Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Contrarius
Rina Arum Prastyanti
Faculty of Business and Law, Universitas Duta Bangsa, Surakarta
Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Consumer Dispute Resolution Decision Policies and Business Implications Rina Arum Prastyanti; Prattana Srisuk
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i1.263

Abstract

Consumer disputes between business actors and consumers continue to challenge the effectiveness of Indonesia’s consumer protection framework, particularly in the implementation of arbitration mechanisms. Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection formally mandates the Consumer Dispute Resolution Agency to adjudicate disputes, yet regulatory and institutional limitations hinder the optimal execution of arbitration-based decisions. This study examines and analyzes the regulatory framework governing the execution of arbitration in consumer dispute resolution, identifies its normative and structural weaknesses, and formulates a justice-oriented reconstruction of the relevant provisions. The research applies a constructivist paradigm and adopts a sociological juridical approach. It integrates normative legal analysis with empirical field data to assess how arbitration functions in practice. The study systematically organizes and qualitatively analyzes both primary and secondary data to produce a comprehensive evaluation of the existing regulatory model. The findings demonstrate substantive inconsistencies between consumer arbitration procedures and the broader arbitration regime, structural weaknesses within the institutional framework of dispute resolution bodies, and limited consumer awareness regarding legal rights. These deficiencies reduce legal certainty and weaken the effectiveness of arbitration outcomes. The study concludes that lawmakers must reconstruct specific statutory provisions, particularly those governing the execution of arbitral decisions, in order to strengthen institutional coherence, enhance legal certainty, and ensure justice in consumer dispute resolution.
Does Regulatory Forfeiture of Fiduciary Assurance Undermine Justice? Rina Arum Prastyanti; Nguyen Thi Thu Hang; Imiefoh Andrew Ikhayere
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i2.273

Abstract

This study examines fiduciary security by emphasising the legal consequences arising from the seizure of fiduciary objects upon the rights of creditors and debtors, and by comparing fiduciary regulatory frameworks in Indonesia, Australia, and the United States. The research adopts a normative legal method utilising secondary data in the form of primary and secondary legal materials. The approaches employed include statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to analyse the norms, principles, and practices governing fiduciary law across different jurisdictions. The research is descriptive and analytical, and it applies qualitative juridical analysis. The findings indicate that the seizure of fiduciary objects carries significant legal implications for both creditors and debtors, and that the implementation of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security has not fully safeguarded the interests of all parties. The international comparison reveals the necessity for clearer mechanisms for the enforcement of fiduciary security and the protection of creditors’ rights. Accordingly, a reconstruction of the normative framework within the Fiduciary Security Law is required to realise Rawlsian justice, through the strengthening of legal protection, the certainty of enforcement, and the equitable balance of rights between creditors and debtors.
Co-Authors Imiefoh Andrew Ikhayere Nguyen Thi Thu Hang Prattana Srisuk