Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
1.784
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Lex Journal : Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan
Yovan Iristian
Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 13 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 13 Documents
Search

 1   2 
The Dynamics of Checks and Balances in the New Administration: Safeguarding the Integrity of the Judiciary in Achieving Substantive Justice Dwi Kartini; Depi Angga Alpiana; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No 2 (2026): June
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10i2.12036

Abstract

This research examines the critical tension between executive expansion and judicial independence within the context of the 2024 general elections and the emergence of new administrations globally and in Indonesia. Utilizing a normative-legal and comparative approach, the study analyzes the phenomenon of "autocratic legalism," where legal instruments are strategically repurposed to consolidate political power, thereby threatening the traditional framework of checks and balances. The findings indicate a significant global regression in democratic standards, with a 67% "fatality rate" for autocratizing democracies and a measurable decline in judicial constraints on executive power in 61% of nations. In Indonesia, the 2024 transition highlighted structural vulnerabilities in the Constitutional Court, particularly regarding ethical dilemmas and the "judicial capture" of candidate eligibility requirements. The article further explores the paradigm shift from proceduralism to substantive justice, arguing that the realization of equitable outcomes requires judges to adopt a "Justice as Fairness" approach, rooted in natural law and human rights, to balance the inherent power asymmetry between the state and its citizens. The study concludes that safeguarding judicial integrity requires institutional reforms including transparent appointment mechanisms, budgetary autonomy, and a progressive interpretive framework that transcends formalistic legal positivism.
A Comparative Analysis of Government Systems: A Theoretical Study of Presidential, Parliamentary, and Indonesia’s Sui Generis Constitutional Dialectic Systems Ogi Pracoyo; Reza Anggara Bahar; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No 2 (2026): June
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10i2.12058

Abstract

This research examines the complex dynamics of global governance models through a comparative lens, focusing on the fundamental dichotomy between presidential and parliamentary systems and the unique constitutional evolution of Indonesia. The primary objective is to analyze the structural efficacy, accountability mechanisms, and stability profiles of these systems in the context of contemporary democratic challenges such as the rise of populism and institutional erosion. Utilizing a normative juridical and comparative qualitative methodology, the study synthesizes constitutional provisions, recent Scopus-indexed literature (2020-2025), and landmark judicial decisions to provide an expert-level evaluation of institutional design. The findings reveal that while parliamentary systems excel in representativeness and collective responsibility through executive-legislative fusion, they often struggle with coalition instability. Conversely, presidential systems offer executive stability through fixed tenure but face risks of polarization, gridlock, and power concentration. Indonesia's system is identified as a "sui generis" model—a product of constitutional dialectics that attempts to purify the presidential executive while operating within a hyper-pluralistic multi-party environment. The research highlights the pivotal role of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in shifting the national priority from "governability" to "representativeness" through Decision No. 62/PUU-XXII/2024. The study concludes that the effectiveness of a government system is inherently tied to its cultural and historical context, requiring continuous institutional engineering to balance executive power with democratic inclusivity.
Artificial Intelligence and Administrative Law in Modern Governance Yeri Antoni; Fatimah Nur Fauzia; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No 2 (2026): June
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10i2.12203

Abstract

This research examines the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithmic decision-making (ADM) on administrative law and modern governance. As governments increasingly integrate AI into public services—from welfare distribution and tax administration to law enforcement—foundational principles of administrative law, including legality, transparency, and accountability, face unprecedented challenges. The objective of this study is to analyze how existing legal doctrines adapt to the "black-box" nature of AI and to evaluate emerging global regulatory frameworks. Utilizing a descriptive-analytical methodology rooted in a comprehensive literature review of international legal scholarship and landmark case law, the study identifies a growing tension between administrative efficiency and the protection of fundamental rights. The findings suggest that while AI enhances productivity by reducing "noise" in human judgment, it risks entrenching systemic biases and eroding procedural fairness. The results highlight the necessity of "communicative accountability" and "prospective benchmarking" to maintain the rule of law. The study concludes that modern governance requires a transition from traditional human-centric oversight to integrated socio-technical regulatory models, exemplified by the EU AI Act and the lessons learned from the failures of systems like SyRI in the Netherlands and Robodebt in Australia.
The Dangers of Hegemonic Coalition: Analyzing Legislative Capture and Judicial Independence in Emerging Democracies Riaji Kurniadin; Faizah Al Habsyi; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S1 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS1.12665

