Published date: May 26 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: International Conference on Advance & Scientific Innovation (ICASI)

Pages: 515–522

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i9.13365

Nurjihad .nurjihad@uii.ac.id2Student at Doctoral Degree, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Bagya .Agung PrabowoLecturer at Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Fahmi FairuzzamanStudent at Doctoral Degree, Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

This paper aimed to discuss nuclear power under the prophetic legal paradigm. Discussions of nuclear power frequently concentrate solely on its use as a weapon. There are many advantages to nuclear power. To fully utilize its benefits, and prevent any negative uses, a solid and transparent legal framework is required. However, a simply written law may be insufficient because it is conceivable for the law to fall short of the ideal to which it aspires. As a result, both at the international and national levels of the government in Indonesia, it is vital to include religious principles in the law. The prophetic legal paradigm is thought to be the most suitable framework for legal studies that relate to religious beliefs. This analysis demonstrated that the Indonesian nuclear law framework must be updated. It is crucial to keep in mind that the state cannot merely create rules that have no intrinsic purpose - ultimately offering phony security and justice. Laws must consider principles that serve interests of the humanity, particularly in Indonesia. Transcendence, liberty, and humanization are three values that can be combined. This paradigm will lead to the establishment of nuclear law with prophetic dimensions, bringing about real security and justice.

Keywords: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Law, Prophetic Law

[1] Hamidi S. Law as discursive resource: the politics of the nuclear/non-nuclear distinction in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Eur J Int Relat. 2020;26(2):545–68.

[2] Bagheri S. TOWARDS FULFILLMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF HUMANITARIAN LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY. BRICS Law J. 2016;3(1):66–89.

[3] Handrlica J. ‘Atomic Law’ or ‘Nuclear Law’? An Academic Discussion Revisited. BRICS Law J. 2018;5(3):135–51.

[4] H. J. Nuclear law revisited as an academic discipline. 2019 Mar 1;12(1):52–68. J World Energy Law Bus. 2019;12(1):52–68.

[5] Seyvanizad J. The Sui generis of nuclear fatwa under customary international law. BRICS Law J. 2017;4(2):95–134.

[6] 6. Fitriani Khairunnisa N, Ashri M, Maskun. Indonesian Implementation of Nuclear Energy for Sustainable Development. J. Law, Policy Glob. 2017;67(December).

[7] Mudassir R. Indonesia Akan Bangun Pembangkit Tenaga Nuklir Sebesar 35 GW

[Internet]. https://ekonomi.bisnis.com/read/20211121/44/1468566/indonesiaakan- bangun-pembangkit-tenaga-nuklir-sebesar-35-gw (accessed Sep. 06, 2022).

[8] 8. Soeparna I. Perspektif Hukum pada Pengembangan Nuklir dalam Energi Baru dan Terbaruka. 2020.

[9] Nuttall WJ, Ashley SF, Heffron RJ. Compensating for severe nuclear accidents: an expert elucidation. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2017;112:131–42.

[10] Grimston VGM, Nuttall WJ. The siting of UK nuclear reactors. J. Radiol. Prot. 2014;34(2). Available from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952- 4746/34/2/R1

[11] Heffron RJ, Talus K; T. K. Heffron RJ. The evolution of energy law and energy jurisprudence: insights for energy analysts and researchers. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2016;19:1–10.

[12] Ashley SF, Vaughan GJ, Nuttall WJ, Thomas PJ. Considerations in relation to off-site emergency procedures and response for nuclear accidents. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2017;112:77–95.

[13] Ashley SF, Vaughan GJ, Nuttall WJ, Thomas PJ, Higgins NA. Predicting the cost of the consequences of a large nuclear accident in the UK. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2017;112:96–113.

[14] Waddington I, Thomas PJ, Taylor RH, Vaughan GJ. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2017;112:16–49.

[15] 15. Gering KGF, Gerich B, Wirth E, Potential consequences of the Fukushima accident for off-site nuclear emergency management: a case study for Germany. Radiat Prot Dosim.2013;155(2).

[16] Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Mashiko H, Nakayama Y, Hisata M, Niwa S, et al.; Mental Health Group of the Fukushima Health Management Survey. Psychological distress after the Great East Japan Earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident: results of a mental health and lifestyle survey through the Fukushima Health Management Survey in FY2011 and FY2012. Fukushima J Med Sci. 2014;60(1):57–67.

[17] Heffron RJ, Ashley SF, Nuttall WJ. The global nuclear liability regime post Fukushima Daiichi. Prog Nucl Energy. 2016;90:1–10.

[18] Kelik Wardiono. Ilmu Hukum Profetik: Hampiran Basis Epistemologi Paradigmatik. Surakarta: Muhammadiyah University Press; 2020.