Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 22 Documents
Search

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Head-of-State Immunity: Sovereignty and the Use of Force in the Fragmentation of International Law Purwati, Ani
International Journal of Science and Environment (IJSE) Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : CV. Inara in Colaboration with www.stie-sampit.ac.id

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51601/ijse.v6i1.330

Abstract

The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction against a foreign head of state raises fundamental problems in international law because it directly implicates the principles of state sovereignty, head-of-state immunity, and the prohibition of the use of force. Normatively, international law recognizes that an incumbent head of state enjoys personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) from the criminal jurisdiction of other states, grounded in customary international law and international jurisprudence. This principle is reinforced by the Charter of the United Nations, particularly Article 2(4) on the prohibition of the threat or use of force and Article 2(7) on the principle of non-intervention (UN Charter, 1945). However, the practice of some states applies extraterritorial jurisdiction unilaterally under the rationale of global law enforcement or national security, while in practice disregarding head-of-state immunity and the limits of territorial sovereignty. This condition reflects normative fragmentation and the politicization of the application of international law. Regulatory weaknesses are evident in the absence of a comprehensive international instrument governing the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction over senior state officials, weak enforcement mechanisms for violations of the non-intervention principle, and the lack of effective sanctions outside international judicial fora. This research employs a normative legal method, using approaches grounded in international legal instruments, conceptual analysis, and jurisprudential review, including the Arrest Warrant decision (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, 2002). The findings confirm that cross-border law enforcement through coercive measures without the consent of the territorial state or a mandate from the UN Security Council is inconsistent with state sovereignty and the prohibition of the use of force. Therefore, international legal norms should be strengthened through multilateral instruments and lawful accountability mechanisms to safeguard the supremacy of international law.
Perlindungan Hukum Pelaku Usaha terhadap Ulasan Digital Menyesatkan: Rekonstruksi Tanggung Jawab Platform di Indonesia Transnasional, Andriana; Marina, Liza; Purwati, Ani
SENTRI: Jurnal Riset Ilmiah Vol. 5 No. 2 (2026): SENTRI : Jurnal Riset Ilmiah, Februari 2026
Publisher : LPPM Institut Pendidikan Nusantara Global

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55681/sentri.v5i2.5861

Abstract

The rapid development of the digital platform economy has transformed consumer decision-making patterns through online reviews as a primary source of information. However, the increasing prevalence of misleading digital reviews, including fake reviews facilitated by automation technologies and generative artificial intelligence, raises significant legal concerns, particularly regarding the protection of business actors. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing the protection of business actors against misleading digital reviews and to evaluate the legal responsibility of digital platforms within Indonesia’s digital economic ecosystem. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory and conceptual approaches through the analysis of regulations related to electronic transactions, consumer protection, and platform liability, complemented by comparative international practices. The findings indicate that the existing national regulatory framework has not comprehensively regulated platform responsibility in moderating digital reviews and has not provided effective legal remedies for business actors. This condition creates an imbalance in legal relations among users, business actors, and platform providers. The study concludes that regulatory reconstruction is necessary through strengthening content moderation obligations, review verification mechanisms, and proportional platform liability to establish a fair and equitable digital economic ecosystem.