The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts

The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154" }, "headline": "The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts", "datePublished": "2026-01-30T04:46:14", "dateModified": "2026-01-30T04:46:14", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ahmad Tohirin" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Eni Febrianti" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Agustina Rahmawati" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rani Dian Iswari" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Dimas Wira Wicaksana" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Firda Ainun Ula" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rasyiq Arif Buamona" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Megarini Ivonny Sapulette" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Muhammad Rifki Rosman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Kalvin Yulnex Maniani" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "One of the most difficult types of agrarian dispute to resolve in conflict-prone countries is one involving corporations, governments, and powerful individuals. Indonesia has the sixth highest agrarian conflict rate in Asia. This dispute took place in 74% of all occurrences, 94% of all individual victims, and 84% of all impacted households. This article focuses on territorial boundaries between indigenous tribes as well as Indonesian government programs such as public infrastructure development, which includes roads, bridges, airports, ports, and trains. This study combines historical analysis with current developments to contribute to an empirical and theoretical understanding of land battles. This article gives a systematic evaluation of the literature on indigenous peoples using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic evaluation and Meta-Analysis) methodology. This review looks at three academic databases: Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Eric. These findings reveal that many indigenous tribes continue to lack legal or official recognition. Despite constitutional law, Indonesia, a multicultural country, has customary and religious rules among its indigenous tribes. Recognition of customary law and customary land still lacks a solid foundation." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1", "name": "The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous..." } } ] } Home Browse The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Tohirin A, Febrianti E, Rahmawati A et al. The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Systematic Review The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Ahmad Tohirin https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2317-1673 1 , Eni Febrianti 1 , Agustina Rahmawati https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5938-0548 2 , [...] Rani Dian Iswari https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9909-8392 2 , Dimas Wira Wicaksana https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2434-8945 3 , Firda Ainun Ula 2 , Rasyiq Arif Buamona https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3663-2638 2 , Megarini Ivonny Sapulette 1 , Muhammad Rifki Rosman https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1085-8947 4 , Kalvin Yulnex Maniani 1 Ahmad Tohirin https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2317-1673 1 , Eni Febrianti 1 , [...] Agustina Rahmawati https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5938-0548 2 , Rani Dian Iswari https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9909-8392 2 , Dimas Wira Wicaksana https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2434-8945 3 , Firda Ainun Ula 2 , Rasyiq Arif Buamona https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3663-2638 2 , Megarini Ivonny Sapulette 1 , Muhammad Rifki Rosman https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1085-8947 4 , Kalvin Yulnex Maniani 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2026 Author details Author details 1 Public Administration, Universitas Padjadjaran Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Sumedang Regency, West Java, Indonesia 2 International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada Faculty of Social and Political Science, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia 3 Politics and Government, Universitas Gadjah Mada Faculty of Social and Political Science, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia 4 Government Science, Universitas Padjadjaran Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Sumedang Regency, West Java, Indonesia Ahmad Tohirin Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Eni Febrianti Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Agustina Rahmawati Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources Rani Dian Iswari Roles: Funding Acquisition, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Dimas Wira Wicaksana Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Validation Firda Ainun Ula Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Validation Rasyiq Arif Buamona Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Visualization Megarini Ivonny Sapulette Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation Muhammad Rifki Rosman Roles: Funding Acquisition, Validation Kalvin Yulnex Maniani Roles: Funding Acquisition, Validation, Visualization OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract One of the most difficult types of agrarian dispute to resolve in conflict-prone countries is one involving corporations, governments, and powerful individuals. Indonesia has the sixth highest agrarian conflict rate in Asia. This dispute took place in 74% of all occurrences, 94% of all individual victims, and 84% of all impacted households. This article focuses on territorial boundaries between indigenous tribes as well as Indonesian government programs such as public infrastructure development, which includes roads, bridges, airports, ports, and trains. This study combines historical analysis with current developments to contribute to an empirical and theoretical understanding of land battles. This article gives a systematic evaluation of the literature on indigenous peoples using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic evaluation and Meta-Analysis) methodology. This review looks at three academic databases: Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Eric. These findings reveal that many indigenous tribes continue to lack legal or official recognition. Despite constitutional law, Indonesia, a multicultural country, has customary and religious rules among its indigenous tribes. Recognition of customary law and customary land still lacks a solid foundation. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Legal Pluralism, Agrarian Conflict, Indigenous Communities, Customary Law, Land Grabbing Corresponding Author(s) Ahmad Tohirin ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Ahmad Tohirin Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Tohirin A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Tohirin A, Febrianti E, Rahmawati A et al. The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 ) First published: 30 Jan 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 ) Latest published: 30 Jan 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 ) Introduction Indonesia, as a postcolonial state, has a basic agrarian policy conundrum. On the one hand, the Republic of Indonesia’s Constitution of 1945, specifically Article 18B Paragraph (2), officially recognizes the existence of indigenous communities and their traditional rights. On the other hand, the implementation of national agrarian policy remains rooted in the colonial regime’s centralistic and state-centric approach ( Burns, 2004 ). Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 on the Recognition of Customary Forests is regarded a positive breakthrough; yet, it indicates a significant gap between normative recognition and factual application in the Indonesian legal system ( Safitri, 2015 ). Large-scale infrastructure development programs in the post-reform era have become exclusionary instruments, altering indigenous groups’ social interactions and living places ( Hall, Hirsch and Li, 2012 ). According to the Agrarian Reform Consortium’s (KPA) 2023 annual report, Indonesia experienced 241 agrarian conflicts, involving 638,188 hectares of land and resulting in 135,608 families in 346 communities. The crop industry dominated these conflicts (44%), followed by property (18%), mining (13%), and infrastructure (12%). More disturbing is the escalation of institutional violence, as evidenced by the 608 victims of violence: 508 arrested, 91 attacked, 6 shot, and 3 died ( Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria, 2023 ). This data establishes Indonesia as a unique laboratory for complex agrarian disputes that depict the confrontation between development modernity and indigenous populations’ ontologies ( Li, 2020 ). Previous research on agrarian disputes in Indonesia has been fragmented, with a sectoral approach that fails to fully address issues of justice. Much of the previous research is based on a positive legal approach that fails to appropriately account for the features of legal diversity ( Sikor and Lund, 2009 ). Sectoral rules, such as Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry and Law No. 2/2012 on Land Acquisition, are opposed to the spirit of Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/2012 ( Safitri, 2015 ). There is currently a dearth of extensive research into the process of politicizing identity and commodifying land rights via regional regulations that recognize indigenous peoples ( Tyson, 2010 ). This study vacuum is due to the lack of a systematic literature evaluation that incorporates genealogical analysis of policies, relationships between state and customary law, and government’s role in regulating legal diversity. Empirically, this demonstrates that infrastructure projects like toll highways, dams, and special economic zones have become systematic land grabs. ( Bank and Deininger, 2003 ) research revealed that formalizing land rights through the PTSL (Complete Systematic Land Registration Program) program marginalizes indigenous groups by disregarding the communal and relational aspects of customary land ( Fitzpatrick, 2005 ). This study is significant because it contributes to the discussion of agrarian governance in postcolonial states by providing a comprehensive viewpoint that incorporates policy analysis, law, and public administration ( Urano, 2014 ). This study’s findings are likely to provide an epistemological foundation for developing agrarian policies that address legal pluralism and social justice ( Ribot and Peluso, 2003 ). This study aims to: (1) trace the genealogy of agrarian conflict in the evolution of post-Reformation Indonesian agrarian policy ( Urano, 2014 ); (2) analyze the triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces in the context of infrastructure development; and (3) identify theoretical and practical gaps in the current literature regarding the role of the state in managing legal pluralism; (4) Understanding the dynamics of agricultural conflict in indigenous communities in the context of post-Reformation infrastructural development; and (5) Conducting comparative research on land grabs. Agrarian policy in Indonesia During the Dutch colonial period, Indonesia’s agrarian policy was meant to exploit natural resources through a forced cultivation system (cultuurstelsel), which required farmers to grow export commodities including coffee, sugar cane, and indigo ( Wiradi and Shohibuddin, 2009 ). This policy was supported by the Agrarian Law of 1870 (Agrarische Wet), which established private property rights and allowed for large-scale foreign investment ( McCarthy and Robinson, 2016 ). This colonial legacy resulted in an unequal land ownership structure and a dualistic agrarian law system, which are at the root of Indonesia’s agrarian difficulties today ( Booth, 1998 ). Following independence, the Indonesian government attempted to make fundamental reforms with the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) No. 5 of 1960, which highlighted the principle of “land for the people” and prohibited monopoly ownership ( Wiradi and Shohibuddin, 2009 ). However, political instability and conflicting interests between the central and provincial administrations have impeded the implementation of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA). Efforts to transfer land and respect customary rights were impeded by opposition from political elites and former landlords, resulting in agricultural reform failing to meet its objectives ( Wiradi and Shohibuddin, 2009 ). The New Order era saw a transition in agrarian policy from a people-oriented to a centralised developmental approach ( McCarthy and Robinson, 2016 ). The 1967 Foreign Investment Law permitted large-scale land acquisitions for plantations and mining, while the transmigration program hastens the change of indigenous tribes’ land. These policies created systematic, structural agricultural conflicts in which the state used legal tools to regulate and promote land grabbing ( McCarthy, 2002 ). As the Reformation era began, Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 about customary forests established constitutional acknowledgment of indigenous peoples’ rights ( Arizona, 2023 ). However, the execution remains limited by overlapping ( Urano, 2014 ) regulations between the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) and sectoral laws such as the Forestry and Mining Law ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ). The land redistribution initiative through agrarian reform has technical and political challenges, including a delayed certification procedure and opposition from large investors who hold agrarian resources ( Safitri, 2015 ). Critically, Indonesia’s agrarian policy continues to face fundamental issues such as disparities in land ownership and governance ( Arizona, 2023 ). The neoliberal approach to rural administration sometimes ignores marginalized populations’ rights in favor of investment interests. Furthermore, research on the effectiveness of agricultural reform at the local level is sparse, particularly in terms of assessing its influence on food security and the well-being of small-scale farmers. The integration of progressive legal techniques, political ecology research, and political economics analyses is critical in developing fair agrarian policy ( Hall, Hirsch and Li, 2012 ). Methodology This research employs the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis) approach checklist ( Heil and Ifenthaler, 2023 ) as a methodological foundation for conducting systematic and thorough reviews. The PRISMA framework is divided into four phases: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, which ensures a full and transparent examination. Identification phase This study established five precise criteria for identifying and selecting relevant papers. A complete literature analysis was undertaken utilizing three academic databases: Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and ERIC to locate publications on agrarian conflict, indigenous people, and agrarian policy. These databases were chosen because they provide access to high-quality papers while also meeting the study’s objectives. The search criterion for papers were those published between 2015 and 2025 and written in English. The next search criterion was open access papers, as a way to assure widespread accessibility. The next criterion was the availability of full text, which allowed for limitless access to the selected studies. Table 1 provides a full review of the five inclusion criteria. Each database search was carried out methodically across four databases to find relevant research on agrarian conflict among indigenous people. The inclusion criteria included research publications published within the last 10 years, studies concentrating on agricultural conflict among Indonesian indigenous people, and research addressing aspects of agrarian conflict, indigenous communities, and agrarian policy. Table 1. Articles’ inclusion and rejection criteria. Criteria Inclusion Exclusion Database Scopus, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and ERIC. Other databases Publication Year 2015-2025 Articles before 2015 Language English Non-English articles Document Type Research Articles Books, book chapters, or seminar papers Access to the full text Open access Limited or no access Tables 1 and 2 describe the search criteria and procedures used to find relevant studies on distance assessment. Table 1 describes the selection and rejection criteria, while Table 2 contains the search terms used in all databases. Table 2. Strings used in the database to identify articles. Search string Online Assessment AND Agrarian Conflict AND Indigenous People Online Assessment AND Agrarian Policy AND Indigenous People Online Assessment AND Agrarian Conflict AND Indigenous People Online Assessment AND Agrarian Conflict AND Indigenous People Screening phase In this phase, articles chosen in phase 1 underwent a second round of screening based on titles. The titles were carefully reviewed for conformity with preset keywords. Then, each article’s abstract was quickly screened to ensure that it met specified acceptance and exclusion criteria. Non-linear or inconsistent studies were excluded in order to increase validity. Feasibility phase The third phase involves extensive screening to determine the appropriateness of the retrieved articles for further screening. Only articles that meet the predefined and rejected criteria are considered for the final screening procedure. This approach is critical for ensuring that the selected papers are directly relevant to the phenomenon under consideration. Exception phase During this stage, publications that meet the established eligibility criteria are selected for analysis, while those that do not are excluded. The exclusion procedure includes a wide range of scientific materials, such as published books, book citations, academic proceedings, papers with limited or inaccessible full text, and publications produced after 2015-2025. Figure 1 depicts the article identification procedure. Figure 1. The PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Researcher's Process (2025). Results and discussion Agrarian conflict and its evolution in post-Reformation Indonesian agrarian policy Agrarian conflict in Indonesia is the result of long-term processes including social structures, political authority, and land management practices ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Following the Reformation in 1998, Indonesia underwent a period of transition to a more open democracy ( White et al. , 2018 ), this should allow for agrarian policy reform ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). However, policy evolution frequently does not align with conflict resolution, but rather contributes to its complexity, scale, and severity ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). According to important literature, the main causes of agrarian conflict are ambiguous land rights (tenure instability), disregard for customary rights, corporate exploitation of natural resources, and liberalization policies that discriminate against indigenous groups and local farmers ( White et al. , 2018 ). During the New Order period (1966-1998), agrarian policy was governed by a centralistic, top-down approach ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). By putting economic growth first, the government encourages the creation of major plantations, producing forests, and infrastructure ( White et al. , 2018 ), frequently disregard social and ecological sustainability ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Land ownership is defined within the state’s formal legal framework, regardless of the existence of customary rights ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Following the Reformation, new laws such as Law No. 5/1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices, Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry, and regulations on forest conversion expedited the liberalization of land resources ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Massive land clearing by corporations for the palm oil, mining, and power generating industries has heightened tensions ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This transformation was not accompanied by land rights reform for local people, resulting in “networked conflicts” between local governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and indigenous populations ( White et al. , 2018 ). Post-Reformation agrarian conflicts have changed in type and scale. The main triggering reasons are: (1) corporate land domination and huge projects such as oil palm plantations and mining, which take vast amounts of land without concessions or proper compensation ( Notess et al. , 2021 ); (2) A lack of clarity on land rights (tenure insecurity), in which government policies fail to protect land rights, particularly for people who rely on customary rights systems ( White et al. , 2018 ); (3) Liberalization strategies that undermine local rights, such as opening up forest regions for investment without regard for conservation and customary rights, thereby portraying farmers and indigenous populations as “disturbers” ( Notess et al. , 2021 ); and (4) The growing participation of transnational entities and global networks, such as international NGOs, multinational businesses, and cross-border conflict resolution networks, in adding a global dimension to local disputes, notably in Sumatra and Kalimantan ( White et al. , 2018 ). The evolution of these primary conflict drivers corresponds to distinct post-Reformation policy periods, as summarized in Table 3 . Table 3. Examines post-reformation policy periods based on the primary factors driving agricultural conflict. Period and description Main policy Conflict triggering factors The role of indigenous communities and landowners Impact on conflict 1998–2004 Early Reforms • Law No. 24/1999, concerning Regional Government. • Law No. 41/1999 concerning forestry. • Regional autonomy. • Acquiring forest tracts for investment. Begin organizing by founding cooperatives and farmer unions (for example, the Indramayu Farmers Union). The conflict intensified dramatically. Corporations used regional autonomy to exploit resources on a large scale. 2005–2013 Realizing Reforms • Law No. 26/2007 on Spatial Planning. • Law No. 18/2008 on the Management of Certain Areas. • Resource liberalization • Reorienting forests for production. Increasingly engaged in legal advocacy through the recognition of customary rights and public mobilization techniques. The emergence of a new community strategy: leveraging acknowledgment of customary rights as a legal tool in the fight against land grabbing. 2014–2020 Era of Extensive Liberalization • Law No. 11/2014, Coastal Area Management • Presidential Regulation No. 48/2017 (Accelerating HGU Permits). • Presidential Regulation No. 88/2017 regarding PPTKH. • Massive issuance of HGU (Right to Cultivate) permits. • Increased engagement of huge corporations. Under pressure to refuse and negotiate, but impeded by unequal access to information. Large-scale, international conflicts are increasing (for example, in Riau and Kalimantan). Conflict escalation is growing more complex. 