Coherence. Coherence is often defined as the equivalent of hanging together, making sense as a whole, cohesion, consonance, speaking with one voice, or being tightly knit (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989: 159 in Bertea, 2005: 372). To achieve coherence, there must be reasonable interconnection between mutually reinforcing elements, in order to form supportive rationality (Bertea, 2005: 372). Each of these elements supports or justifies each other, so that they integrate and produce harmony (▇▇▇▇▇, 1993: 640-641). The degree of coherence therefore depends on weighing all the elements and balancing them against each other (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1990: 132). The term ‘coherence’ is common in discussions about legal reasoning and legal justification, where coherence is needed to justify legal propositions or judicial decisions (Raz, 1992). A coherent decision means that each argu- ment put forward supports the others, and is in accordance with the basic principles of a legal system (Bertea, 2005: 372). A decision can be justified if it is supported by arguments that are rationally coherent, i.e. the decision does not contain any illogical arguments, in terms of its structure (▇▇▇▇, 2004: 87). The decision can also be justified if it is coherent in terms of exist- ing cases and laws (Levenbook, 1984, 355; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2008: 149). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is not only used to justify arguments or decisions. It is essen- tial that any legal system (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363) has a unity of principles, or a set of legal norms that share the same values or principles (MacCormick, 1984). For Weinrib, every legal doctrine, institution, or action (and its justification) forms an integrated unit, every sub-part (or aspect) of which reflects the whole (▇▇▇▇▇, 1993: 640). In a broader understanding of coherence, law is not only a coherent collection of norms; it must also be coherent with social reality, because it law a social phenomenon (▇▇▇▇, 2004: 90). Unity in the legal system, or being free from contradiction, makes the system clear (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363). What is coherent can be understood, it makes sense and is well expressed (Raz, 1992: 276 in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 18). Legal subjects will better understand the law, if the rules in their legal system do not contradict each other, making it more likely that they will understand how the rules apply to them. Therefore, coherence supports both legal certainty and the rule of law (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 18). In the context of environmental law in Indonesia, ▇▇▇▇ discusses the incoherence in decisions, laws and regulations related to the environment and natural resources. Terms like ‘coordination’, ‘harmonisation’ and ‘integration’ have become part of Indonesian legal discourse to address incoherence, but it is not always clear what they mean (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 13). ▇▇▇▇ defines coordination as a particular adjustment between separate parts, but the parts still maintain their own identity and purpose (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16). The word harmonisation applies when the separate parts are adjusted to one another, giving rise to “agreeable effects” (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16), whereas integration means the joining of two or more parts into one unit (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16). By ▇▇▇▇’▇ definition, coherence most closely relates to the term harmonisation, where harmonising different parts will lead to coherence. ▇▇▇▇ goes on to explain coherence from the perspective of environmental management, as harmony between institutions, norms, and procedures (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 16). I use coherence as one of my criterion, because (as ▇▇▇▇ says) in Indonesia there are various laws and regulations related to the issuance of mining licences by different agencies, and there is therefore ample opportunity for contradiction. To be able to solve real problems, the laws and regulations must support each other in creating clear rules. Contradictory rules can be confusing, making them difficult to enforce and easy to divert, because the legal subject is given a choice of several different rules. Conversely, a coherent law has more legitimacy, resulting in a greater obligation on legal subjects to obey the law (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 26) In this chapter I am discussing coherence at two levels, within a law or a regulation, and within the legal system as a whole. Provisions in a piece of law or regulation are said to be coherent, not only because they are not contradictory, but also because they support each other and have the same purpose. Likewise, different laws and regulations must not only be uncontradictory but also harmonious. The relationship between mining law and other laws and regulations, in terms of environmental protection (as ▇▇▇▇ explains above), is like separate parts that must be directed towards conformity. For example, rule A stipulates that everyone must have a licence to carry out X activity. Rule B in the same law, or rule C in another law, is said to be coherent, if it is not only not in conflict regarding the licence obligations governed by rule A, but also in support of rule A (e.g. by not allowing activity X to be carried out without a licence).
