環境保護手段としての炭素税：インドネシア炭素価格制度改革への比較法的示唆
Carbon Tax as an Environmental Protection Instrument: Comparative Lessons for Reforming Indonesia's Carbon Pricing Framework (原題)
Pipit Somefotorono Majid, Achmad Ruslan, Naswar, Imron Rizki Azis, Muamar Hasan Salameh
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文はインドネシアの炭素税制度を、スウェーデン・ノルウェー・カナダ・英国との比較法的手法で検討する。規範的基盤は整うものの、拘束力ある価格引上げ経路の欠如、部門カバレッジの狭さ、MRVの脆弱性、財源還流メカニズムの不在が実効性を制約すると指摘。ピグー税理論と汚染者負担原則に基づき、財政法・環境法・気候義務・環境正義を統合する六本柱の炭素ガバナンスモデルを提示する。
English
This doctrinal legal study assesses Indonesia's carbon tax against Sweden, Norway, Canada, and the UK. It finds an adequate normative foundation but weak effectiveness due to no binding price escalation, narrow sectoral coverage, fragile MRV, and no revenue recycling. It proposes a six-pillar carbon governance model grounded in Pigouvian theory and the polluter-pays principle.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では炭素税よりもGXリーグ・排出量取引・SSBJ開示が中心だが、価格シグナルとMRV・財源還流の設計論は、日本が今後検討する炭素賦課とGX経済移行債の整合性を考える上で示唆に富む。新興国向けの制度輸出・支援の観点でも参考になる。
In the global GX context
While Indonesia's carbon tax is not directly tied to ISSB/CSRD, the paper's emphasis on MRV credibility and revenue recycling speaks to the global debate on carbon pricing as a complement to disclosure regimes and transition finance. It offers a comparative legal template for emerging economies designing carbon markets alongside TCFD/ISSB-aligned reporting.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:比較法・環境法の視点から炭素税設計とMRV・財源還流の要件を整理する研究に有用。
🏢実務担当者:インドネシア事業や新興国炭素規制対応において、価格引上げ・部門拡大・MRV強化の方向性を先読みする材料になる。
🏛政策担当者:炭素税の実効性には拘束力ある価格経路、部門横断カバレッジ、信頼できるMRV、分配的公正を伴う財源還流が不可欠という政策示唆。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Climate change has transformed environmental protection from a sectoral concern into an integral component of legal and fiscal governance. This research examines the effectiveness of the carbon tax as an environmental protection instrument in Indonesia through doctrinal legal research employing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The analysis focuses on Law No. 32 of 2009, Law No. 16 of 2016, Law No. 7 of 2021, and Presidential Regulation No. 110 of 2025, while comparing Indonesia's framework with the experiences of Sweden, Norway, Canada, and the United Kingdom, as well as recent scholarly literature. The findings indicate that Indonesia's carbon tax framework provides an adequate normative foundation; however, its effectiveness remains constrained by the absence of a binding price escalation pathway, limited sectoral coverage, weaknesses in the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) system, and the lack of a revenue recycling mechanism that ensures distributive justice. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the effectiveness of a carbon tax depends on a legal design that integrates gradual rate increases, broader sectoral coverage, a credible MRV system, and the allocation of public revenue to support the energy transition and protect vulnerable groups. The novelty of this research lies in reconstructing the carbon tax as an environmental law instrument grounded in Pigouvian Tax Theory and the Polluter Pays Principle, and in formulating a six-pillar carbon governance model that integrates fiscal law, environmental law, climate change obligations, and environmental justice within Indonesia's decarbonization framework.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.62264/jlej.v4i3.311first seen 2026-09-23 05:04:39
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。