Abstract

This study examines how hegemonic coalitions drive democratic backsliding in emerging democracies by capturing legislative assemblies and subverting judicial independence. Modern autocratic consolidation increasingly eschews overt military coups in favor of legal, institutional mechanisms executed through broad elite alliances. Utilizing a comparative constitutional and legal-institutional analytical framework, this paper investigates the mechanisms through which oversized ruling coalitions co-opt legislative assemblies and neutralize judicial oversight. The findings reveal that hegemonic coalitions execute legislative capture through party cartelization, selective patronage, procedural manipulation, and the suppression of deliberative lawmaking. Concurrently, judicial independence is eroded through autocratic legalism, abusive constitutional borrowing, court-packing, and executive control over prosecutorial and appointment mechanisms. This dual-capture strategy establishes an institutional framework where democratic facades are preserved while horizontal checks and balances are structurally dismantled. To counter these systemic threats, democratic systems must fortify substantive constitutional guarantees, enforce strict judicial recusal and ethics standards, and cultivate civil society counter-narratives to protect constitutional integrity.
Rethinking Administrative Discretion in the Age of Automated Decision-Making: Accountability and Transparency Gaps in E-Government Muhammad Soleh; Putri Rosmala Dewi; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S1 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS1.12666

Abstract

This research analyzes the structural transformation of administrative discretion resulting from the integration of automated decision-making (ADM) systems and artificial intelligence (AI) in e-government and digital public administration. While e-government initiatives promise enhanced operational efficiency, standardized public service delivery, and reduced administrative overhead, the automated execution of executive authority introduces critical legal gaps in institutional accountability and algorithmic transparency. Employing a normative-juridical research design coupled with theory-guided qualitative analysis, this article evaluates how automated administrative decisions challenge foundational administrative law doctrines, specifically the legal duty to provide reasoned decisions, procedural due process, and judicial reviewability. The findings demonstrate that administrative discretion is no longer exercised primarily by frontline human bureaucrats in direct contact with citizens; instead, discretion is systematically codified upward into software architectures, data processing rules, and predictive models designed by system analysts and private software vendors. Furthermore, existing legal and regulatory frameworks struggle to hold public authorities accountable due to algorithmic opacity and distributed supply-chain liability across public and private domains. To safeguard administrative legality, democratic legitimacy, and public trust, this paper advocates for the institutionalization of technological due process, mandatory pre-deployment algorithmic impact assessments, statutory rights to meaningful explanation, and enforceable human-in-the-loop oversight mechanisms within digital government frameworks.
Global Standards vs. Local Realities: Enforcing Carbon Pricing and Emissions Trading Schemes in Developing Jurisdictions Pertamaputra Djohan; Amos Apui; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S1 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS1.12667

Abstract

As the global urgency to combat climate change escalates, carbon pricing mechanisms—specifically Carbon Taxes and Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS)—have emerged as premier market-based policy instruments designed to internalize environmental externalities. However, the international transferability of standardized carbon pricing frameworks from developed economies to developing jurisdictions reveals significant structural, institutional, and socio-economic friction. This research examines the critical divergence between global decarbonization standards and local operational realities in developing nations. Emphasizing the legal architectures and economic dynamics across jurisdictions such as Indonesia, South Africa, Malaysia, and Mexico, this paper investigates the enforcement challenges associated with Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems, regulatory capture, industrial resistance, and socio-economic regressivity. The findings demonstrate that top-down implementation of high carbon price floors without localized policy adaptation risks inducing domestic economic shocks, exacerbating poverty, and creating market distortions. To resolve these tensions, the paper outlines equity-oriented hybrid carbon pricing structures, digitalized governance frameworks, and strategic revenue recycling mechanisms capable of harmonizing climate mitigation with national development goals.
The Architecture of Constitutional Resilience: Redesigning Emergency Powers Against Democratic Backsliding Nang Engki Anom Suseno; Akbar Arfansyah; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S1 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS1.12671

Abstract

Modern democratic backsliding rarely occurs through sudden military coups or violent overthrows. Instead, democratically elected leaders increasingly weaponize formal legal mechanisms to erode democratic institutions from within. A primary vector for this subtle authoritarian consolidation is the deliberate misuse of emergency powers and executive decrees. Under the guise of managing economic instability, national security threats, or public health crises, executive actors exploit open-ended constitutional provisions to bypass parliamentary oversight, dilute judicial review, and restrict civil liberties. This research evaluates how emergency powers function as instruments of autocratic legalism and abusive constitutionalism, and formulates institutional design mechanisms to build constitutional resilience. Utilizing a normative legal research methodology combined with comparative constitutional theory, this study examines executive decree practices, judicial deference patterns, and emergency governance frameworks. The analysis demonstrates that existing emergency constitutional models are dangerously vulnerable to executive aggrandizement due to subjective standards of compelling urgency, weak temporal boundaries, and deferred judicial scrutiny. To counteract this vulnerability, this paper articulates a resilient constitutional framework anchored in four structural pillars: rigid substantive definitions of state necessity, non-derogable democratic baselines, mandatory supermajority legislative ratification with automatic sunset provisions, and expedited, non-deferential judicial review.
Judicial Populism and the Politicization of Constitutional Courts: A Threat to the Rule of Law Marlinda Martha Fenny Pandi; Prettysita Kusuma Wardhani; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S1 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS1.12678