2021–Present Era of Completion of Formalization • Land Dispute Resolution Program (PPST). • Government Regulation No. 18/2022 for Land Management. • Arrangement of customary rights and mapping. • Government Reconciliation Program. Cooperate with the government during the resolution process, but be critical of non-transparent practices. The formalization of land ownership has occurred. However, the conflict persists due to injustices in the resolution process. The rise of custom as a struggle strategy and legal mobilization is a critical step in the dynamics of this conflict ( Arizona, 2023 ). According to research, customary practices in Papua, Java, and Kalimantan have evolved into strategic tactics against land exploitation, rather than cultural emblems ( Arizona, 2023 ). Indigenous communities systematically adopt customary norms to: (1) claim land rights based on customary law that is passed down through generations; (2) manage conflicts through transparent and inclusive customary deliberation, rejecting state- or corporate-centered mediation; and (3) mobilize mass action using moral consistency as the basis for legitimacy ( White et al. , 2018 ). This technique, termed as “customary law as a tool of legitimating resistance,” allows communities to bypass a tainted court system while simultaneously developing strong local solidarity. This kind of resistance is anchored in the community’s epistemology and values ( White et al. , 2018 ). As Arizona (2023) underlined, custom serves as a narrative and strategy for oppressed communities to confront external forces that threaten their life, as well as a tool of emancipation and a weapon of exclusion ( White et al. , 2018 ). Furthermore, the origins of this dispute must be interpreted as a sign of the systematic “blurring of public and private security” ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). State security actors, like as the TNI and Polri, frequently serve to defend business interests rather than performing public tasks ( White et al. , 2018 ). This issue of corporate capture of public security forces fosters an environment in which human rights crimes against indigenous peoples become a structural consequence of a large-scale investment-based development strategy ( White et al. , 2018 ). Research in the palm oil and forestry sectors in Sumatra demonstrates how violence by a combination of state and private security actors not only exacerbates tenure insecurity ( White et al. , 2018 ), however, indigenous groups’ social relations and living environments have been transformed into conflict zones fraught with intimidation and violence. These data support the notion that agrarian disputes are caused not only by overlapping legislation, but also by “state capture by corporations” ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), the economic and military elite use the governmental machinery to protect the interests of capital accumulation ( White et al. , 2018 ). In this context, legal reform attempts such as Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/2012 on Customary Forests ( Arizona, 2023 ) becomes ineffectual because it is confronted with a world in which corporate security outweighs the rationale of preserving citizens’ constitutional rights ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). On the other side, the government’s efforts to address conflicts through policies like PPTKH (Land Control Settlement in Forest Areas) confront significant implementation issues. A case study in Ogan Komering Ulu demonstrates that, despite the presence of a legal framework, communities frequently lack access to relevant program information, and their ability to develop formal proposals is severely hampered ( Nazir Salim, Wulan and Pinuji, 2021 ). The long and complicated bureaucratic process, along with a lack of adequate help, means that programs like PPTKH only reach a small part of the population ( Notess et al. , 2021 ) from the community who should be the beneficiaries ( Nazir Salim, Wulan and Pinuji, 2021 ). This increases tenure uncertainty and prolongs the dispute. As a result, agrarian policies function not just on the legal and economic levels, but also in a “political arena rife with power struggles” between the state, companies, and local communities ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), where market incentives and repressive state forces frequently ally to suppress resistance. The implication is that a long-term solution to agricultural conflicts requires more than just policy reform; it also requires the demolition of entrenched corporate capture mechanisms and the enforcement of accountability for all security actors, both public and private, for human rights violations ( White et al. , 2018 ). Furthermore, the PPTKH mentorship model suggests a more participatory and community empowerment-based approach ( Nazir Salim, Wulan and Pinuji, 2021 ) and improving customary-based legal mobilisation techniques ( Arizona, 2023 ) is critical to ensure that policies do not only exist on paper, but also reach the people who require them the most. A recent study by ( Kurnijanto et al. , 2023 ) on tenurial conflict resolution in the Central Sulawesi Grand Forest Park found that the conservation partnership pattern in social forestry was regarded as the best alternative by the community, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and transparency in conflict management. According to Kurnijanto et al. (2023) post-Reformation agricultural conflict altered agrarian policy dynamically through resistance, mobilization, and institutional transformation. The violence began as a result of structural injustice and a failure to recognize the rights of local communities. Liberal policies that neglected customary rights escalated the conflict to a national and global level ( White et al. , 2018 ). Recent developments include efforts to establish traditional land rights through reconciliation and land management programs. However, the effectiveness of these systems is strongly reliant on transparency, participation, and fairness in the process. Without them, these programs risk becoming “codifications of inequality,” giving formal legality for actual exclusion, with community formalization procedures being more onerous than corporate land acquisition ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). When communities lack the ability to handle disagreements equitably and honestly ( Urano, 2014 ), independent third-party action is urgently needed ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Sustainable solutions necessitate not only regulatory improvements, but also a redefinition of the relationship between the state, society, and land, with land rights serving as the foundation of humanity and social justice within the framework of the community’s epistemology and sovereignty ( White et al. , 2018 ). Triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces A literature review of post-Reformasi agrarian conflict indicates more than just overlapping regulations ( Kurnijanto et al. , 2023 ), but also a pattern of harmful triadic interactions between state law, customary law, and global market forces ( Siregar et al. , 2024 ). Land disputes are not an exception, but rather the result of institutional failure, structural imbalances, and a fundamental collision of worldviews ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This discussion section will draw on significant results from the existing literature study to make a thorough argument on how these three players impact and form the landscape of agrarian conflict in Indonesia ( White et al. , 2018 ). The history of post-Reformasi rural conflicts demonstrates the vulnerability of state legality in the face of global market influences. Despite important normative recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, as confirmed by Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012, their implementation has been impeded by so-called corporate takeover. Empirical research ( White et al. , 2018 ) in Sumatra shows that public security forces, rather than carrying out their public tasks, serve to safeguard corporate interests, blurring the distinctions between public security and commercial objectives ( Siregar et al. , 2024 ). These findings have major implications: they call into question the idea that the state is a neutral entity that promotes justice, as well as vice versa ( Kurnijanto et al. , 2023 ), suggesting that the state can be used to accumulate capital. As a result, agricultural disputes stem not just from legislation, but also from dysfunctional governance, which is worsened by systemic failures in state-centered agrarian reform projects ( Siregar et al. , 2024 ). These findings are particularly relevant to the Indonesian setting, where programs like the Settlement of Land Tenure in Forest Areas (PPTKH) in South Sumatra have failed to address core concerns such as a lack of accurate data and uncertain land legal status ( Nazir Salim, Wulan and Pinuji, 2021 ). This pattern of failure has created vulnerabilities through which global market forces might exploit tenure insecurity. Furthermore, decentralization and liberalization policies, which were initially conceived as solutions, have instead provided new channels for local elites to abuse their power and exacerbate inter-community tensions ( Urano, 2014 ). Global market pressures, on the other hand, not only impact state law but also neglect and marginalize customary law through formal procedures ( White et al. , 2018 ). A literature assessment finds procedural imbalances that systematically place indigenous populations at risk ( Notess et al., 2021 ). The formalization process for customary land, which is required for legal recognition, is exceedingly long and complicated, whereas land purchase procedures for corporations move significantly faster. This disparity effectively exposes indigenous people to land grabs sanctioned by state legislation. A network of international norms and standards serves as a proxy for global market power in addition to corporate domination. Work demonstrates that entities such as global NGOs and certification systems ( Brad and Hein, 2023 ), which are designed to promote sustainability, can actually aggravate disputes when their standards do not correspond with local circumstances ( Urano, 2014 ). However, this narrative does not portray Indigenous peoples as passive subjects. Instead, the literature repeatedly shows that customary law serves as a dynamic agency and resistance mechanism ( Arizona, 2023 ). Indigenous peoples in Indonesia intentionally apply and deploy customary law in public and political settings to achieve their aims, such as recognizing land and natural resource rights ( Arizona, 2023 ). This resistance is not only a reaction, but also an active process in the development of communal identity and agency. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that effective agrarian conflict resolution necessitates a paradigm change away from solutions based on formal law and towards a more holistic and pluralistic approach. The role of communication as a resolution tool indicates how successful discourse between parties can transcend power disparities and pave the road for just outcomes ( Siregar et al. , 2024 ). Furthermore, an organized and systematic resolution mechanism is required, one that looks beyond simple ownership conflicts to how space and natural resources are managed collectively ( Kurnijanto et al. , 2023 ). This demonstrates that reasonable and durable conflict resolution requires systemic adjustments to the legal framework ( Arizona, 2023 ), bureaucracy, and social practices that accept multiple worldviews and current power relations. Overall, this analysis shows that agricultural conflict in Indonesia is a complex phenomenon that goes beyond simple ownership conflicts. This is the setting where three major actors state law, customary law, and global market forces interact, influence, and define the conflict landscape ( Urano, 2014 ). To offer a solid empirical foundation for the synthesis and arguments presented in this discussion, Table 4 provides a complete description of the 12 essential papers that constitute the basis of this systematic literature evaluation. Table 4 highlights each publication based on its references, study location, major issue, and main contribution to improving our understanding of the dynamics of the triadic interactions that have been thoroughly discussed. Table 4. Analysis of key studies on the triadic interaction in Agrarian conflicts. No Reference (Author and Year) Research location Main problem (Special topic) Strengthened triadic pillars Findings 1 White et al. (2018) Sumatra, Indonesia Corporate takeover of public security forces and human rights violations. State Laws and Global Market Power It demonstrates how public security forces obscure their role in safeguarding corporate interests, which has an influence on human rights violations. 2 Notess et al. (2021) 15 Countries Across Continents Procedures for formalizing customary land differ from those for acquiring corporation land. State Laws and Global Market Power Explaining the procedural imbalance in which the formalization of customary land takes far longer than land purchase by businesses, leaving communities vulnerable. 3 Arizona (2023) Indonesia Customary law as a means of conflict. Customary law Recognizing that customary law is a dynamic and adaptable tool utilized by communities as a negotiating technique with the state legal system. 