Agrarian Justice and Contextuality in Maxim Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum and Fiat Justitia Ne Pereat Mundus

Muh. Afif Mahfud, Erlyn Indarti, Sukirno Sukirno


Maxim is a short sentence with deep meaning related to value and purpose of law include agrarian law. This article analyse the meaning of fiat justitia ruat caelum and fiat justitia ne pereat mundus as well as its relation to agrarian justice and its contextuality. Both of those maxim are paradigmatically analysed. This is a normative juridical research, use conceptual and historical approach with secondary data then qualitatively analysed. Concluded that fiat justitia ruat caelum and fiat justitia pereat mundus is part of legal formalism. The agrarian justice is achieved when the law is enforced as the text and its acontextual. In contrast, fiat justitia ne pereat mundus consider law is valid when it is according to the purpose and agrarian justice exist when it bring out prosperity for all people. Paradigmatically, fiat justicia ruat caelum and fiat justitia pereat mundus fall in positivism paradigm, consider rule is perfect, no interpretation, separation of law and morality, impossibility of interdisciplinary approach. In another hand, fiat justitia ne pereat mundus falls in post positivism paradigm which consider law is imperfect, interpretation is possible, no separation of law and morality and interdisciplinary approch is opened. The law is acontextual.


contextuality justice, fiat justitia ruat caelum; fiat justitia ne pereat mundus.

Full Text:




Arendt, H. (1967). Truth and Politics. The New Yorker.

Baehr, P. (2000). The Portable Hannah Arendt. England: Penguin Books.

Campbell, K. (2005). To Render Justice : Models Of Justice In The International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia. Berkeley: Center Of The Study Of Law And Society, Jurisprudence And Sosial Policy Program Berkeley University.

Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Cambridge: The Belknap Press.

Echewija, S. P. (2016) The Cost of Justice: A Critique of Criminal Justice Rhetoric. Confrence on Justice.

Engelhardt, T. (1994). Hegel Reconsidered: Beyond Metaphysics and The Authoritarian State. Springer Science and Business Media.

Hegel, GWF. (2001). The Philosophy of Right. Kitchener: Batoche Books.

Kanawrow, V. (2010). Hegel After and Beyond Kant. Sophia Philosphical review.

Leiter, B. (2010). Legal Formalisme and Legal Realism: What is The Issue. Chicago: University of Chicago Law School.

Mises, L. V. (2015). Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. Indiana Polis: Liberty Fund.

Nonet, P. & Selznick, P. (1978). Law and Society in Transition: Toward A Responsive Law. New York: Harper and Law.

Notonagoro. (1984). Politik hukum dan Pembangunan Agrarian di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT. Bina Aksara.

Journal Article

Platlas, A. E. (2015). Law In The Spirit Of Our Age: Between Modernity and Postmodernity. Juridiskā Zinātne, 8: 175-198.

Harding, R. L., Platsas, A. E. (2013). Japan as a Postmodern Legal Reality. University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, 21(1): 1-30.

Schall, J. V. (2004). Justice: The Most Terrible of the Virtues. Journal of Markets and Morality, 7(2): 409-421.

Scully, L. (2008). Neither Justice, Nor Oasis: Algeria’s Amnesty Law. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 33(3): 975-985.

Stone, M. (1996). On The Idea of Private Law. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 9(2): 235-278.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

KANUN : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum


ISSN (Print): 0854 – 5499

ISSN (Online): 2527 – 8428


Published by: 

Redaksi Kanun: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum

Fakultas Hukum Universitas Syiah Kuala

Jl. Putroe Phang No. 1, Darussalam, Banda Aceh 23111

Telp. (0651) 7552295; Faks. (0651) 7552295



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.