Abstract

This research examines the conceptualization, mechanisms, and systemic ramifications of judicial populism and the politicization of constitutional courts. In contemporary comparative constitutional law, the traditional role of constitutional courts as neutral guardians of fundamental rights and counter-majoritarian checks on state authority is increasingly compromised by populist political movements and internal shifts in judicial philosophy. This article investigates how populist actors utilize institutional re-engineering, court-packing, and abusive constitutional borrowing to weaponize judicial institutions, while some jurists actively adopt a populist discursive style that disparages pluralistic contestation and institutional mediation. Applying a descriptive normative legal methodology combined with comparative constitutional analysis, this study evaluates the structural erosion of de jure and de facto judicial independence across multiple jurisdictions. The findings demonstrate that judicial populism undermines the rule of law by replacing principled legal reasoning with majoritarian rhetoric, dismantling unwritten democratic guardrails such as institutional forbearance, and transforming constitutional review from a shield against tyranny into a sword for autocratic consolidation. The study highlights the urgent necessity of fortifying judicial appointment procedures, tenure protections, and cross-institutional safeguards to insulate constitutional adjudication from political capture.
Rights of Nature Jurisprudence in Resource-Rich Developing States: Implementation Challenges and Judicial Reception Rio Sabryan Ferdiansyah; Ahmad Setiyohadi; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S2 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS2.12752

Abstract

The global emergence of Rights of Nature (RoN) jurisprudence represents a fundamental paradigm shift in modern legal systems, transitioning environmental governance from an anthropocentric model of resource exploitation to an ecocentric framework that recognizes nature as a legal subject (subjecto de derechos). Crucially, the legal vanguard of this movement has developed within resource-rich developing states across Latin America, South Asia, and Africa. However, the recognition of Earth jurisprudence in these jurisdictions generates a profound institutional paradox. These states possess political economies fundamentally anchored in extractivism, where fiscal stability, statehood, and national development agendas rely heavily on primary commodity extraction. This study conducts a qualitative normative-legal analysis and comparative socio-legal evaluation of this tension across two primary analytical themes: first, the structural friction between Earth jurisprudence and the political economy of neo-extractivism, including administrative governmentality, regulatory capture, and foreign investment protections; and second, the judicial reception of ecocentric doctrines across key jurisdictions alongside the post-litigation execution bottlenecks that impede ground-level ecological protection. The findings demonstrate that while constitutional courts have developed sophisticated doctrines such as biocultural rights and precautionary ecosystem protection, their practical efficacy remains severely constrained by executive inertia, resource dependency, and judicial backlash. Reconciling this friction requires constructing robust anti-capture administrative architectures, establishing autonomous enforcement channels, and securing dedicated funding for legal guardianship bodies.
Critical Mineral Scarcity and the Green Transition: Redefining Mining Concessions Through Human Rights and Environmental Due Diligence Jehezkiel A.L Lantang; Asse; Yovan Iristian
Lex Journal: Kajian Hukum & Keadilan Vol 10 No S2 (2026): Special Issue
Publisher : Faculty of Law, University of Dr. Soetomo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25139/lex.v10iS2.12754

Abstract

The imperative to achieve global net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 has catalyzed an unprecedented surge in demand for critical energy transition minerals—including lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and rare earth elements—essential for manufacturing clean energy technologies. However, this green transition risks reproducing historical patterns of colonial extraction, human rights violations, and localized environmental destruction across the Global South and resource frontiers in the Global North. This study examines the legal tension between critical mineral scarcity and international human rights obligations, proposing a fundamental redefinition of mining concession frameworks. Utilizing a qualitative normative-legal methodology and comparative regulatory analysis, this research evaluates two core analytical themes: first, the structural human rights paradoxes, racial capitalism, resource nationalism, and supply chain vulnerabilities inherent in critical mineral extraction; and second, the institutional integration of mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence (mHREDD) standards—such as the European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1760) and Critical Raw Materials Act—into host-state mining concession contracts. The analysis demonstrates that transforming traditional investor-centric concessions into conditional, compliance-sequenced legal instruments featuring enforceable revocation clauses and transnational civil liability mechanisms is essential to establishing a substantive rule of law capable of reconciling critical mineral security with global environmental justice.
Co-Authors Abriantinus Ahmad Setiyohadi Akbar Arfansyah Amos Apui Andi Syadi Pratama Putra Asse Depi Angga Alpiana Dul Kodir Dwi Kartini Faizah Al Habsyi Fatimah Nur Fauzia Ginanjar Wahyu Hariadi Jehezkiel A.L Lantang Marlinda Martha Fenny Pandi Muhammad Soleh Musa Antipas Maarang Nang Engki Anom Suseno Ogi Pracoyo Pertamaputra Djohan Prettysita Kusuma Wardhani Putri Rosmala Dewi Reza Anggara Bahar Riaji Kurniadin Rio Sabryan Ferdiansyah Yeri Antoni