4 Urano (2014) East Kalimantan, Indonesia The effects of liberalization policies on customary land rights. State and Customary Law Demonstrates how decentralization programs can fail, resulting in abuse of power by local elites and intercommunity strife. 5 Salim et al. (2021) South Sumatra, Indonesia Implementation of land dispute settlement schemes presents challenges. State and Customary Law Provides empirical evidence that government initiatives fail to resolve conflicts owing to fundamental data and administrative issues. 6 Siregar et al. (2024) Indramayu, Indonesia Communication plays an important part in resolving agricultural conflicts. State and Customary Law Provides a new dimension to conflict resolution by demonstrating that communication breakdown is at the foundation of the problem and that discussion is required for a fair resolution. 7 Kurnijanto et al. (2023) Central Sulawesi, Indonesia Tenurial dispute resolution patterns. State and Customary Law Explains the importance of taking an organized and methodical approach to conflict resolution that extends beyond simple ownership disputes. 8 Brad & Hein (2023) Sumatra, Indonesia The role of global non-governmental organizations and transnational agriculture. Global Market Power and Customary Law Developing the concept of “global market forces” to encompass the involvement of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational certification schemes, which can complicate dispute resolution. The role of the state in managing legal pluralism The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Defenders Network (JAPHAMA) laid the groundwork for the resurgence of the indigenous peoples’ movement in Indonesia ( Arizona, 2023 ). The culmination was the foundation of an alliance, AMAN (Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago), which was established in 1999. AMAN evolved into an institution that supported the indigenous peoples’ movement on a national level while also serving as an international liaison ( Urano, 2014 ). AMAN also advocates Indonesian indigenous peoples in international forums and organizes international activities for indigenous peoples who visit Indonesia ( Arizona, 2023 ). The birth of the movement and the manifestation of the state’s role in responding to legal pluralism ( Urano, 2014 ) can be seen in the indigenous peoples’ movement, which began to emerge following the enactment of Law Number 5 of 1979 concerning Village Government, in which customary institutions were “destroyed” and standardized into villages ( Arizona, 2023 ). The introduction of the transmigration program, which relocated less than 50 million people from Java and Madura to Indonesia’s big islands, sparked conflict between transmigrants and indigenous people ( Urano, 2014 ). The issue is aggravated by the government’s acquisition of land, including customary land, for logging and mining concessions, oil palm plantations, industrial timber plantations, national parks, and megatourism ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Indigenous tribes in Kalimantan and Sumatra are the most affected by the situation, in which residents of forest areas are compelled to evacuate while the government distributes forest concessions to huge corporations ( Urano, 2014 ). This is confirmed by the findings in North Maluku (Tola Gumi), which show that indigenous groups rely heavily on land as their primary source of income, notably for farming ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ). However, legal protection remains inadequate, especially in the lack of compulsory laws within municipal governments. This has resulted in social strife and the erosion of traditional land rights ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ). The strengthening of customary rights as constitutional rights ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ), the existence of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the first constitution currently in operation in Indonesia, is relatively limited in accommodating indigenous peoples’ rights. The 1945 Constitution was mostly utilized as a provisional constitution, to be amended when conditions improved ( Arizona, 2023 ). Furthermore, it was influenced by the Republic’s founders, who favored modernism in state growth over old legal institutions ( Arizona, 2023 ). The 1998 revisions were followed by amendments to the 1945 Constitution, which resulted in some unclear passages. However, it can increase the potential of legal mobil ( Arizona, 2023 ). Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution exists as a result of an amendment that states: “The state recognizes and respects the units of customary law communities and their traditional rights as long as they are still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, which are regulated by law.” Meanwhile, Article 281 Paragraph (3) of 1945 specifies that: “The cultural identity and rights of traditional communities are respected in line with developments in the times and civilization.” This remark is problematic because it acknowledges this, albeit under certain conditions ( Arizona, 2023 ). This provision has become a resource for indigenous groups defending their constitutional rights ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ). This section also acts as a standard for the Constitutional Court for determining the constitutionality of statutes, such as the Forestry Law, which still adheres to colonial forestry principles. AMAN’s efforts to break free from the colonial legal system included filing two constitutional cases, which were allowed by the Constitutional Court ( Arizona, 2023 ). The first ruling is in Case Number 35/PUU-X/2012. AMAN made an argument linked to the Forestry Law, claiming that incorporating customary woods into state forests is a form of denial of the existence of customary forests that should belong to and be governed by indigenous communities ( Urano, 2014 ). The Constitutional Court removed the word “state” from the Forestry Law’s definition of customary forests, which originally read “Customary Forests are state forests located within the territory of indigenous legal communities,” resulting in customary forests that were previously part of state forests becoming separate forests that are not state forests ( Arizona, 2023 ). The Second Decision refers to case Number 95/PUU-XII/2014 regarding the testing of Law No. 18 of 2013 concerning the Prevention and Destruction of Forests and Law No. 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry, as shown in Table 5 : Table 5. Comparison of forestry legislation before and after constitutional court decision No. 35/2012. Before the constitutional court’s decision Following the constitutional court’s decision Article 50, paragraph. Everybody is barred from: • Cutting down trees, harvesting, or collecting forest products in the forest without the right or authorization of an authorized official. • Grazing animals in forest areas not specifically approved for this use by an authorized official. Article 50, paragraph. Everybody is barred from: • Cutting down trees, harvesting, or collecting forest products in the forest without the right or authorization from an authorized official, except for communities that have lived in the forest for generations and not for commercial interests. • Grazing animals in forest areas not specifically designated for such reasons by an authorized authority, except for communities that have lived in the forest for generations and are not for commercial purposes. The table summary demonstrates that the law changed prior to the Constitutional Court’s judgment, emphasizing the state’s ownership of forests and their contents. This caused complications since it left a void in the subject of customary law. The Constitutional Court adopted AMAN’s proposed statute, signifying particular values and advantages for indigenous groups living in the area. However, situations on the ground do not completely reflect the aspects of justice outlined in the new law. As a result, it can be concluded that the present law has failed to bind proper execution. Agrarian conflict dynamics in indigenous communities during post-reformation infrastructure development Following Reformasi, infrastructure development in Indonesia saw exceptional rapidity. The state placed the building of toll highways, dams, airports, trains, and even energy projects within the larger context of economic growth and national integration ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). However, this development drive had major ramifications for indigenous populations, whose territory were frequently used as the location of important projects ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). The subsequent agricultural conflicts encompassed more than just land disputes; they also included legal difficulties, bureaucracy, boundaries, development ideology, and the dynamics of community opposition. This complexities show that post-Reformasi infrastructure development is more than just a technical undertaking; it is a political arena plagued with power battles between the state, companies, and local populations defending their land rights. Notess et al. (2021) point to structural inequities in the judicial system as the source of the problem. Customary land is especially vulnerable since formal legal recognition procedures are significantly more complicated and costly than land acquisition for investment or national development ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This disparity reveals how the state consistently subordinates indigenous communities. In Indonesia, this is particularly evident in post-Reformasi infrastructure development ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), where indigenous claims are frequently stymied by bureaucratic red tape, whereas national projects move forward quickly in the name of the public interest. In other words, regulations that prioritize capital interests over indigenous peoples’ rights frequently favor infrastructure development. To date, the implementation of the 1960 Basic Agrarian Law has not fully accommodated customary rights, leaving indigenous populations in a weak legal position despite controlling their land for generations ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). In addition to the procedural inequalities raised, a normative study in Papua by ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ) demonstrates that the national legal framework has opened up a path to recognition for indigenous peoples’ rights through the Spatial Planning Law, Article 18B (2) of the 1945 Constitution, and the Papua Regional Regulations and Special Regional Regulations ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). These positive legal ideas are essentially associated with Papuan customary norms, such as the belief that land is “mama” or the source of life, the principle of territorial boundaries, and customary sanction mechanisms ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Despite this normative consistency, implementation on the ground is inadequate, resulting in insufficient real-world protection for indigenous communities. This demonstrates that the major issue is not a lack of rules, but rather inadequate implementation and oversight procedures, making infrastructure development easier than recognizing customary rights ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). In line with that, the gap between top-down spatial planning and the need for bottom-up participation magnifies the potential for conflict Hammar et al. (2021) . The construction of Regional Spatial Plans (RTRW), which should engage indigenous groups, is often reduced to an administrative routine with little consideration, neglecting indigenous communities’ voices. As a result, legal documents do not recognize indigenous claims and cultural maps that exist inside communities ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This situation is similar to many post-Reformation infrastructure development cases, in which spatial planning based on state administrative maps frequently undermines local land viewpoints. Thus, agrarian conflicts are more than just land disputes; they are also epistemological and spatial standpoint battles ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). The subject of agrarian disputes between indigenous peoples can also be understood in the context of Papua, which