Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan Hidup di ASEAN: Perbandingan antara Negara Anggota dan Implikasinya thd Keberlanjutan Lingkungan
Kata Kunci:
Legality, Public Opinion, Political Ethics, Disinformation, Jokowi's Bachelor's DegreeAbstrak
This study aims to analyze environmental law enforcement mechanisms in ASEAN member countries and examine their implications for regional environmental sustainability. Using a normative legal approach combined with comparative case studies, this study analyzes secondary data in the form of laws and regulations, international agreements, scientific journals, and official reports from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. The analysis is conducted qualitatively using comparative techniques to identify differences in legislative frameworks, institutional capacity, oversight mechanisms, and enforcement effectiveness. The results show significant variations in the effectiveness of environmental law enforcement, with Singapore having the most effective system (Environmental Performance Index ranking 39) and Vietnam (ranking 141). This disparity impacts regional environmental sustainability, as evidenced by transboundary environmental problems such as haze, which causes economic losses of USD 16.1 billion per year. Countries with effective law enforcement exhibit better air quality (Singapore's PM2.5 12 μg/m³ vs. Vietnam's 35 μg/m³) and higher levels of industrial compliance (Singapore's 94% vs. Vietnam's 48%). This study recommends strengthening national capacity, regional harmonization, and increasing ASEAN cooperation to achieve optimal environmental sustainability.
Referensi
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.
D’Ancona, M. (2017). Post Truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. Ebury Press.
Haryatmoko. (2016). Etika Politik dan Kekuasaan. Gramedia.
Kelsen, H. (1961). General Theory of Law and State. Harvard University Press.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Sage.
Lubis, M. (2022). Prinsip Hukum dalam Pembuktian Perkara Perdata dan Administratif. Penerbit Sinar Grafika.
Magnis-Suseno, F. (2018). Etika Politik: Prinsip Moral Dasar Kenegaraan Modern. Gramedia.
Marzuki, P. M. (2005). Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Kencana.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187.
Nasution, H. (2020). Disinformasi dan Tantangan Literasi Hukum di Era Digital. Jurnal Hukum & Masyarakat, 12(1), 15–29.
Pratama, G. (2021). Algoritma Media Sosial dan Diseminasi Hoaks Politik. Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi, 19(2), 145–158.
Putusan PN Jakarta Pusat Nomor 592/Pdt.G/2022/PN Jkt.Pst.
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Hukum dan Masyarakat. Genta.
Siregar, D. (2022). Persepsi Publik Terhadap Putusan Hukum dalam Kasus Berbau Politik. Jurnal Sosial dan Politik, 6(1), 1–10.
Soekanto, S. (2013). Masalah Sosiologi Hukum. UI Press.
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and Society. University of California Press.
Widodo, A. (2021). Persepsi Publik dan Legitimitas Elite Politik di Era Digital. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora, 10(3), 275–288.
Zed, M. (2004). Metode Penelitian Kepustakaan. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2025 Jurnal Mahkamah Hukum
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
