印尼憲法中的單一制宣稱一直以來備受爭議，有以為依照印尼憲法第一條第一項印尼名義上是採單一制，但在1998年蘇哈托政權下台後的憲法改革因已經賦予地方政府廣泛的權限，已使印尼在現實上成為一個準聯邦之型態；另一方面，有以為印尼憲法第18條第2段中去中心化的規定並不會讓印尼成為一個聯邦制的國家。本論文運用三個案例，亦即日惹、亞齊與巴布亞自治區實踐為研究客體，支持後者之論點，主張這三個自治區的承認僅表彰了印尼憲法中去中心化之特徵，而去中心化政策一直以來也被印尼政府策略性地運用。從聯邦制的法制史觀察，可以印證印尼現行制度是去中心制而非聯邦制，而三個個案研究結果也顯示自治區制度的採用僅為去中心化的實踐。本論文發現去中心化如同自治區的承認一般，一直以來都被印尼政府策略性地採用以應付政治危機，而此策略也將在未來必要時被隨時採用為安撫的工具。 The professed constitutional unitary state claim has been highly debated in Indonesia. Some argue that Indonesia is a unitary state in name, pursuant to Article 1 Para. I of the Indonesian Constitution, while Constitutional reforms after 1998 when the autocratic President Gen. Soeharto stepped down granted broad authority to local governments, leading Indonesia to a quasi-federation situation in practice. On the other hand, some insist that decentralization embedded in the Constitution Article 18 Para. II, by no means makes Indonesia federal. This thesis takes three case studies of autonomous regions in Indonesia-- Yogyakarta, Aceh and Papua-- to argue for the latter, asserting that these cases merely exemplifies the decentralization characteristic embedded in the Constitution, even though the decentralization policy has been employed instrumentally in Indonesia. This thesis examines the political features of federalism through a legal historical perspective, showing that the current state system in Indonesia is decentralized but not federal. The case studies of Yogyakarta, Aceh and Papua uphold the fact argued that the recognition of autonomous regions in Indonesia is merely a practice of constitutional decentralization. This thesis concludes with the finding that decentralization as well as the special autonomous region policy has been employed by the central government instrumentally to deal with political crises, and this instrument is expected to be used as handy appeasement again in the future when necessary.
