Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.702
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Rechtsidee
Ariawan Gunadi
Program Studi Ilmu Hukum, Universitas Tarumanagara
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
Issuer Compliance with Disclosure Principles in Insider Trading in the Indonesian Capital Market: A Comparative Study with Singapore and the United States from an Investor Protection Perspective: Kepatuhan Emiten Terhadap Prinsip Disclosure dalam Insider Trading di Pasar Modal Indonesia Perbandingan dengan Singapura dan Amerika Serikat: Perspektif Perlindungan Investor Hanz Bryan Joeliant; Ariawan Gunadi
Rechtsidee Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): December
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21070/jihr.v13i2.1095

Abstract

General Background: Insider trading and weak information disclosure undermine market integrity and investor protection. Specific Background: In Indonesia, disclosure obligations under the Capital Market Law, OJK regulations, and IDX rules remain limited in timeliness, insider categorization, and enforcement compared to Singapore and the United States. Knowledge Gap: Existing studies have not systematically compared issuer compliance with disclosure principles across these jurisdictions to assess their effectiveness in preventing insider trading. Aims: This study analyzes Indonesia’s disclosure framework, compares it with Singapore and the U.S., and evaluates necessary reforms to enhance investor protection. Results: Findings show Indonesia’s two-day disclosure window, narrow insider definition, and predominantly administrative sanctions weaken deterrence, while Singapore’s immediate disclosure model and the U.S.’s broad misappropriation theory, real-time surveillance, and strong enforcement provide higher compliance and detection levels. Novelty: This research integrates doctrinal, conceptual, and comparative analyses to demonstrate how adopting broader insider definitions, accelerated disclosure, and technology-driven monitoring can strengthen Indonesia’s regulatory structure. Implications: Strengthening OJK–IDX integration, enhancing surveillance capacity, reforming insider trading provisions, and adopting international best practices are essential to improving market transparency and long-term investor confidence. Highlights: Indonesia’s disclosure rules remain slower and less comprehensive than Singapore and the U.S. Broader insider definitions and real-time surveillance improve detection and deterrence. Strengthened OJK–IDX integration is essential for effective enforcement and investor protection. Keywords: Insider Trading, Disclosure, Investor Protection, Capital Market Regulation, Comparative Study
A Comparative Study on Legal Protection for Consumers Using Digital Lending Services in Indonesia and Singapore from the Perspective of Legal Development Theory: Perbandingan Perlindungan Hukum bagi Konsumen Pengguna Layanan Pendanaan Digital antara Indonesia dan Singapura dalam Perspektif Teori Pembangunan Hukum Rizky Febrianto; Ariawan Gunadi
Rechtsidee Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): December
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21070/jihr.v13i2.1096

Abstract

General Background: The rapid expansion of digital lending in Indonesia and Singapore reflects a broader transformation in financial technology that demands stronger regulatory safeguards. Specific Background: Despite regulatory efforts, Indonesia continues to face challenges of weak supervision, low industry compliance, and high exposure to illegal platforms, whereas Singapore has established a more structured and integrated regulatory model. Knowledge Gap: Comparative analyses examining both countries’ legal frameworks through the lens of Legal Development Theory remain limited, particularly regarding their effectiveness in ensuring consumer protection. Aims: This study analyzes and compares the legal protection mechanisms governing digital lending in Indonesia and Singapore while assessing their alignment with legal development principles. Results: Findings show Indonesia relies on POJK 40/2024, Consumer Protection Law, and Personal Data Protection Law, yet enforcement remains inconsistent; in contrast, Singapore’s Payment Services Act, CPFTA, PDPA, and MAS compliance-based supervision ensure stronger preventive regulation and more efficient dispute resolution. Novelty: This research integrates comparative regulatory analysis with Legal Development Theory to reveal differing developmental orientations of both jurisdictions. Implications: Strengthening supervisory capacity and enforcement is essential for Indonesia to build a safer, equitable, and innovation-supportive digital lending ecosystem. Highlights: Strong contrast exists between Indonesia’s fragmented enforcement and Singapore’s integrated MAS-led regulatory model. Singapore emphasizes preventive, risk-based oversight, while Indonesia remains largely reactive to emerging problems. Effective consumer protection hinges not only on regulation completeness but also on consistent supervision and institutional capacity. Keywords: Digital Lending, Consumer Protection, Fintech Regulation, Legal Development Theory, Comparative Law
Legal Liability for Violations of Outsourced Workers’ Rights in Indonesia from the Perspective of Comparative Joint Liability Principles in Spain and the Philippines: Pertanggungjawaban Hukum atas Pelanggaran Hak Pekerja Outsourcing di Indonesia dalam Perspektif Perbandingan Prinsip Joint Liability di Spanyol dan Filipina Nadya Christina; Ariawan Gunadi
Rechtsidee Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): December
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21070/jihr.v13i2.1097

