The State Sovereignty in Banned Entry Policy

A Comparative Study of the Indonesian and British Immigration Systems

Abstract

The debate over absolute state sovereignty and the cross-border protection of human rights forms the basis of modern immigration law dynamics. This study analyses state sovereignty in entry-ban policies and compares the immigration legal systems of Indonesia and the United Kingdom. The main issue examined is Indonesia’s executive discretion in entry-ban decisions, which remains weakly accountable, while the UK system links discretion to judicial oversight. The research uses normative legal research through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings show that although both countries apply the jus exclusionis principle, the UK has a more institutionalised oversight mechanism through the First-tier Tribunal to assess public good parameters, whereas Indonesia still relies on broad ministerial authority without a public transparency obligation. This research's novelty lies in its cross-system comparison between civil law and common law, exploring the “grey area” of immigration discretion that earlier studies have not sufficiently discussed. In conclusion, Indonesia needs to renew its immigration law by adopting the due process of law principle to address transparency challenges without weakening national sovereignty. This study presents all parts, from the theoretical basis to the reform recommendations, comprehensively.