The Dynamics of the Principle of Justice in the Modern Legal System: Between Legal Certainty and Substantive Justice

The dynamics of justice in the modern legal system demonstrate the ongoing tension between legal certainty and substantive justice, two fundamental values ​​that are often at odds. This study aims to critically analyze the dialectical relationship between these two principles and formulate a conceptual model capable of bridging the two in legal practice, particularly in the Indonesian context. The method used is normative legal research with a philosophical, conceptual, comparative, and critical approach through a study of relevant doctrines, theories, and judicial practices. The results of the study indicate that a legal positivist approach that emphasizes procedural certainty is not fully capable of addressing the demands of substantive justice, while an approach that is too justice-oriented risks creating legal uncertainty. Therefore, this study offers a synthesis in the form of a responsive justice model that emphasizes progressive, contextual legal interpretation and is oriented towards the values ​​of justice that exist in society. This model is expected to be an adaptive normative framework in facing the complexity of the modern legal system and supporting the realization of a legal system that is not only certain but also just and responsive to social dynamics.

1. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2011.
2. Dworkin, Ronald. Law's Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.
3. Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
4. Ehrlich, Eugen. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Diterjemahkan oleh W. Moll. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936.
5. Febrianto, Joghinanda Raihan, and I. Dewa Gede Dana Sugama. "Diskresi Jaksa Dalam Penanganan Perkara Pidana Berdasarkan Asas Kemanfaatan Dan Kepastian Hukum." Jurnal Media Akademik (JMA) 3.10 (2025). https://doi.org/10.62281/g1f6ss61
6. Fuller, Lon L. "Positivism and Fidelity to Law - A Reply to Professor Hart." Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 630-672.
7. Fuller, Lon L. The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
8. Habermas, Jurgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Diterjemahkan oleh W. Rehg. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
9. Haeruddin, Muhammad, and Syukriadi Amil. "Positivisme dan Realisme Hukum dalam Sistem Hukum Indonesia: Antara Kepastian Normatif dan Keadilan Sosial." Journal of Sharia, Law, and Economics 1.1 (2026): 1-8. https://journalfseiunika.com/shariqonomica/article/view/6
10. Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
11. Kelsen, Hans. Pure Theory of Law. Diterjemahkan oleh Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
12. Kusumaatmadja, Mochtar. Konsep-Konsep Hukum dalam Pembangunan. Bandung: Alumni, 2002.
13. Llewellyn, Karl. The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study. New York: Oceana Publications, 1960.
14. MacCormick, Neil. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
15. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana, 2008.
16. Nabillah, Tahsya, et al. "Hakikat Keilmuan Hukum Sistem Civil Law dalam Perspektif Teori Hukum Murni." Jurnal Hukum Legalita 7.2 (2025): 210-220. https://doi.org/10.47637/legalita.v7i2.2003
17. Nonet, Philippe & Philip Selznick. Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
18. Nussbaum, Martha C. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2011.
19. Radbruch, Gustav. "Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (2006): 1-11.
20. Radbruch, Gustav. Rechtsphilosophie. Diterjemahkan oleh K. Wilk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.
21. Rahardjo, Satjipto. Hukum Progresif: Sebuah Sintesa Hukum Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2009.
22. Rahardjo, Satjipto. Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 2006.
23. Rahardjo, Satjipto. Membedah Hukum Progresif. Jakarta: Kompas, 2006.
24. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
25. Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.
26. Suhardin, Yohanes. "Konsep Keadilan Dari John Rawls Dengan Keadilan Pancasila (Analisis Komparatif)." Fiat Iustitia: Jurnal Hukum (2023): 200-208. https://doi.org/10.54367/fiat.v3i2.2535
27. Sulaiman, Heri, et al. "John Rawls' Theory of Justice and Its Relevance in the Formulation of Community Property Division Policy in the Contemporary Era: Teori Keadilan John Rawls dan Relevansinya dalam Formulasi Kebijakan Pembagian Harta Bersama di Era Kontemporer." Al Hairy| Journal of Islamic Law 1.1 (2025): 25-36. https://doi.org/10.64344/hry.v1i1.13
28. Tamanaha, Brian Z. Law as a Means to an End: Threat to the Rule of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
29. Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. The Critical Legal Studies Movement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.