is under Special Autonomy. Hammar (2018) demonstrates that, while Article 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua, and Special Regional Regulation of Papua No. 23 of 2008 have provided a legal foundation for the protection of customary rights, the reality on the ground remains far from ideal. A study of the Arfak customary law community in Manokwari demonstrates how the state does not fully adapt the complex structure of customary rights, which ranges from the collective rights of the Arfak tribe, sub-tribes, and family rights ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). As a result, agrarian disputes persist in Papua, particularly in relation to infrastructure development and strategic initiatives ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Cases such as customary land disputes over Wamena Airport construction, the Freeport mining project with the Amungme community, and oil company expansion show that customary land is frequently used as an investment asset without legal customary consent mechanisms ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This circumstance demonstrates that, while Special Autonomy is theoretically designed to bolster indigenous groups’ positions, in practice, it has failed to prevent confrontations between the state, companies, and indigenous communities. These findings ( Hammar, 2018 ) close a significant gap in understanding the dynamics of post-Reformation agrarian conflict. Notess et al. (2021) stress structural inequities in national law, whereas Hammar et al. (2021) emphasize the poor execution of spatial planning, Hammar (2018) exemplifies the paradox of special autonomy: rules intended to protect indigenous people have proven inadequate in maintaining customary rights when confronted with infrastructure developments and business opportunities. Thus, agricultural conflict in Papua reflects the tension between formal acknowledgment of customary law and the realities of development, which are still controlled by the logic of national economic expansion ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). A study of Tola Gumi in the Tobaru community (West Halmahera) reveals another critical factor ( Situmorang et al. , 2021 ) despite a national legal framework and a Constitutional Court order (MK 35) that recognizes customary forests, local protection remains very inadequate. The Tola Gumi tradition of awarding hereditary ownership of customary land has proven socioculturally effective ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ), but it is legally vulnerable due to a lack of regional norms and insufficient rights registration. Furthermore, low legal literacy prohibits indigenous groups from using legal tools to defend their property against investment and infrastructure development ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This reveals that, in addition to procedural inequities and deficient legal execution, indigenous populations’ susceptibility is determined by their legal knowledge and literacy. Thus, post-Reformation agricultural disputes result not just from the logic of land capitalization and state dominance ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), but also from indigenous groups’ limited ability to access and negotiate their rights within the formal legal system. To clarify the comparison and mapping of each relevant study’s contributions, the table below presents a summary of major characteristics of the four publications mentioned above. Table 6 shows the research setting, primary topic, key findings, and relevance of each paper to the dynamics of indigenous agrarian conflict in Indonesia during the post-Reform infrastructure building period. Table 6. Synthesis of research on indigenous Agrarian conflicts in post-reformation infrastructure development. Author and year Context/Location Main focus of the study Key findings Relevance to sub-chapter Notess et al. (2021) Global/Indonesia Procedures to recognize customary land and structural legal imbalances. Recognizing customary rights is more complex and costly than acquiring land for investment, putting indigenous groups at a disadvantage. Shows a legal bias that promotes infrastructure development while undermining indigenous peoples’ rights. Hammar et al. (2021) Papua (RTRW & spatial planning) Compliance with Papuan positive and customary law; execution of the RTRW. Normatively aligned (1945 Constitution Article 18B(2), Perdasus), but execution is lacking; RTRW is top-down and overlooks customary participation. Emphasizing that the conflict emerged as a result of inadequate application of spatial planning legislation and the lack of legitimacy of customary maps. Hammar (2018) Papua (Special Autonomy) The effectiveness of Papua’s Special Autonomy in safeguarding customary rights. Special regulations (Special Autonomy Law, Regional Regulations) are not yet in place, and the Arfak, Amungme, and others’ customary rights continue to be ignored in infrastructure development and investment. demonstrates a paradox: there exist particular restrictions, but they do not prevent agrarian disputes in Papua. Situmorang et al. (2021) Tobaru, West Halmahera Tola Gumi Tradition and Legal Literacy in the Protection of Indigenous Lands. Tola Gumi has significant traditional hereditary ownership but is legally vulnerable due to a lack of regional legislation and inadequate legal literacy. Shows that legal literacy and regional implementation are critical to preserving customary land. The table’s description demonstrates that post-Reformation agrarian conflict encompasses more than just land disputes; it also includes legal issues, spatial planning, autonomy politics, and even indigenous literacy. The four investigations compliment one another. Notes highlight structural inequities Hammar (2018) emphasizes the inadequate application of spatial planning, Hammar (2018) discovering the contradiction of particular autonomy, and Situmorang et al. (2021) included the component of legal literacy. Thus, the dynamics of indigenous agrarian conflicts in the post-Reformation era of infrastructure development must be viewed as a multifaceted issue that necessitates a simultaneous legal, institutional, and community empowerment strategy. Global land grab: Patterns and resistance across countries Land grabbing is not an Indonesian occurrence; it has become a worldwide issue impacting many places of the world ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Many countries, particularly those with sizable indigenous populations, have agrarian disputes as a result of infrastructure, energy, and conservation initiatives ( Situmorang et al. , 2021 ). The resulting conflict patterns are similar, with customary rights being marginalized, state and corporate domination, and local community resistance ( Hammar et al. , 2021 ). To understand the dynamics of indigenous agrarian conflicts in the context of post-Reformation development in Indonesia, it is necessary to set them in a comparative perspective. Studies from the Philippines ( Jadina, Nissen and Rennie, 2025 ), Australia ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ) Mexico, and Colombia ( Zambrano-Cortés, Behagel and Winkel, 2025 ) show global patterns of land grabbing as well as indigenous peoples’ resistance strategies, which can help interpret similar cases in Indonesia ( Arizona, 2023 ). According to a study conducted in the Philippines ( Jadina, Nissen and Rennie, 2025 ) state bureaucracy not only slows but actually impedes true agrarian reforms. The laborious land distribution process does not improve communities, but rather exacerbates local internal tensions. These findings highlight a widespread pattern in which bureaucracy frequently serves as a tool of state control, limiting indigenous peoples’ access to land rights. Similar tendencies may be found in other Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, where promises of agricultural reform are frequently thwarted by administrative complexity and bureaucratic politics that favor large-scale development goals. Another strengthening feature is the logic of variations in territorial limits. In Australia, Indigenous peoples understand territory through cultural, spiritual, and ecological ties ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ). This frequently contradicts with the state’s approach, which is based on maps, surveys, and legal documents. This epistemic tension exists not only in Australia, but also in many other countries in the Global South, including Indonesia ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), where Indigenous claims based on local cosmologies and knowledge systems are frequently ignored in favor of modern infrastructure and spatial planning initiatives. Another pattern, documented in a case study of the Zapotec and Ikoots indigenous tribes in Mexico ( Velasco-Herrejón, Bauwens and Calisto Friant, 2022 ) is that wind energy projects marketed as sustainable development are viewed as a sort of green colonialism. These findings show that land grabbing occurs not just through traditional infrastructure projects, but also through green development agendas that promote modernization ideas ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). This situation is similar to that of Indonesia and other Asian countries, where renewable energy development or environmental projects frequently violate indigenous groups’ rights. Meanwhile, research in Colombia demonstrates how indigenous peoples and local communities organize collective resistance to conservation and agro-industry projects ( Zambrano-Cortés, Behagel and Winkel, 2025 ). They enhance political identification, internal solidarity, and advocacy techniques in response to state and corporate dominance using self-reliant technologies. This pattern of resistance reveals that indigenous peoples are not passive victims, but rather active political actors who devise multifaceted resistance measures. Similar tendencies can be noted in Southeast Asia ( Jadina, Nissen and Rennie, 2025 ), where indigenous advocacy networks grew stronger after Reformasi to negotiate their land rights ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). The table below highlights four significant publications on the dynamics of land grabbing in various countries, with each emphasizing bureaucracy, territorial boundaries, green development philosophy, and community resistance. This cross-national study illustrates that the struggle for indigenous territory is a multifaceted, worldwide phenomenon. Comparing cases from the Philippines ( Jadina, Nissen and Rennie, 2025 ), Australia ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ), Mexico ( Velasco-Herrejón, Bauwens and Calisto Friant, 2022 ), Colombia ( Zambrano-Cortés, Behagel and Winkel, 2025 ), and Indonesia ( Arizona, 2023 ), a consistent pattern emerges. While the state and corporations employ legal tools, development projects, and even sustainability narratives to expand land ownership, indigenous communities use a variety of resistance strategies. This overview is crucial because it provides comparison statistics to understand how the agrarian conflicts suffered by indigenous people in post-Reformation Indonesia are strongly linked to global dynamics. Table 7 : A comparative analysis of land-grabbing tendencies and opposition. Table 7. Comparative analysis of land grabbing patterns and community resistance across countries. Author and Year Context Main focus of the study Key findings Relevance to sub-chapter Jadina et al. (2025) Philippines Implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) Slow parcelization, complex bureaucracy, and failed reforms New disagreements arise throughout the community. Similar to post-Reformation Indonesia, lethargic bureaucracy exacerbates agrarian disputes during development. Campbell & Pirie (2024) Australia The distinction between customary and formal legal boundaries The spiritual-cultural customary limits do not correspond to the state’s formal maps and certifications. Understanding conflicts over customary land boundaries is relevant to spatial planning for infrastructure development in Indonesia. Velasco-Herrejón et al. (2022) Mexico Wind energy projects, the Zapotec indigenous struggle, and Boots "Green" development is perceived as green colonialism. Clash between development and custom Demonstrating epistemological conflict: infrastructure