Principally, dispute settlement of estate distribution on Minangkabau People is done by deliberation. If its settlement through deliberation is failed, an effort to solve the dispute through court needs to be conducted. This paper studies first, how is the opinion of judicial institution in the dispute of estate distribution on Minangkabau people; second, how is the implication of estate distribution on Minangkabau people after judge's verdict. This is normative research with statute approach and case approach. The result of this research shows that there is possibility of judicial insti-tution's verdict in the dispute settlement of estate distribution which is contradicted with adat law of Minangkabau (Matrilineal kinship). However, if it is seen from legal perspective, estate distribution of Minangkabau people after judge's verdict can be a breakthrough that is able to change the value of old adat law into the new one. Abstrak Secara prinsip, penyelesaian sengketa pembagian harta waris Masyarakat Minangkabau dilakukan se-cara musyawarah mufakat. Jika penyelesaiannya secara musyawarah mufakat gagal, maka diperlukan upaya untuk menyelesaikan sengketa melalaui pengadilan. Tulisan ini mengkaji pertama, bagaimana pendapat lembaga peradilan dalam sengketa pembagian harta waris pada masyarakat Minangkabau; Kedua, bagaimanakah implikasi pembagian harta waris pada masyarakat Minangkabau pasca putusan hakim. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat kemungkinan putusan lembaga per-adilan dalam penyelesaian sengketa pembagian harta waris bertentangan dengan hukum adat Minang-kabau (kekerabatan Matrilineal). Namun apabila dicermati dari perpektif hukum, pembagian harta waris Minangkabau pasca putusan hakim dapat menjadi terobosan yang dapat merubah nilai hukum adat yang lama ke arah nilai hukum adat yang baru. Kata Kunci : penyelesaian sengketa, pembagian harta waris, kekerabatan matrilineal.
In the introduction to this special issue, we discuss recent trends in anthropological research on and in theorizing the state. We show how these have given rise to an analytical gap between state images, on the one hand, and practices, on the other. Based on this analysis, we propose a relational approach that we call 'stategraphy' as a way to tie together state practices and representations. This ethnographically grounded approach focuses on relational modalities, boundary work, and forms of embeddedness of actors as constitutive factors. These avenues of analyses enable a nuanced understanding and comparative investigation of change and continuity as well as of mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion.Keywords: anthropology of the state, embeddedness of state actors, relational theory, state images, state practices, stategraphy, welfare While the state had been a recurrent theme in anthropology (Bouchard 2011), the 1990s saw a new wave of interest in it. The efflorescence of the 'new' ethnography of the state has cast a spotlight on certain issues, while others have received less attention. Significantly, there has been a marked shift toward state images and representations in research and theorizing. In response, Anthony Marcus (2008) launched a fulminant critique against this development, which he described as the emergence of an 'orthodoxy' in (Anglophone) anthropological state theory. According to him, emphasizing the plurality of culturally constructed state representations without much reference to either power relations or larger social scientific discussions amounts to mere empiricism. We agree with Marcus that much of the recent anthropological literature has overemphasized cultural constructions, images, and discursive representations of the state, which, moreover, are often presented in a peculiarly monomorphic manner. The topic of state practices-perhaps more pronounced in European discussions-has not received appropriate attention in the strand of literature
Legal pluralism has seen a marked rise in interest since the turn of the century. While long rejected in legal studies, legal pluralism is now widely accepted, not least in light of the broad range of perspectives on the state it has sought to interpret and it has produced. A crucial change could be noted in the 1970s, when legal anthropologists began to demonstrate the applicability of this term, and not just in anthropological thinking about law. Political and economic developments also profoundly changed constellations of legal pluralism, following diverse trajectories in which the concept obtained multiple meanings. While highlighting significant stages of this process, this chapter discusses how anthropological insights in law and legal pluralism metamorphosed from the study of law in colonial societies towards law of a widely varying scope under conditions of ever-increasing global connectedness. The epistemological insights drawn from the diverse trajectories reflect and shape the social theories of the time, where intersections of state and law represent a central theme, albeit to a greater extent in some periods, and virtually absent in others.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.