Ending The Contestation of Authority at Sea in Indonesia Through Command Structuring and Case Routing

Abstract

Indonesian maritime law enforcement faces disharmony of authority because maritime supervision is distributed among many institutions that operate under sectoral legal bases. This study aims to analyze the forms of disharmony in maritime law enforcement authority and formulate a direction of harmonization that provides certainty for the enforcement pathway at sea. This study uses a doctrinal method through statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings show that the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency has a mandate to protect Indonesian waters, yet it does not have a binding position in determining the routing of cases. Investigative authority remains within sectoral institutions, allowing the handling of one maritime incident to move through several institutional doors. This difference in authority creates uncertainty in maritime law enforcement. Maritime legal structuring requires integrated operational command so that overlapping authority can be eliminated and enforcement effectiveness can be improved. A comparison with Japan and France shows that continental legal systems can organize maritime authority through strong civil or administrative authorities without eliminating the technical expertise of sectoral institutions. Indonesian legal reform can be directed toward strengthening the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency as the center of operational coordination and the authority that directs case routing. This idea provides legal certainty because authority is determined by the classification of violations, not by the institution that first discovers the case.