Appears in 1 contract
Sources: Mining and Environmental Protection Regulatory Framework
Coherence. Coherence is often defined as the equivalent of hanging together, making sense as a whole, cohesion, consonance, speaking with one voice, or being tightly knit (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1989: 159 in Bertea, 2005: 372). To achieve coherence, there must be reasonable interconnection between mutually reinforcing elements, in order to form supportive rationality (Bertea, 2005: 372). Each of these elements supports or justifies each other, so that they integrate and produce harmony (▇▇▇▇▇, 1993: 640-641). The degree of coherence therefore depends on weighing all the elements and balancing them against each other (▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1990: 132). The term ‘coherence’ is common in discussions about legal reasoning and legal justification, where coherence is needed to justify legal propositions or judicial decisions (Raz, 1992). A coherent decision means that each argu- ment put forward supports the others, and is in accordance with the basic principles of a legal system (Bertea, 2005: 372). A decision can be justified if it is supported by arguments that are rationally coherent, i.e. the decision does not contain any illogical arguments, in terms of its structure (▇▇▇▇, 2004: 87). The decision can also be justified if it is coherent in terms of exist- ing cases and laws (Levenbook, 1984, 355; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2008: 149). ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ is not only used to justify arguments or decisions. It is essen- tial that any legal system (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grantham & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363) has a unity of principles, or a set of legal norms that share the same values or principles (MacCormick, 1984). For Weinrib, every legal doctrine, institution, or action (and its justification) forms an integrated unit, every sub-part (or aspect) of which reflects the whole (▇▇▇▇▇, 1993: 640). In a broader understanding of coherence, law is not only a coherent collection of norms; it must also be coherent with social reality, because it law a social phenomenon (▇▇▇▇, 2004: 90). Unity in the legal system, or being free from contradiction, makes the system clear (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grantham & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363). What is coherent can be understood, it makes sense and is well expressed (Raz, 1992: 276 in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 18). Legal subjects will better understand the law, if the rules in their legal system do not contradict each other, making it more likely that they will understand how the rules apply to them. Therefore, coherence supports both legal certainty and the rule of law (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Grantham & ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2016: 363; ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 18). In the context of environmental law in Indonesia, ▇▇▇▇ discusses the incoherence in decisions, laws and regulations related to the environment and natural resources. Terms like ‘coordination’, ‘harmonisation’ and ‘integration’ have become part of Indonesian legal discourse to address incoherence, but it is not always clear what they mean (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 13). ▇▇▇▇ defines coordination as a particular adjustment between separate parts, but the parts still maintain their own identity and purpose (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16). The word harmonisation applies when the separate parts are adjusted to one another, giving rise to “agreeable effects” (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16), whereas integration means the joining of two or more parts into one unit (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 15-16). By ▇▇▇▇’▇ definition, coherence most closely relates to the term harmonisation, where harmonising different parts will lead to coherence. ▇▇▇▇ goes on to explain coherence from the perspective of environmental management, as harmony between institutions, norms, and procedures (▇▇▇▇, 2003: 16). I use coherence as one of my criterion, because (as ▇▇▇▇ says) in Indonesia there are various laws and regulations related to the issuance of mining licences by different agencies, and there is therefore ample opportunity for contradiction. To be able to solve real problems, the laws and regulations must support each other in creating clear rules. Contradictory rules can be confusing, making them difficult to enforce and easy to divert, because the legal subject is given a choice of several different rules. Conversely, a coherent law has more legitimacy, resulting in a greater obligation on legal subjects to obey the law (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013: 26) In this chapter I am discussing coherence at two levels, within a law or a regulation, and within the legal system as a whole. Provisions in a piece of law or regulation are said to be coherent, not only because they are not contradictory, but also because they support each other and have the same purpose. Likewise, different laws and regulations must not only be uncontradictory but also harmonious. The relationship between mining law and other laws and regulations, in terms of environmental protection (as ▇▇▇▇ explains above), is like separate parts that must be directed towards conformity. For example, rule A stipulates that everyone must have a licence to carry out X activity. Rule B in the same law, or rule C in another law, is said to be coherent, if it is not only not in conflict regarding the licence obligations governed by rule A, but also in support of rule A (e.g. by not allowing activity X to be carried out without a licence).
Appears in 1 contract