Abstract

General Background: The widespread adoption of outsourcing in Indonesia aims to enhance corporate flexibility and efficiency. Specific Background: Despite comprehensive regulation under UU 13/2003, UU 6/2023, and PP 35/2021, outsourced workers frequently experience violations of fundamental rights due to unclear allocation of legal responsibilities between outsourcing providers and user companies. Knowledge Gap: Existing Indonesian regulations place full liability solely on outsourcing companies, leaving limited legal remedies when providers fail to fulfil obligations, unlike countries applying joint liability. Aims: This study analyzes Indonesia’s legal framework on outsourced workers’ rights and compares it with the joint liability principles adopted in Spain and the Philippines. Results: Findings indicate that Indonesia’s system creates structural protection gaps, while Spain and the Philippines impose solidary responsibility on both provider and user companies, ensuring stronger enforcement of wages, social security, and working conditions. Novelty: This research provides a comparative legal perspective demonstrating how joint liability can operate as an equitable mechanism for outsourced worker protection. Implications: Adoption of joint liability in Indonesia could enhance legal certainty, prevent responsibility evasion, and strengthen workers’ access to remedies, offering a policy alternative for future legislative reform. Highlights: Indonesia’s current framework places full responsibility on outsourcing providers, creating protection gaps. Spain and the Philippines strengthen worker rights through solidary (joint) liability between providers and user companies. Joint liability offers a viable reform option to enhance fairness and legal certainty for outsourced workers in Indonesia. Keywords: Outsourcing, Legal Liability, Joint Liability, Worker Protection, Comparative Labor Law
A Juridical Analysis of the Cancellation of Registered Trademarks Due to Non-Use: A Comparative Study of Indonesian and UK Law: Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Penghapusan Merek Terdaftar Akibat Tidak Digunakan: Perbandingan Hukum Indonesia dan Inggris Cicelly Chiesa Kurniawan; Ariawan Gunadi
Rechtsidee Vol. 13 No. 2 (2025): December
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidoarjo

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.21070/jihr.v13i2.1099

Abstract

General background: Legal protection of trademarks is fundamental to ensuring fairness and business certainty because exclusive rights apply only when marks are continuously used. Specific background: In Indonesia, cancellation of trademarks due to non-use for three consecutive years under Article 74 of Law No. 20/2016 remains challenging despite clear statutory provisions. Knowledge gap: Inconsistent judicial interpretations and the absence of uniform evidentiary standards create ongoing legal uncertainty. Aims: This study examines Indonesia’s mechanism for cancelling unused trademarks and compares it with the United Kingdom’s revocation system. Results: The findings show that Indonesia faces difficulties in proving non-use and maintaining consistent legal reasoning, while the UK—through the Trademarks Act 1994—implements structured administrative procedures, defined evidentiary criteria, and opportunities for non-litigation resolution. Novelty: This research offers a detailed comparative analysis that exposes procedural weaknesses in Indonesia when contrasted with a more mature and transparent system. Implications: The study suggests that Indonesia must strengthen evidentiary standards and refine administrative processes to enhance legal certainty, prevent passive monopolies, and reinforce effective trademark protection in modern commerce. Highlights: Focuses on cancellation of registered trademarks due to non-use in Indonesia and the UK. Identifies legal uncertainty in Indonesia from inconsistent interpretation of “three consecutive years” and proof standards. Highlights the UK’s clearer, more structured revocation procedures as a model for improving Indonesian law. Keywords: Trademark Cancellation, Non-Use, Legal Protection, Revocation
Co-Authors Cicelly Chiesa Kurniawan Hanz Bryan Joeliant Nadya Christina Rizky Febrianto