is forced in the name of development while indigenous cosmology is ignored. Zambrano-Cortés et al. (2025) Colombia Indigenous peoples’ opposition to conservation, REDD+, and agroforestry programs. Collective identity is employed for resistance. Self-centered technologies as a political strategy. demonstrates indigenous tribes’ collective resistance to post-Reformation development/infrastructure. Arizona (2023) Indonesia Indigenous agrarian disputes and post-Reformation infrastructural initiatives. Customary rights are frequently undermined by governmental and corporate interests; community resistance evolves through legal advocacy and grassroots networks. Shows that legal literacy and regional implementation are critical to preserving customary land. Based on cases from the Philippines, Australia, Mexico, Colombia, and Indonesia, it is possible to conclude that global land grabbing consistently results in multidimensional conflict patterns ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), including bureaucracy, boundary epistemology, green development projects, and even community resistance dynamics ( Campbell and Pirie, 2024 ). The Indonesian context is similar to these trends, while each country has its own particular peculiarities. As a result, this cross-national study contributes to our understanding that indigenous agrarian conflicts are not isolated incidents ( Notess et al. , 2021 ), but rather part of the global dynamics of land battles in the era of capitalist development and state modernization ( Notess et al. , 2021 ). Conclusion Based on the findings, it can be stated that agrarian conflict in Indonesia is a structural and multidimensional issue caused by unequal land ownership, uncertainty about ownership rights, and overlapping laws between state law, customary law, and global market pressures. The research findings show that many indigenous tribes continue to lack unambiguous legal legitimacy from the state, despite the fact that Indonesia, as a multicultural society, recognizes customary and religious law in its constitution. This paradox produces a situation in which customary law and customary land are not yet well-established in the national legal system. Despite the constitutional acknowledgment of indigenous peoples’ rights through Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/2012, its implementation in the field remains relatively weak due to corporate control, cumbersome bureaucracy, and a lack of community involvement. Large-scale infrastructure development after Reformasi has frequently become a weapon of exclusion, disregarding customary rights and causing tensions on legal, geographical, political, and epistemological levels. Indigenous communities are not passive; they adopt dynamic resistance techniques that use customary law as a tool for struggle and advocacy. More broadly, agrarian conflicts in Indonesia are part of a global phenomena of land grabbing that has occurred in a number of other countries, with comparable patterns of marginalization of customary rights, governmental and corporate dominance, and the rise of local community resistance. Recommendation To solve this difficult issue, the report proposes a number of strategic initiatives. At the policy and legal level, sectoral rules must be revised and harmonized in order to recognize customary rights and accelerate inclusive agrarian reform by simplifying procedures for recognizing customary land. At the governance and execution levels, it is critical to expand public engagement mechanisms in spatial planning and infrastructure development, which should be accompanied by increased legal pluralism capacity among government officials. It is also critical to empower indigenous populations by providing legal help, increasing literacy, and respecting customary conflict settlement procedures. Finally, conducting additional research on the effects of sustainable development on indigenous people and establishing worldwide advocacy networks are critical steps toward promoting agricultural justice. To resolve agrarian conflicts, all stakeholders must commit to a comprehensive approach that includes law change, inclusive governance, community development, and strong political leadership. Ethical approval and consent to participate This study did not require ethical approval as it is a systematic literature review and does not involve human participants, identifiable data, or personal information. Data availability The PRISMA 2020 checklist, PRISMA flow diagram, and the dataset underlying this systematic literature review (including the study extraction table) have been deposited in the Zenodo repository and are publicly accessible at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18314164 ( Tohirin et al., 2026 ). The repository includes the following supplementary files: Supplementary document 1: PRISMA 2020 checklist Supplementary Figure 1: The PRISMA flow diagram Supplementary Table 1: Articles’s inclusion and rejection criteria Supplementary Table 2: Strings used in the database to identify articles Supplementary Table 3: Examines post-Reformation policy periods based on the primary factors driving agricultural conflict Supplementary Table 4: Analysis of Key Studies on the Triadic Interaction in Agrarian Conflicts Supplementary Table 5: Comparison of Forestry Legislation Before and After Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/2012 Supplementary Table 6: Synthesis of Research on Indigenous Agrarian Conflicts in Post-Reformation Infrastructure Development Supplementary Table 7: Comparative Analysis of Land Grabbing Patterns and Community Resistance Across Countries Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication). Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their profound gratitude to the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP) under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia for the financial support and scholarship awarded, which has been instrumental in facilitating the research and completion of this academic article. This invaluable assistance not only enabled the realization of this scholarly work but also served as a significant motivation to contribute meaningfully to the advancement of knowledge and the nation. References Arizona Y: Adat as Strategy for Legal Struggle and Legal Mobilization (Adat Sebagai Strategi Perjuangan dan Mobilisasi Hukum). Indonesian Journal of Socio-Legal Studies. 2023; 2 (2). Publisher Full Text Bank W, Deininger K: Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction Oxford University Press and The World Bank. Washington: 2003. 8213-5071-4. Booth A: The Indonesian economy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: A history of missed opportunities. Springer; 1998. Brad A, Hein J: Towards transnational agrarian conflicts? Global NGOs, transnational agrobusiness and local struggles for land on Sumatra. New Political Economy. 2023; 28 (3): 452–467. Burns P: The Leiden legacy: Concepts of law in Indonesia. Brill; 2004. Campbell G, Pirie L: Incorporating indigenous boundaries into Australian Law. Land Use Policy. 2024; 141 (March): 107158. Publisher Full Text Fitzpatrick D: ‘Best practice’options for the legal recognition of customary tenure. Dev. Chang. 2005; 36 (3): 449–475. Hall D, Hirsch P, Li TM: Powers of exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia. Philosophy East and West. 2012; 63 (2). Hammar RKR: The existence of customary rights of customary law community and its regulation in the era of special autonomy of Papua. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2018; 9 (1): 201–213. Publisher Full Text Hammar RKR, et al. : Spatial Planning for Indigenous Law Communities to Solve Social Conflict Resolution in West Papua Indonesia. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2021; 12 (4): 405–423. Heil J, Ifenthaler D: Online Assessment in Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Online Learning Journal. 2023; 27 (1): 187–218. Publisher Full Text Jadina MC, Nissen S, Rennie H: The unfinished implications of ‘finished’ land reform: Local experiences of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in Leyte, Philippines. Land Use Policy. 2025; 157 (June): 107658. Publisher Full Text Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria: Dekade Krisis Agraria: Warisan Nawacita dan Masa Depan Reforma Agraria Pasca Perubahan Politik 2024. Jakarta: 2023. Reference Source Kurnijanto P, et al. : Central Sulawesi Forest Park: A Pattern of Tenure Conflict Resolution. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning. 2023; 18 (7): 2121–2126. Publisher Full Text Li TM: Land’s end: Capitalist relations on an indigenous frontier. Duke University Press; 2020. McCarthy JF: Power and interest on Sumatra’s rainforest frontier: Clientelist coalitions, illegal logging and conservation in the Alas Valley. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. 2002; 33 (1): 77–106. McCarthy JF, Robinson K: Land and development in Indonesia: Searching for the people’s sovereignty. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute; 2016. Nazir Salim M, Wulan DR, Pinuji S: Reconciling community land and state forest claims in indonesia: A case study of the land tenure settlement reconciliation program in south sumatra. Forest and Society. 2021; 5 (1): 1–22. Publisher Full Text Notess L, et al. : Community land formalization and company land acquisition procedures: A review of 33 procedures in 15 countries. Land Use Policy. 2021; 110 (January 2020): 104461. Publisher Full Text Ribot JC, Peluso NL: A theory of access. Rural Sociology. 2003; 68 (2): 153–181. Safitri MA: Dividing the Land: Legal Gaps in the Recognition of Customary Land in Indonesian Forest Areas. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies. 2015. Sikor T, Lund C: Access and property: a question of power and authority. Dev. Chang. 2009; 40 (1): 1–22. Siregar B, et al. : The Role of Communication as Agrarian Conflicts Resolution (Systematic Literature Review). Studies in Media and Communication. 2024; 12 (2): 377–386. Publisher Full Text Situmorang J, et al. : Literation of land rights law in (Tola gumi) protection of indigenous peoples and its impact on community welfare. Journal of Social Studies Education Research. 2021; 12 (2): 180–209. Tohirin A, Febrianti E, Rahmawati A, et al. : The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia’s Indigenous Peoples’ Agrarian Conflicts. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text Tyson AD: Decentralization and adat revivalism in Indonesia: The politics of becoming indigenous. Routledge; 2010. Urano M: Impacts of newly liberalised policies on customary land rights of forest-dwelling populations: A case study from East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint. 2014; 55 (1): 6–23. Publisher Full Text Velasco-Herrejón P, Bauwens T, Calisto Friant M: Challenging dominant sustainability worldviews on the energy transition: Lessons from Indigenous communities in Mexico and a plea for pluriversal technologies. World Development. 2022; 150 . Publisher Full Text White ND, et al. : Blurring Public and Private Security in Indonesia: Corporate Interests and Human Rights in a Fragile Environment , Netherlands International Law Review. Springer International Publishing; 2018. Publisher Full Text Wiradi G, Shohibuddin M: Seluk beluk masalah agraria: reforma agraria dan penelitian agraria. Yogyakarta: STPN Press; 2009. Zambrano-Cortés DG, Behagel J, Winkel G: Fostering collective subjectivities: Technologies of the self and resistance in Colombian community forest initiatives. World Development. 2025; 188 (November 2024). Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Public Administration, Universitas Padjadjaran Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Sumedang Regency, West Java, Indonesia 2 International Relations, Universitas Gadjah Mada Faculty of Social and Political Science, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia 3 Politics and Government, Universitas Gadjah Mada Faculty of Social and Political Science, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia 4 Government Science, Universitas Padjadjaran Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, Sumedang Regency, West Java, Indonesia Ahmad Tohirin Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Resources, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Eni Febrianti Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation Agustina Rahmawati Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources Rani Dian Iswari Roles: Funding Acquisition, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Dimas Wira Wicaksana Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Validation Firda Ainun Ula Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Validation Rasyiq Arif Buamona Roles: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Visualization Megarini Ivonny Sapulette Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Validation Muhammad Rifki Rosman Roles: Funding Acquisition, Validation Kalvin Yulnex Maniani Roles: Funding Acquisition, Validation, Visualization Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (1) version 1 Published: 30 Jan 2026, 15:154 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 Copyright © 2026 Tohirin A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Tohirin A, Febrianti E, Rahmawati A et al. The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.177058.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2026 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Safitri MA. Reviewer Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r463912 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-463912 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 18 Mar 2026 Myrna Asnawati Safitri , Pancasila University, Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r463912 General comments: This submitted manuscript provides a timely and relevant discussion of agrarian conflicts affecting indigenous peoples within the context of large-scale infrastructure projects in Indonesia. The main thesis—that insufficient recognition of legal pluralism perpetuates the marginalization ... Continue reading READ ALL General comments: This submitted manuscript provides a timely and relevant discussion of agrarian conflicts affecting indigenous peoples within the context of large-scale infrastructure projects in Indonesia. The main thesis—that insufficient recognition of legal pluralism perpetuates the marginalization of indigenous communities in state land recognition processes—is both significant and well-articulated. The article effectively highlights the persistence of land conflicts, and it situates these issues within ongoing legislative, regulatory, and judicial interventions. To enhance its academic profile, the article would benefit from greater precision in the use of key concepts and the delineation of its analytical framework. Specifically: On the conceptual issues: The manuscript should more clearly define key terms, such as “agrarian conflict,” and specify how “land conflict” is situated within this broader category. This will provide readers with a stronger conceptual foundation and facilitate a more nuanced analysis. On the temporal Scope: The study's temporal parameters are ambiguous. While the article references the Indonesian post-Reform era (i.e., post-1998), the literature review is limited to English-language sources published between 2015 and 2025. The rationale for this selection window requires further justification. If the article’s focus is on infrastructure-related land conflicts, it may be more appropriate to adopt an observation period that coincides with the administration of President Joko Widodo (2014–2024), during which many major infrastructure projects were implemented. Specific comments: Detailed comments on each section follow are intended to provide constructive suggestions for strengthening the manuscript’s overall coherence, depth, and scholarly contribution. Abstract In the abstract, it should be clarified whether the conflict under study is solely between indigenous peoples and the government or between indigenous peoples and other parties, such as corporations. The sentence: “This article focuses on territorial boundaries between indigenous tribes as well as Indonesian government programs such as public infrastructure development…” does not adequately describe the focus of the conflict to be examined. In the conclusion, the correlation between the lack of legal recognition and the magnitude of land conflicts with the government needs to be clarified. Introduction 1. The focus of the discussion includes: (1) the genealogy of agrarian conflict in the evolution of post-Reformation Indonesian agrarian policy; (2) the triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces in the context of infrastructure development; (3) theoretical and practical gaps in the current literature regarding the role of the state in managing legal pluralism; (4) the dynamics of agricultural conflict in indigenous communities in the context of post-Reformation infrastructure development; and (5) comparative research on land grabs. It is recommended to review the scope of the discussion, as the results and discussion section is not entirely in-depth or coherent. 2. The section on agrarian policy needs to be moved to the results and discussion section. Results and Discussion The discussion in this section does not extensively address policies related to infrastructure projects and their impact on the emergence of conflicts. The author focuses more on forestry policies than on infrastructure policies. It is recommended to return to the original thesis regarding infrastructure projects or shift the study’s focus to conflicts in the land and forestry sectors. The authors appear to have data and information limitations because the methodology is restricted to English-language articles, while there is a significant body of Indonesian-language literature that provides a broader spectrum of issues and deeper analysis. It is recommended to include Indonesian-language literature as well. The concept of legal pluralism has not been clearly articulated. The triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces does not necessarily constitute legal pluralism. It is recommended to examine the concept of legal pluralism in classical literature, such as J. Griffiths, “What is Legal Pluralism?” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18 (24):1-55. If the central thesis of this article is that conflicts arise due to a lack of recognition of legal pluralism, then a more in-depth discussion is needed regarding regulatory and implementation aspects related to conflict resolution using customary law, as well as the progress and obstacles in the recognition of customary land in Indonesia. Table 3 needs revision as it includes irrelevant policies such as Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste Management. This table should also include relevant regulations such as the Plantation Law (Law No. 39 of 2014) and the Job Creation Law (Law No. 6 of 2023). The section on global land grabs only describes patterns of land grabbing in various countries, but does not include an analysis of what important lessons Indonesia can learn in mitigating and resolving conflicts involving indigenous peoples. Conclusion Should the authors incorporate the aforementioned recommendations, the Conclusion section should be revised to articulate how infrastructure projects may exploit regulatory and policy loopholes regarding the recognition of legal pluralism, particularly as they relate to the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Furthermore, it is advisable to address the extent to which land acquisition by global corporations in infrastructure projects exacerbates the disregard for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Indonesia. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Land and forest tenure, social conflicts, Indigenous Peoples rights, Environmental Law I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Safitri MA. Reviewer Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r463912 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-463912 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Egharevba JO. Reviewer Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r459505 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-459505 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 23 Feb 2026 Jolly O Egharevba , University of Benin, Benin City, Edo, Nigeria Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r459505 The manuscript addressed a serious and timely issue concerning legal pluralism and agrarian conflict in Indonesia. It engaged relevant scholarship and recognised the political and institutional complexity of land governance. However, its core weaknesses lay in analytical focus, methodological rigour, ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript addressed a serious and timely issue concerning legal pluralism and agrarian conflict in Indonesia. It engaged relevant scholarship and recognised the political and institutional complexity of land governance. However, its core weaknesses lay in analytical focus, methodological rigour, and internal coherence. The title and framing were misaligned with the content. Although the paper claimed to be a systematic review, it read partly as a narrative synthesis and partly as a conceptual essay. Legal pluralism was central yet not clearly defined at the outset. The scope was also ambiguous, particularly regarding periodisation and thematic boundaries. A sharper problem statement, early conceptual clarification, and a title reflecting the actual design would strengthen credibility. The abstract lacked structure and analytical precision. It combined statistics, constitutional references, infrastructure expansion, and methodology without logical sequencing. It did not state the number of reviewed studies or clearly summarise core findings. Reorganising the abstract around five elements (problem, aim, method with sample size, key findings, and implications) would improve clarity and impact. The introduction was rich in citations but analytically diffuse. It shifted across themes without building a focused argument. The research gap was asserted rather than demonstrated, and the objectives overlapped. Legal pluralism was invoked but not theoretically grounded. A stronger introduction would move step by step from constitutional recognition and governance contradictions to fragmentation in existing research, then define a precise gap. Objectives should be streamlined and aligned directly with the review design. The historical review of agrarian policy was informative but descriptive. It summarised policy eras without analysing how each institutionalised specific legal hierarchies. Moving from chronology to argument would help. Linking colonial dualism, New Order centralisation, and Reformasi decentralisation explicitly to contemporary conflict patterns would provide analytical continuity. The methodology was the most vulnerable section. Database reporting was inconsistent, search strings were weak, and key elements of systematic review reporting were absent. There was no clear account of records identified, excluded, and included, nor evidence of quality appraisal or inter-rater reliability. Restricting the review to English open access sources introduced bias. A transparent PRISMA flow diagram, refined Boolean logic, and inclusion of a quality assessment framework were necessary to meet systematic standards. The results and discussion were merged and largely narrative. Extracted findings were not clearly distinguished from interpretation. Thematic synthesis was limited, and tables were not analytically integrated. Presenting clear thematic clusters before interpretation would strengthen synthesis and avoid repetition. The triadic framework linking state law, customary law, and global markets was conceptually promising but underdeveloped. It required clearer definition of each institutional logic and systematic empirical grounding. A visual model could enhance coherence. Conceptual precision was uneven, with key terms used loosely. Greater definitional clarity would improve authority. Overall, the manuscript had solid foundations but required major revision. Stronger methodological transparency, tighter argumentation, and disciplined synthesis would significantly enhance its contribution Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Urban facility studies, Rural facility studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Egharevba JO. Reviewer Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r459505 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-459505 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 