Between Custom and the State: Negotiating Indigenous Rights in Land Dispute Resolution in Sikka Regency

Abstract

Customary law does not always operate in a linear relationship with state law. In land disputes, the two legal orders may interact, negotiate, and generate tensions concerning the legitimacy of land ownership and authority over dispute resolution. This study aims to examine the negotiation between customary norms and state law in resolving land conflicts among indigenous communities in Sikka Regency. The study employs a socio-legal approach informed by the concept of legal pluralism. Data are obtained through interviews with customary leaders, community members, government officials, and other actors involved in dispute resolution, complemented by analysis of relevant regulations and legal documents. The study argues that customary law should not necessarily be understood as a legal order opposed to state law. In practice, communities often develop adaptive strategies by drawing upon both legal systems depending on the circumstances of a dispute. However, uncertainty regarding institutional authority and mechanisms for recognizing customary law may generate further legal uncertainty. A more appropriate framework should therefore acknowledge normative diversity while maintaining fundamental rights, equality between disputing parties, and legal certainty. The study contributes to discussions on context-sensitive dispute resolution by demonstrating how legal pluralism can be accommodated within a broader framework of justice and legitimate local governance.