81. doi: 10.26618/ojip.v14i1.13764
Safa’at, R., Syahruddin, E., Qurbani, I. D., Habibah, S., and Yofita, E. (2022). Legal implications regulation of citizens’s rights and government obligations in managing natural resources and the environment in the 1945 constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Int. J. Multicult. Multirelig. Underst. 9, 611–625.
Sakapaji, S. C., García Molinos, J., Parilova, V., Gavrilyeva, T., and Yakovleva, N. (2024). Navigating legal and regulatory frameworks to achieve the resilience and sustainability of indigenous socioecological systems. Resources 13:56. doi: 10.3390/resources13040056
Salim, A. (2015). Contemporary Islamic law in Indonesia: Sharia and legal pluralism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Shadabi, L., and Adkisson, R. V. (2021). Natural resources, governance, and corruption. J. Econ. Issues 55, 246–263. doi: 10.1080/00213624.2021.1877042
Short, D., and Lennox, C. (2013). Handbook of indigenous peoples’ rights. London and New York: Routledge.
Siciliano, G., Urban, F., Kim, S., and Dara Lonn, P. (2015). Hydropower, social priorities and the rural-urban development divide: the case of large dams in Cambodia. Energy Policy 86, 273–285. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.07.009
Simonetti, M. (2023). Adat in Indonesian law and society: a tool to build resilience and overcome diversity through cultural and legal pluralism. SOAS J. Postgrad. Res. 15. doi: 10.25501/SOAS.00040649
Sjaastad, E., and Bromley, D. W. (2017). Indigenous land rights in sub-saharan africa: appropriation, security and investment demand. In The economics of land use (pp. 425–438). Routledge. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315240114-26 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Spiegel, S. J. (2012). Governance institutions, resource rights regimes, and the informal mining sector: regulatory complexities in Indonesia. World Dev. 40, 189–205. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.015
Stern, M. J., and Coleman, K. J. (2015). The multidimensionality of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 117–132. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.945062
Suryani, D. (2016). Rights in Indonesia: a case study of Merauke integrated food and energy estate (Mifee) in Papua Kekerasan Struktural Terhadap. Jurnal Masy. Dan Budaya, 18, 97–109. Available online at: https://jmb.lipi.go.id/jmb/article/view/343%0A, https://jmb.lipi.go.id/index.php/jmb/article/download/343/293 (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Susanto, E., Lestari, N., Hapsari, M., and Krisdyatmiko, K. (2018). Driving factors of deforestation in Indonesia: a case of Central Kalimantan. Jurnal Studi Pemerintahan 9, 511–532. doi: 10.18196/jgp.9490
Tashman, P. (2021). A natural resource dependence perspective of the firm: how and why firms manage natural resource scarcity. Bus. Soc. 60, 1279–1311. doi: 10.1177/0007650319898811
Tegnan, H., Karjoko, L., Barkhuizen, J., and Anis, H. B. (2021). Mining corruption and environmental degradation in Indonesia: critical legal issues. Bestuur 9:90. doi: 10.20961/bestuur.v9i2.55219
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., and Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
Tennant, C. (2017). “Indigenous peoples, international institutions, and the international legal literature from 1945–1993” in Indigenous rights (London and New York: Routledge), 63–119.
Terwindt, C., and Schliemann, C. (2017a). Supporting civil society under pressure: lessons from natural resource exploitation (issue June 2017). Berlin: Heinrich Böll Foundation.
Terwindt, C., and Schliemann, C. (2017b). Tricky business: Space for civil Society in Natural Resource Struggles (47). Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Available online at: https://www.boell.de/en/2017/12/07/tricky-business (Accessed December 22, 2024).
Thompson, K.-L., Lantz, T. C., and Ban, N. C. (2020). A review of indigenous knowledge and participation in environmental monitoring. Ecol. Soc. 25:10. doi: 10.5751/ES-11503-250210
Tsani, S. (2013). Natural resources, governance and institutional quality: the role of resource funds. Resour. Policy 38, 181–195. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.11.001
Urzedo, D., and Chatterjee, P. (2022). “The colonial reproduction of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: violence against indigenous peoples for land development” in The Genocide-Ecocide Nexus (London and New York: Routledge), 146–168.
Utomo, R. G. P., and Heliaantoro, H. (2024). Implementation of article 33 paragraphs 2 and 3 of the 1945 constitution in granting concessions for natural resource management to foreign companies from international private law perspective: a case study of PT XYZ. Greenation Int. J. Law Soc. Sci. 2, 26–39. doi: 10.38035/gijlss.v2i2.202
van der Muur, W. (2018). Forest conflicts and the informal nature of realizing indigenous land rights in Indonesia. Citizenship Stud. 22, 160–174. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2018.1445495
Veland, S., Howitt, R., Dominey-Howes, D., Thomalla, F., and Houston, D. (2013). Procedural vulnerability: understanding environmental change in a remote indigenous community. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 314–326. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.009
Wagner, M. (2000). The international legal rights of indigenous peoples affected by natural resource exploitation: a brief case study. Hastings Int'l. & Comp. L. Rev. 24:491.
Walters, M. (1992). British imperial constitutional law and aboriginal rights: a comment on Delgamuukw v. British Columbia. Queen's L. J. 17:350.
Ward, T. (2011). The right to free, prior, and informed consent: indigenous peoples’ participation rights within international law. Nw. UJ Int’l Hum. Rts. 10:54.
Wassie, S. B. (2020). Natural resource degradation tendencies in Ethiopia: a review. Environ. Syst. Res. 9, 1–29. doi: 10.1186/s40068-020-00194-1
Wendra, M., and Sutrisno, A. (2024). Human rights violations in the agrarian sector in the perspective of national law and international law (case study of Rempang Island). Social Sciences Journal 1, 17–24. doi: 10.37676/sosj.v1i1.341
Whyte, K. P. (2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. Ecol. Process. 2, 1–12. doi: 10.1186/2192-1709-2-7
Wiessner, S. (2011). The cultural rights of indigenous peoples: achievements and continuing challenges. Eur. J. Int. Law 22, 121–140. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chr007
Wilson, E. (2019). What is benefit sharing? Respecting indigenous rights and addressing inequities in Arctic resource projects. Resources 8:74. doi: 10.3390/resources8020074
Young, S. M. (2017). Native title amendment (indigenous land use agreements) act 2017 (CTH): rrelying on human rights to justify a legalised form of colonial dispossession? Indig. Law Bull. 8, 24–28.
Yuslaini, N., and Maulidiah, S. (2024). Governing sustainability: land use change impact on the palm oil industry in Riau Province, Indonesia. Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan 14, 115–130. doi: 10.26618/ojip.v14i1.14304
Keywords: governance law, governance, indigenous communities, natural resources, vulnerability
Citation: Karso AJ (2025) Natural resources governance and the vulnerability of indigenous communities in Indonesia. Front. Polit. Sci. 7:1601480. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2025.1601480
Edited by:
Jill L. Tao, Incheon National University, Republic of KoreaReviewed by:
Mimin Sundari Nasution, Riau University, IndonesiaFadillah Putra, Brawijaya University, Indonesia
Copyright © 2025 Karso. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: A. Junaedi Karso, anVuYWVkaUB1bmlzbXVoLmFjLmlk