| dc.identifier.citation | Achmad Ali. 2004. Sosiologi Hukum Kajian Empiris Terhadap Pengadilan. Jakarta: BP IBLAM. Allan M Dershowitz. 1996.Reasonable Doubts. Singapore Simon & Schuster. Alvin Y So. 1990. Social Change and Development. Newburry Park :Sage. Bagirmanan. 1985. Sistem dan teknik Pembuatan Peraturan Perundang-undangan Tingkat Daerah. Bandung: LPPM UIB. ————.1995. Hubungan Antara Pusat dan Daerah Menurut UUD 1945. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan. ———— . 1995.Kekuasaan Kehakliman Republik Indonesia.LPPM UIB:Bandung, ———— ,& Muchtar Kuntana. 1995.Pertumbuhan dan Perkembangan Konstitusi Suatu negara. Bandung :Mandar Maju. Daniel Lev., 1988.Lembaga Peradilan dan Budaya Hukum di Indonesia (dalam Hukum dan Perkembangan Sosial). Jakarta: Sinar Harapan Marbun. 1988.Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, Jogyakarta: Liberty. ————. 2003. Peradilan Administrasi dan Upaya Administrastif di indonesia, Jogyakarta: Liberty. ————, dkk (ed). 2002. Dimensi-dimesi Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jogyakarta: UII Press. Marbun,Deno Kamelus,Saut panjaitan,Gede Pantja, Zainal Mutaqin. 2002. Dimensi- dimensi PemikiranHukum Administrasi Negara, Jogyakarta: UII Press. Mauro Cappelletti,(ed). 1981. Access for Justice and the welfare state. Firenze: Le Monnier. Nevilee Brown. 1983. French Administrative Law. London: Billing and Son. Paul Doyle Johnson. 1986. Teori Sosiologi Klasik dan Moderen, (alih bahasa oleh Robert M.Z Lawang). Jakarta: Gramedia. Philipe Nonet dan Philip Selznick. 2003., Hukum Responsif Pilihan di Masa Transisi, Jakarta: HuMa. Satjipto Rahardjo . 2004.Manusia dalam Hukum Indonesia ,(dalam Sisi-sisi lain Hukum Indonesia). Jakarta: Kompas. —————. 1990,Hukum dan Masyarakat. Jakarta:Angkasa. —————. 1991.Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhakti. Tatang Amirin. 1996.Pokok-Pokok Teori Sistem. Jakarta:Rajawali Pers. William Chamblis dan Robert B Seidman.1971.Law,Order, and Power. Massachuset: Addison Wesley Publishing Company. William Shrode, A and Dan Voich. 1974. Organization and management: Basic System concepts., Malaysia: Irwin book Co. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | State Administration Justice System (PTUN) is especially designed to
provide access for the citizens to get resolution on their state-administrative
cases with low cost, speed and simply. Facts show that there are failures of the
PTUN on executing its function as access to justice. In intention to make analysis on
this problem, a research has been done applying system approach, qualitative analysis,
and using primary and secondary data. The research emphasize on the main
problem those are the performance of input subsystem, process subsystem, product
subsystem and execution, and the support of State Administrative Law principles to
PTUN. The result shows that there are some factors that cause the failure of the
PTUN on executing its function as an access to justice. The subsystems that embody
the PTUN contains various unclearness, weakness, insufficiency, inconsistence, absence
of the supporting instruments, and low support of the principles of the state
administrative law. Attitude, understanding, and law perception of the state administration
apparatus that respect less on the existence of the PTUN give contribution on
the failure of the PTUN system. | en_US |
