p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Mulawarman Law Review
Syukri Hidayatullah
Universitas Mulawarman

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

Found 4 Documents
Search

Legal Protection of Go-Jek Driver That Experiences Damages Due To The Fictive Order In Go-Food Menu In Go-Jek Aplication Hermawan, Aditya; Susanti, Erna; Hidayatullah, Syukri
Jurnal Mulawarman Law Review Vol 3 No 2: Mulawarman Law Review - December 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Mulawarman University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30872/mulrev.v3i2.117

Abstract

This research is proposed to answer two questions: Firstly, to find out the cause of fictitious orders experienced by Go-Jek drivers in the Go-food menu in Go-Jek app. Secondly, to know the legal protection of Go-Jek drivers who suffered losses due to a fictitious plane in the Go-food menu on the Go-Jek app. And the research is directed to educate the public the importance of Civil law which governs agreement in the life of society. This study uses socio-legal approach with a number of resource persons. The choice of approach to socio-legal does not mean disregarding doctrinal side support on the grounds that one of the aims of this study sees a set of positive norms in relation to Legal protection of Go-Jek drivers, including legal theory support with a view to verifying the implementation of law in practice (protection and responsible). This study concludes that, Transactions using Go-Jek access has so far caused legal consequences among others who is responsible for the losses experienced by drivers, whether the Go-Jek party is responsible for the losses experienced drivers, including what kind of legal protection obtained by the driver when suffering application losses by irresponsible consumers. The factors of the emergence of fictitious orders are the existence of competitions between the Go-Jek driver, Go-Jek verification system is still weak, and the existence of bad faith in someone. Partnership agreement between PT. Go-Jek and Go-Jek’s driver is a standard clause that created and provided without involving the Go-Jek drivers in which there is a clause of transfer of responsibility because of PT. Go-Jek as the Go-Jek application service manager will not be responsible if there is a loss caused by the use of Go-Jek application. The legal relations and responsibilities of the parties should be clearly stipulated in the partnership agreement between PT. Go-Jek Indonesia, and Partners are created based on mutual agreement and agreement between both parties. To minimize the losses experienced by Go-Jek drivers in service delivery for every use of consumer spending service must have a Go-Pay account, which expenditures can not be executed if the balance in the Go-Pay account is insufficient to make an expense transaction.
Legal Status of MoU Determining The Limits of The Territory Area Between Indonesia and Malaysia Dwi Ambarina Rita Kadarsih; Putra Kurnia, Mahendra; Hidayatullah, Syukri
Jurnal Mulawarman Law Review Vol 5 No 2: Mulawarman Law Review - December 2020
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Mulawarman University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30872/mulrev.v5i2.343

Abstract

The border region is the front territory of the country jurisdiction and posses an important role in the matter of enforcement of national law sovereignty. Sebatik Island owned by two countries, Indonesia and Malaysia. Demarcation of territorial boundaries in Sebatik Island refers to Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Surveys and Demarcation of the Border Line of 1973 which is followed up with the results of a joint Surveys and Demarcation on the island of Borneo poured in the form of an advanced Memorandum of Understanding containing each boundary point which has been agreed upon.From 1973 to 2017 there are 9 (nine) points of Outstanding Boundary Problem (OBP) on Sebatik Island that have not been agreed by both countries. The boundary disputes have led to unclear legal status of Sebatik Island's land border territory within the framework of international treaty law and also led to the uncertainty of the status of the MoU as the legal basis for the determination of state borders between Indonesia and Malaysia on Sebatik Island.This law research questioning two issue. First, what factors make the border region not yet regulated by international agreements on borders. Second, how the legal status of the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding in stipulate the point of demarcation between Indonesia and Malaysia in the perspective of international treaty law. Based on the research, the factor that caused the border area not yet been regulated by a definitive border agreement is the disparity of reference between Indonesia and Malaysia to determining the land boundary in Sebatik Island. Indonesia uses the provisions of 4o 10 'LU degree while Malaysia uses existing pillar references. This dispute involve the overlap of the Sebatik Island border area from both countries. Thus, the legal status of the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding has not been binding as law either in national law or as an agreement in international law.
Legal Protection of Go-Jek Driver That Experiences Damages Due To The Fictive Order In Go-Food Menu In Go-Jek Aplication Hermawan, Aditya; Susanti, Erna; Hidayatullah, Syukri
Jurnal Mulawarman Law Review Vol 3 No 2: Mulawarman Law Review - December 2018
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Mulawarman University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (441.482 KB) | DOI: 10.30872/mulrev.v3i2.117

