Judicial and Administrative Approaches to Civil Service Dispute Resolution: A Comparative Study between Indonesia, India, and Egypt
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66502/rtmt8239Keywords:
Administrative Approaches, Dispute Resolution, BureaucracyAbstract
The effectiveness of civil service dispute resolution is crucial for ensuring bureaucratic accountability, legal certainty, and procedural fairness within public administration. Countries employ different institutional frameworks, ranging from administrative adjudication through specialized tribunals to judicial oversight via administrative courts, each presenting distinct advantages and limitations. However, there remains a significant gap in comparative legal analyses examining how these models function across diverse legal traditions. This study aims to analyze and compare the effectiveness of judicial and administrative mechanisms in resolving civil service disputes in Indonesia, India, and Egypt, focusing on legal structures, procedural safeguards, and institutional independence. The research employs a comparative legal approach, integrating doctrinal legal analysis and a socio-legal perspective, with primary sources including statutory frameworks, administrative regulations, and judicial precedents. A qualitative content analysis is used to assess patterns, divergences, and best practices among the three jurisdictions. Findings indicate that Indonesia’s dual-track system (BAPEK and PTUN) lacks enforceability in administrative adjudication, leading to over-reliance on judicial review. India’s Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) enhances efficiency and procedural accessibility but faces enforcement challenges and jurisdictional conflicts. Egypt’s State Council (Conseil d’État) provides strong judicial oversight but suffers from prolonged litigation and accessibility constraints. The study highlights the need for hybrid dispute resolution models that integrate administrative efficiency with judicial rigor. These findings provide empirical insights and policy recommendations for strengthening civil service dispute resolution mechanisms, promoting legal certainty, and enhancing bureaucratic efficiency in diverse governance systems.
References
Ahmed, Farrah, and Swati Jhaveri. “Deconstitutionalising and Localising Administrative Law in India.” In Judicial Review of Administrative Action Across the Common Law World, edited by Swati Jhaveri and Michael Ramsden, 1st ed., 273–88. Cambridge University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674355.016.
Al Hajjaji, Shams Al Din. “Reform of Judicial Independence Rules in Egypt.” Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law 5, no. 1 (2018): 101–34.
Amarini, Indriati, Noorfajri Ismail, Yusuf Saefudin, Zeehan Fuad Attamimi, and Astika Nurul Hidayah. “Exploring the Effectiveness of Mediation in Resolving Disputes in the Indonesian Administrative Court.” Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies 9, no. 1 (May 9, 2024): 353–84. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.vol9i1.4632.
Amsler, Lisa Blomgren, and Jessica Sherrod. “Accountability Forums and Dispute System Design.” Public Performance & Management Review 40, no. 3 (February 2017): 529–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2016.1277111.
Asimow, Michael. “Cinco Modelos De Adjudicação Administrativa (Justiça Administrativa).” Revista de Investigações Constitucionais 4, no. 1 (February 16, 2017): 129. https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v4i1.50154.
Cane, Peter. Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication. Repr. in paperback. Oxford: Hart, 2010.
De Cooker, Chris. “Proliferation of International Administrative Tribunals.” Asian Journal of International Law 12, no. 2 (July 2022): 232–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251322000170.
Fadel, M. “Judicial Institutions, the Legitimacy of Islamic State Law and Democratic Transition in Egypt: Can a Shift Toward a Common Law Model of Adjudication Improve the Prospects of a Successful Democratic Transition?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 11, no. 3 (July 1, 2013): 646–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot022.
Hillebrandt, Maarten, and Päivi Leino-Sandberg. “Administrative and Judicial Oversight of Trilogues.” Journal of European Public Policy 28, no. 1 (January 2, 2021): 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1859598.
Hunter Ampuero, Iván. “Judicial Protection and Ultra Vires Acts or Actions of the Administration in Chile.” Ius et Praxis 27, no. 1 (March 2021): 229–47. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122021000100229.
Ismail, Dian Ekawaty, Novendri M. Nggilu, and Irlan Puluhulawa. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Teori, Aplikasi, Dan Inovasi Dalam Penelitian Hukum. Edited by Tiara Oktaviana Namira Daud. Kalimantan Selatan: Ruang Karya, 2024.
Kurniawan, Farid Wahyu, and Beny Hidayat. “Upaya Hukum Banding Administratif Pasca Penjatuhan Hukuman Disiplin Berat ASN.” Media of Law and Sharia 3, no. 2 (April 7, 2022): 124–41. https://doi.org/10.18196/mls.v3i2.14329.
Marcus, Richard. “Reassessing the Essential Role of Public Courts: Learning from the American Experience.” In Transformation of Civil Justice, edited by Alan Uzelac and Cornelis Hendrik Van Rhee, 70:173–98. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97358-6_10.
Ojelabi, Lola Akin, and Mary Anne Noone. “Jurisdictional Perspectives on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice: Introduction.” International Journal of Law in Context 16, no. 2 (June 2020): 103–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552320000087.
Pangalangan, Raul C. “Judicial Review at the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal.” Asian Journal of International Law 12, no. 2 (July 2022): 248–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251322000212.
Siboy, Ahmad, Sholahuddin Al-Fatih, Devi Triasari, and Hilaire Tegnan. “Legal Social Justice in Appointment Non-Definitive Regional Heads toward Welfare State.” BESTUUR 11, no. 1 (August) (May 3, 2023): 144. https://doi.org/10.20961/bestuur.v11i1.71055.
Simanjuntak, Enrico Parulian. “The Rise and the Fall of the Jurisdiction of Indonesia’s Administrative Courts: Impediments and Prospects.” Indonesia Law Review 10, no. 2 (August 31, 2020). https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v10n2.611.
Vinokurov, V., V. Gavrilenko, and V. Shenshin. “Administrative Offense Proceedings and Pre-Trial Dispute Resolution in the BRICS Countries.” BRICS Law Journal 9, no. 1 (April 18, 2022): 35–61. https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2022-9-1-35-61.
Wang, Suzhen. “Exploring Paths for Substantive Settlement of Administrative Disputes: An Empirical Analysis Based on Practice in Weiyuan County, Sichuan Province.” Contemporary Social Sciences, no. 1 (2023): 33–52.
Widman, Amy. “The False Premise of State Administrative Adjudication.” Harvard Journal on Legislation 61, no. 1 (2024): 137–80.
Zeghal, Malika. The Making of the Modern Muslim State: Islam and Governance in the Middle East and North Africa. Princeton Studies in Muslim Politics. Princeton Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rahdian Ade Putra Bone, Chami Yassine (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
