Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Restorative Justice as a Mechanism for Resolving Intra-Family Theft Offenses: A Legal Analysis of Reconciliation-Based Criminal Settlement in Indonesia Awanda Handani; Dadan Taufik Fathurohman
Immortalis Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): July - September
Publisher : PT. Caesarindo Triloka Persada

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.67307/ijis.v2i3.129

Abstract

Intra-family theft offenses present a distinct challenge in criminal law because the consequences of such offenses extend beyond material losses and affect trust, emotional relationships, and family stability. Unlike ordinary theft cases, offenses committed within family relationships require a careful balance between enforcing criminal responsibility and preserving social bonds. Although restorative justice has been increasingly recognized within the Indonesian criminal justice system, its application in intra-family theft cases remains insufficiently examined, particularly regarding its legal framework, implementation mechanism, and contribution to reconciliation. This study examines the role of restorative justice in resolving intra-family theft offenses through a reconciliation-based criminal settlement approach under Indonesian criminal law. This research employs normative juridical analysis using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches by examining relevant legal provisions, restorative justice regulations, and legal practices. The findings indicate that restorative justice provides an alternative settlement mechanism through voluntary mediation, offender accountability, restitution, and reconciliation between victims and offenders. The effectiveness of this approach is influenced by the willingness of offenders to acknowledge responsibility, the voluntary participation of victims, the restoration of losses, and the ability of mediators to facilitate balanced agreements. Restorative justice offers a more appropriate approach for intra-family theft offenses by integrating criminal accountability with social restoration, reducing unnecessary criminalization, and maintaining family relationships.
Bad Faith and Civil Liability for Unilateral Termination of Cooperation Agreements: A Judicial Analysis of Decision No. 322/Pdt.G/2012/PN.BKS Alfin Rahman; Dadan Taufik Fathurohman
Immortalis Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): July - September
Publisher : PT. Caesarindo Triloka Persada

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.67307/ijis.v2i3.127

Abstract

The principle of good faith is a fundamental element in contractual relationships, requiring parties to perform agreements fairly and responsibly. However, contractual certainty may be undermined when one party unilaterally terminates an agreement by relying on internal corporate limitations or procedural arguments to avoid contractual obligations. This study examines the legal consequences of bad faith and the civil liability arising from the unilateral termination of a cooperation agreement based on Decision No. 322/Pdt.G/2012/PN.Bks. This study employs normative juridical research using statute, conceptual, and case approaches through the analysis of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings demonstrate that the Defendant’s unilateral termination of the waste management cooperation agreement constituted an unlawful act under Article 1365 of the Indonesian Civil Code because the action was conducted in bad faith, violated contractual fairness, caused actual economic losses, and had a direct causal relationship with the Plaintiff’s loss. The study further reveals that compensation mechanisms for losses arising from unlawful acts may be assessed by applying the principles contained in Articles 1246–1248 of the Civil Code by analogy, covering actual costs, losses, and expected interests. This study contributes to the development of contract law by emphasizing that internal corporate procedural limitations cannot be used as a justification for avoiding contractual responsibility when such actions violate the principle of good faith and cause harm to contractual partners.