Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
3.022
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Gaussian Media Farmasi : Jurnal Ilmu Farmasi (Journal Of Pharmaceutical Science) Arena Hukum Jurnal Media Hukum Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM International Journal of Nursing and Health Services (IJNHS) Integrated Lab Journal Jurnal PAUD: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pendidikan Anak Usia Dini Al-Adl : Jurnal Hukum Jurnal Persatuan Perawat Nasional Indonesia (JPPNI) Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences Budapest International Research in Exact Sciences (BirEx Journal) Jurnal Riset Pembelajaran Matematika Sekolah Akrab Juara : Jurnal Ilmu-ilmu Sosial Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia (JPHI) Indonesia Private Law Review Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum International Journal of Law, Environment, and Natural Resources Jurnal Persaingan Usaha Journal of Social Empowerment
Siti Anisah
Universitas Islam Indonesia
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Chemical Engineering, Chemistry & Bioengineering Chemistry Civil Engineering, Building, Construction & Architecture Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Energy Engineering Environmental Science Health Professions Immunology & microbiology Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Materials Science & Nanotechnology Mathematics Medicine & Pharmacology Nursing Physics Public Health Social Sciences Transportation Other

Published : 39 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search
Journal : Jurnal Media Hukum

 1 
PENGATURAN DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM PEMBOIKOTAN DALAM ANTITRUST LAW AMERIKA SERIKAT Anisah, Siti
Jurnal Media Hukum Vol 22, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Boycott is one of violations in the competition law that eliminating the freedom of parties to enter the market. The aim of it no other than lessened fair competition. Theoretically, the issue related boycott discuss about the approach utilised by the authority to investigate and enforce boycott and its meaning: whether boycott is vertical or horizontal, or both; and what are the criteria of the violations? Given so few references on boycott, this paper attempts to reveal the regulation and the enforcement of it in the United States. It is aimed as reference to regulate and/or to settle the competition law cases of boycott in Indonesia in the future day. The United States does not specifically state boycott in the Antitrust Law. The United States includes boycott as concerted to deal and refuse to deal as ruled in the Section 1 of Sherman Act.
THE USE OF PER SE ILLEGAL APPROACH IN PROVING THE PRICE-FIXING AGREEMENTS IN INDONESIA Anisah, Siti
Media Hukum Vol 27, No 1 (2020): June
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The Indonesia Competition Commission (the ICC) often faces difficulties to find evidence in the form of agreement made by business actors in determining prices. The agreement is the main element to prove the price-fixing which is prohibited under Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The legal issue discussed in this research is whether the use of per se illegal approach in proving the price-fixing agreement requires direct evidence or it is sufficient with an indirect evidence. This normative study found that the competition authorities still impose sanctions to business actors even though the (legitimate) agreement does not exist. The examination requires an in-depth understanding of economic theories and should prioritize the principle of prudence due to its vulnerability to manipulation. The analysis of Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 and 04/KPPU-I/2016 found that the ICC proved the price-fixing case using indirect evidence and included an analysis of the impact on competition. Both cases indicate that the ICC applied the rule of reason approach because of the difficulties in finding the evidence of the agreement. On the other hand, the ICC applied per se illegal approach in the Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 and 14/KPPU-I/2014 due to the existence of direct evidence.
PENGATURAN DAN PENEGAKAN HUKUM PEMBOIKOTAN DALAM ANTITRUST LAW AMERIKA SERIKAT Siti Anisah
Jurnal Media Hukum Vol 22, No 2 (2015)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jmh.2015.0054.173-189

Abstract

Boycott is one of violations in the competition law that eliminating the freedom of parties to enter the market. The aim of it no other than lessened fair competition. Theoretically, the issue related boycott discuss about the approach utilised by the authority to investigate and enforce boycott and its meaning: whether boycott is vertical or horizontal, or both; and what are the criteria of the violations? Given so few references on boycott, this paper attempts to reveal the regulation and the enforcement of it in the United States. It is aimed as reference to regulate and/or to settle the competition law cases of boycott in Indonesia in the future day. The United States does not specifically state boycott in the Antitrust Law. The United States includes boycott as concerted to deal and refuse to deal as ruled in the Section 1 of Sherman Act.
The Use of Per Se Illegal Approach in Proving the Price-Fixing Agreements in Indonesia Siti Anisah
Jurnal Media Hukum Volume 27, Number 1, June 2020
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.18196/jmh.20200145

Abstract

The Indonesia Competition Commission (the ICC) often faces difficulties to find evidence in the form of agreement made by business actors in determining prices. The agreement is the main element to prove the price-fixing which is prohibited under Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1999. The legal issue discussed in this research is whether the use of per se illegal approach in proving the price-fixing agreement requires direct evidence or it is sufficient with an indirect evidence. This normative study found that the competition authorities still impose sanctions to business actors even though the (legitimate) agreement does not exist. The examination requires an in-depth understanding of economic theories and should prioritize the principle of prudence due to its vulnerability to manipulation. The analysis of Decision No. 08/KPPU-I/2014 and 04/KPPU-I/2016 found that the ICC proved the price-fixing case using indirect evidence and included an analysis of the impact on competition. Both cases indicate that the ICC applied the rule of reason approach because of the difficulties in finding the evidence of the agreement. On the other hand, the ICC applied per se illegal approach in the Decision No. 10/KPPU-L/2009 and 14/KPPU-I/2014 due to the existence of direct evidence.
Co-Authors Adi Sastra P Tarigan Arif Setiawan Bela Pertiwi Catur Septiana Rakhmawati Eko Rial Nugroho, Eko Rial Elfan Fanhas Fatwa Khomaeny Fadhli Fadhli Fadhli, Fadhli Hajizah, Mimi Nur Hamdani . Harya Damar Panuluh Jury Yanto Tarigan Lina Erviana Lucky Suryo Wicaksono Mega Isvandiana Purnamasari Muh, Wendi Muhammad Alim Kurniawan Muhammad Fadlan Syahputra Muhammad Zaky Ridho Subakti Nunung Komalawati Nurdiana Nurdiana Pinta Deniyanti Sampoerno Prido Singarimbun Princessa Deanera Putri Ariqah Putri Nilasari Rahmadhani Fitri Rahmaniar Rahmaniar Rr Tutik Sri Hariyati Sugito Sugito Sulastuti Sulastuti Suparti Suparti Syarah Meiriska Dewi Triana Rahmatika Putri Trisno Raharjo Vit Ardhyantama Wendi Muh Wisnu Dwi Prabowo Yus Chandrawati Zuraidah Tharo Zutaidah Tharo