Abstract

This research is proposed to answer two questions: Firstly, to find out the cause of fictitious orders experienced by Go-Jek drivers in the Go-food menu in Go-Jek app. Secondly, to know the legal protection of Go-Jek drivers who suffered losses due to a fictitious plane in the Go-food menu on the Go-Jek app. And the research is directed to educate the public the importance of Civil law which governs agreement in the life of society. This study uses socio-legal approach with a number of resource persons. The choice of approach to socio-legal does not mean disregarding doctrinal side support on the grounds that one of the aims of this study sees a set of positive norms in relation to Legal protection of Go-Jek drivers, including legal theory support with a view to verifying the implementation of law in practice (protection and responsible). This study concludes that, Transactions using Go-Jek access has so far caused legal consequences among others who is responsible for the losses experienced by drivers, whether the Go-Jek party is responsible for the losses experienced drivers, including what kind of legal protection obtained by the driver when suffering application losses by irresponsible consumers. The factors of the emergence of fictitious orders are the existence of competitions between the Go-Jek driver, Go-Jek verification system is still weak, and the existence of bad faith in someone. Partnership agreement between PT. Go-Jek and Go-Jek’s driver is a standard clause that created and provided without involving the Go-Jek drivers in which there is a clause of transfer of responsibility because of PT. Go-Jek as the Go-Jek application service manager will not be responsible if there is a loss caused by the use of Go-Jek application. The legal relations and responsibilities of the parties should be clearly stipulated in the partnership agreement between PT. Go-Jek Indonesia, and Partners are created based on mutual agreement and agreement between both parties. To minimize the losses experienced by Go-Jek drivers in service delivery for every use of consumer spending service must have a Go-Pay account, which expenditures can not be executed if the balance in the Go-Pay account is insufficient to make an expense transaction.
Legal Status of MoU Determining The Limits of The Territory Area Between Indonesia and Malaysia Dwi Ambarina Rita Kadarsih; Putra Kurnia, Mahendra; Hidayatullah, Syukri
Jurnal Mulawarman Law Review Vol 5 No 2: Mulawarman Law Review - December 2020
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Mulawarman University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.30872/mulrev.v5i2.343

Abstract

The border region is the front territory of the country jurisdiction and posses an important role in the matter of enforcement of national law sovereignty. Sebatik Island owned by two countries, Indonesia and Malaysia. Demarcation of territorial boundaries in Sebatik Island refers to Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia regarding Surveys and Demarcation of the Border Line of 1973 which is followed up with the results of a joint Surveys and Demarcation on the island of Borneo poured in the form of an advanced Memorandum of Understanding containing each boundary point which has been agreed upon.From 1973 to 2017 there are 9 (nine) points of Outstanding Boundary Problem (OBP) on Sebatik Island that have not been agreed by both countries. The boundary disputes have led to unclear legal status of Sebatik Island's land border territory within the framework of international treaty law and also led to the uncertainty of the status of the MoU as the legal basis for the determination of state borders between Indonesia and Malaysia on Sebatik Island.This law research questioning two issue. First, what factors make the border region not yet regulated by international agreements on borders. Second, how the legal status of the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding in stipulate the point of demarcation between Indonesia and Malaysia in the perspective of international treaty law. Based on the research, the factor that caused the border area not yet been regulated by a definitive border agreement is the disparity of reference between Indonesia and Malaysia to determining the land boundary in Sebatik Island. Indonesia uses the provisions of 4o 10 'LU degree while Malaysia uses existing pillar references. This dispute involve the overlap of the Sebatik Island border area from both countries. Thus, the legal status of the 1973 Memorandum of Understanding has not been binding as law either in national law or as an agreement in international law.