30 Jan 2026 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 1 30 Jan 26 read read Jolly O Egharevba , University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria Myrna Asnawati Safitri , Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Safitri M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 18 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Myrna Asnawati Safitri , Pancasila University, Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Safitri M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions General comments: This submitted manuscript provides a timely and relevant discussion of agrarian conflicts affecting indigenous peoples within the context of large-scale infrastructure projects in Indonesia. The main thesis—that insufficient recognition of legal pluralism perpetuates the marginalization of indigenous communities in state land recognition processes—is both significant and well-articulated. The article effectively highlights the persistence of land conflicts, and it situates these issues within ongoing legislative, regulatory, and judicial interventions. To enhance its academic profile, the article would benefit from greater precision in the use of key concepts and the delineation of its analytical framework. Specifically: On the conceptual issues: The manuscript should more clearly define key terms, such as “agrarian conflict,” and specify how “land conflict” is situated within this broader category. This will provide readers with a stronger conceptual foundation and facilitate a more nuanced analysis. On the temporal Scope: The study's temporal parameters are ambiguous. While the article references the Indonesian post-Reform era (i.e., post-1998), the literature review is limited to English-language sources published between 2015 and 2025. The rationale for this selection window requires further justification. If the article’s focus is on infrastructure-related land conflicts, it may be more appropriate to adopt an observation period that coincides with the administration of President Joko Widodo (2014–2024), during which many major infrastructure projects were implemented. Specific comments: Detailed comments on each section follow are intended to provide constructive suggestions for strengthening the manuscript’s overall coherence, depth, and scholarly contribution. Abstract In the abstract, it should be clarified whether the conflict under study is solely between indigenous peoples and the government or between indigenous peoples and other parties, such as corporations. The sentence: “This article focuses on territorial boundaries between indigenous tribes as well as Indonesian government programs such as public infrastructure development…” does not adequately describe the focus of the conflict to be examined. In the conclusion, the correlation between the lack of legal recognition and the magnitude of land conflicts with the government needs to be clarified. Introduction 1. The focus of the discussion includes: (1) the genealogy of agrarian conflict in the evolution of post-Reformation Indonesian agrarian policy; (2) the triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces in the context of infrastructure development; (3) theoretical and practical gaps in the current literature regarding the role of the state in managing legal pluralism; (4) the dynamics of agricultural conflict in indigenous communities in the context of post-Reformation infrastructure development; and (5) comparative research on land grabs. It is recommended to review the scope of the discussion, as the results and discussion section is not entirely in-depth or coherent. 2. The section on agrarian policy needs to be moved to the results and discussion section. Results and Discussion The discussion in this section does not extensively address policies related to infrastructure projects and their impact on the emergence of conflicts. The author focuses more on forestry policies than on infrastructure policies. It is recommended to return to the original thesis regarding infrastructure projects or shift the study’s focus to conflicts in the land and forestry sectors. The authors appear to have data and information limitations because the methodology is restricted to English-language articles, while there is a significant body of Indonesian-language literature that provides a broader spectrum of issues and deeper analysis. It is recommended to include Indonesian-language literature as well. The concept of legal pluralism has not been clearly articulated. The triadic interaction of state law, customary law, and global market forces does not necessarily constitute legal pluralism. It is recommended to examine the concept of legal pluralism in classical literature, such as J. Griffiths, “What is Legal Pluralism?” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18 (24):1-55. If the central thesis of this article is that conflicts arise due to a lack of recognition of legal pluralism, then a more in-depth discussion is needed regarding regulatory and implementation aspects related to conflict resolution using customary law, as well as the progress and obstacles in the recognition of customary land in Indonesia. Table 3 needs revision as it includes irrelevant policies such as Law No. 26 of 2007 on Spatial Planning and Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste Management. This table should also include relevant regulations such as the Plantation Law (Law No. 39 of 2014) and the Job Creation Law (Law No. 6 of 2023). The section on global land grabs only describes patterns of land grabbing in various countries, but does not include an analysis of what important lessons Indonesia can learn in mitigating and resolving conflicts involving indigenous peoples. Conclusion Should the authors incorporate the aforementioned recommendations, the Conclusion section should be revised to articulate how infrastructure projects may exploit regulatory and policy loopholes regarding the recognition of legal pluralism, particularly as they relate to the marginalization of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Furthermore, it is advisable to address the extent to which land acquisition by global corporations in infrastructure projects exacerbates the disregard for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in Indonesia. Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Yes Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Land and forest tenure, social conflicts, Indigenous Peoples rights, Environmental Law I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Safitri MA. Peer Review Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r463912) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-463912 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Egharevba J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 23 Feb 2026 | for Version 1 Jolly O Egharevba , University of Benin, Benin City, Edo, Nigeria 0 Views copyright © 2026 Egharevba J. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript addressed a serious and timely issue concerning legal pluralism and agrarian conflict in Indonesia. It engaged relevant scholarship and recognised the political and institutional complexity of land governance. However, its core weaknesses lay in analytical focus, methodological rigour, and internal coherence. The title and framing were misaligned with the content. Although the paper claimed to be a systematic review, it read partly as a narrative synthesis and partly as a conceptual essay. Legal pluralism was central yet not clearly defined at the outset. The scope was also ambiguous, particularly regarding periodisation and thematic boundaries. A sharper problem statement, early conceptual clarification, and a title reflecting the actual design would strengthen credibility. The abstract lacked structure and analytical precision. It combined statistics, constitutional references, infrastructure expansion, and methodology without logical sequencing. It did not state the number of reviewed studies or clearly summarise core findings. Reorganising the abstract around five elements (problem, aim, method with sample size, key findings, and implications) would improve clarity and impact. The introduction was rich in citations but analytically diffuse. It shifted across themes without building a focused argument. The research gap was asserted rather than demonstrated, and the objectives overlapped. Legal pluralism was invoked but not theoretically grounded. A stronger introduction would move step by step from constitutional recognition and governance contradictions to fragmentation in existing research, then define a precise gap. Objectives should be streamlined and aligned directly with the review design. The historical review of agrarian policy was informative but descriptive. It summarised policy eras without analysing how each institutionalised specific legal hierarchies. Moving from chronology to argument would help. Linking colonial dualism, New Order centralisation, and Reformasi decentralisation explicitly to contemporary conflict patterns would provide analytical continuity. The methodology was the most vulnerable section. Database reporting was inconsistent, search strings were weak, and key elements of systematic review reporting were absent. There was no clear account of records identified, excluded, and included, nor evidence of quality appraisal or inter-rater reliability. Restricting the review to English open access sources introduced bias. A transparent PRISMA flow diagram, refined Boolean logic, and inclusion of a quality assessment framework were necessary to meet systematic standards. The results and discussion were merged and largely narrative. Extracted findings were not clearly distinguished from interpretation. Thematic synthesis was limited, and tables were not analytically integrated. Presenting clear thematic clusters before interpretation would strengthen synthesis and avoid repetition. The triadic framework linking state law, customary law, and global markets was conceptually promising but underdeveloped. It required clearer definition of each institutional logic and systematic empirical grounding. A visual model could enhance coherence. Conceptual precision was uneven, with key terms used loosely. Greater definitional clarity would improve authority. Overall, the manuscript had solid foundations but required major revision. Stronger methodological transparency, tighter argumentation, and disciplined synthesis would significantly enhance its contribution Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated? Partly Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review? Partly If this is a Living Systematic Review, is the ‘living’ method appropriate and is the search schedule clearly defined and justified? (‘Living Systematic Review’ or a variation of this term should be included in the title.) Not applicable Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Urban facility studies, Rural facility studies I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Egharevba JO. Peer Review Report For: The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia's Indigenous Peoples' Agrarian Conflicts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 15 :154 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.195209.r459505) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1#referee-response-459505 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Tohirin A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154", templates : { twitter : "The State at a Crossroads: Legal Pluralism in Indonesia\'s Indigenous.... Tohirin A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/15-154/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/177058/195209") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "195209"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "456582": 0, "456583": 0, "456581": 0, "456590": 0, "456588": 0, "456589": 0, "456586": 0, "456587": 0, "456584": 0, "456585": 0, "463911": 0, "463910": 0, "463909": 0, "463918": 0, "463917": 0, "463916": 0, "463915": 0, "463914": 0, "463913": 0, "463912": 8, "459511": 0, "459510": 0, "459509": 0, "459508": 0, "459507": 0, "459506": 0, "459505": 14, "459504": 0, "459513": 0, "459512": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "55fc3772-cae4-4672-aa52-3f3f925cba80"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });