Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Exploring The Legal Subjectivity of Artificial Intelligence in Incitement to Suicide Zhaoxun, Cao; Rajamanickam , Ramalinggam; Dahlan, Nur Khalidah
Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan Vol. 12 No. 1: April 2024: Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan
Publisher : Magister of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Mataram

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29303/ius.v12i1.1369

The development of conversational artificial intelligence (AI) has not only brought about technological innovations but has also given rise to legal issues. The phenomenon of AI-induced suicide highlights the multifaceted legislative demands within the criminal domain for AI. In-depth research into the issues of suitability concerning suicide victims, AI, and regulatory entities becomes particularly necessary. Through literature analysis and comparative legal analysis, this article aims to provide theoretical support for the legal delineation of liability in the context of AI incitement to suicide. Specifically, this article conducts a thorough investigation and comprehensive analysis of relevant legal literature both in China and internationally. The objective is to clarify the legal positions and real challenges surrounding the issue of AI incitement to suicide. Consequently, this article explores whether AI should be considered a legal subject and how, in different contexts, suicide victims and AI regulatory entities should share corresponding responsibilities. As for the findings, AI should not be regarded as an independent legal subject. Based on the theories of victim self-entrapment risk and omission in criminal law, in various situations, suicide victims or AI regulatory entities should bear corresponding responsibilities for the events of incitement to suicide. By delving into the legal liability issues of AI in incitement to suicide, this article provides a theoretical basis for comprehensive AI legislation in the future, demonstrating theoretical innovation. Furthermore, the exploration of criminal legal regulation contributes to the construction of a more comprehensive and rational legal framework for AI.

Academic Misconduct Responsibilities: An Empirical Comparison Using 35 Chinese Cases as a Foundation Cao, Wenze; Cao, Zhaoxun; Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam; Dahlan, Nur Khalidah
Hasanuddin Law Review VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1, APRIL 2025
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20956/halrev.v11i1.5696

This article undertakes a comprehensive exploration of academic misconduct by employing a robust comparative and empirical approach. It meticulously examines 35 representative cases from China, delving into the diverse manifestations of academic misconduct such as fund project evaluation interference, fraud, paper trading, improper authorship, and multiple submissions. Through in-depth legal analysis, it not only investigates the infringements on intellectual property rights and public legal interests but also proposes the application of strict liability in tort law. To enhance the regulatory framework, the article advocates for clearer criminalization criteria for severe academic misconduct. It further extends the discussion to incorporate the roles of academic institutions, the challenges in enforcement, and a more expansive legal framework. By drawing on international experiences and best practices, it formulates comprehensive and actionable suggestions for reforming China's academic misconduct regulations, aiming to address this issue effectively on both national and international levels.

Academic Misconduct Responsibilities: An Empirical Comparison Using 35 Chinese Cases as a Foundation Cao, Wenze; Cao, Zhaoxun; Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam; Dahlan, Nur Khalidah
Hasanuddin Law Review VOLUME 11 ISSUE 1, APRIL 2025
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Hasanuddin University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.20956/halrev.v11i1.5696

This article undertakes a comprehensive exploration of academic misconduct by employing a robust comparative and empirical approach. It meticulously examines 35 representative cases from China, delving into the diverse manifestations of academic misconduct such as fund project evaluation interference, fraud, paper trading, improper authorship, and multiple submissions. Through in-depth legal analysis, it not only investigates the infringements on intellectual property rights and public legal interests but also proposes the application of strict liability in tort law. To enhance the regulatory framework, the article advocates for clearer criminalization criteria for severe academic misconduct. It further extends the discussion to incorporate the roles of academic institutions, the challenges in enforcement, and a more expansive legal framework. By drawing on international experiences and best practices, it formulates comprehensive and actionable suggestions for reforming China's academic misconduct regulations, aiming to address this issue effectively on both national and international levels.

A Comparative Study of Electronic Commerce ODR: Legal Challenges and Reform Perspectives in China and Indonesia Xiangbin, Zuo; Dahlan, Nur Khalidah; Ahamat, Haniff
Journal of Law and Legal Reform Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026): January, 2026
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jllr.v7i1.32326

This article examines the differentiated development paths of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) systems in China and Indonesia, two core digital economies in ASEAN. China has established a centralized ODR framework through its “E-commerce Law,” which strengthens the enforcement of awards via a judicial coordination model. However, the exclusion of ad hoc arbitration in the “Arbitration Law” limits the effectiveness of platform autonomous awards (internal platform rulings). In contrast, Indonesia relies on platform autonomy, with platforms such as Tokopedia handling disputes. However, enforcement issues for mediation agreements arise from the absence of central legislation, fragmentation of jurisdiction across islands, and the failure of the Arbitration Law to recognize temporary arbitration (ad hoc arbitration). Shared challenges faced by both countries include barriers to mutual recognition of cross-border rulings, lack of technical standards, and privacy protection conflicts due to data localization policies. This article provides several policy recommendations: China should amend the Arbitration Law to recognize the validity of temporary arbitration and establish a national ODR data center to streamline the judicial confirmation process. Indonesia needs to quickly set up a central judicial certification center to make sure that all of its outer islands follow the same rules. This can be done by changing the E-commerce Law and the Arbitration Law. At the regional level, ASEAN should learn from the EU’s ODR platform by creating a system that recognizes certain cross-border rulings and setting up a data exchange center that balances Indonesia’s data storage needs with Singapore’s rules for sharing data across borders. The results supplement to legal reform scholarship by offering practical solutions for integrating ODR systems and harmonizing cross-border dispute resolution across ASEAN, fostering a dynamic adaptation of technical justice to legal authority in the digital age.

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 4 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 4 Documents
Search