cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
-
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
pasca@usm.ac.id
Editorial Address
Pasca Sarjana Program Studi Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang (USM) Jl Soekarno Hatta Tlogosari Semarang
Location
Kota semarang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Jurnal Ius Constituendum
Published by Universitas Semarang
ISSN : 25412345     EISSN : 25808842     DOI : 10.26623
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Journal Ius Constituendum a scientific journal that includes research, court decisions and assessment/comprehensive legal discourse both by researchers and society in general to emphasize the results in an effort to formulate new rules of the new in the field of the legal studies in accordance with the character of ius constituendum. Journal Ius Constituendum periodic journal published twice a year in April and October, has been indexed SINTA 3 (Accredited by the Directorate General of Research And Development of the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education of the Republic of Indonesia Number 36/E/ KPT/2019). Registered as a member of Crossref system with Digital Object Identifier (DOI) prefix 10.26623. All articles will have DOI number.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 245 Documents
 21   22   23   24   25 
Interpreting Deception under Indonesian Arbitration Law: Balancing Finality and Legal Certainty Tomy Alexander; Pujiyono Pujiyono; Irma Cahyaningtyas
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v11i3.14405

Abstract

This study presents an overview and analysis of the ideal interpretation of "deception" as a basis for annulling arbitral awards. The interpretation of "deception" in Article 70 of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and its application in Indonesian judicial practice, should not be construed narrowly. The central issue examined is the broad interpretation of this term and the lack of uniformity among judges in qualifying acts as trickery for the annulment of arbitral awards. Existing scholarship has not specifically addressed the interpretation of "deception," instead focusing more generally on the annulment of arbitral awards. This research adopts a normative juridical method, employing both statutory and case law approaches. Legal materials include primary sources, such as arbitration statutes and Constitutional Court decisions related to "deception," as well as secondary sources, including books and journals on arbitration. The analysis utilizes deductive and inductive reasoning to develop prescriptive arguments. The findings demonstrate that "deception" functions as an open norm, which in practice is interpreted not only as classical fraud but also as manipulation of facts, manipulation of the trial process, and deviations in the application of law by arbitrators that influence the issuance of arbitral awards. Judicial interpretations of this term are case-specific and lack a uniform standard, resulting in potential legal uncertainty. Although a broad interpretation is necessary to safeguard the integrity of the arbitration process from fraudulent practices, it may also compromise the principle of finality in arbitral awards.
From Normative Recognition to Effective Protection: Reformulating Restitution for Child Victims in Indonesia Sokhib Naim; Wahab Aznul Hidaya; Kristi Warista Simanjuntak; Rajab Lestaluhu; Nurhalisa Nurhalisa
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v11i3.14666

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of restitution for child victims of criminal offenses within Indonesia’s criminal justice system and formulate a restorative justice-based restitution model. Although Indonesian law recognizes restitution as a right of victims, its realization remains problematic due to fragmented regulations, weak inter-agency coordination, reliance on victims’ procedural initiative, and the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. This issue is particularly urgent for child victims of sexual violence, whose vulnerability and long-term physical, psychological, social, and educational impacts require an effective victim-oriented legal protection mechanism. Employing normative legal research, this study uses statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches to examine legislation, legal scholarship, and Judgment No. 247/Pid.Sus/2023/PN Son through qualitative legal reasoning and ratio decidendi analysis. The novelty lies in integrating normative analysis with judicial analysis to identify the relationship between regulatory fragmentation, judicial discretion, institutional weaknesses, and the persistence of a retributive paradigm, while developing an integrated restitution framework. The findings demonstrate that restitution remains predominantly a normative entitlement rather than an effective legal remedy because its implementation depends on victims’ initiative, discretionary judicial consideration, fragmented institutional coordination, and ineffective execution. Accordingly, this study proposes an Integrative Model of a Restitutory System Based on Restorative Justice comprising six stages: identification of losses, LPSK assessment, mandatory prosecutorial filing, mandatory judicial consideration, enforceable execution, and institutional monitoring. The model strengthens institutional responsibility and positions victim recovery as an integral objective of criminal justice.
Reconstructing Cyber Mens Rea Through Electronic Evidence and Algorithmic Accountability Antonius Maria Laot Kian; Rizky Pratama Putra Karo Karo; Selamat Lumban Gaol; Subhan Zein Sgn
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v11i3.14738

Abstract

This study examines how mens rea in Indonesian cybercrime can be established through electronic evidence and algorithmic analysis, focusing on the legal standards governing the transition from digital traces to proof of criminal intent. Using normative legal research with statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches, the study analyses Indonesian criminal evidence law and the ratio decidendi of Tangerang District Court Decision No. 1240/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Tng (Indra Kenz), with reference to comparative developments in other jurisdictions. The findings demonstrate that Indonesian law recognizes the legality and authenticity of electronic evidence but does not yet provide sufficiently specific standards for evaluating the inferential validity and evidentiary weight of technical or algorithmic outputs in establishing mens rea. The Indra Kenz decision shows that intent is reconstructed cumulatively from digital content, electronic communications, account activity, financial transactions, and analytical reports, creating a potential conflation between factual digital evidence, technical inference, and legal judgment. The novelty of this study lies in developing a three-layer cyber mens rea framework that integrates criminal-law doctrine with agentic computational law and algorithmic accountability: digital facts must satisfy legality, authenticity, integrity, and relevance; technical or algorithmic inferences must be transparent, explainable, auditable, and contestable; and the final determination of mens rea must remain with the judge based on the totality of admissible evidence. The framework provides a normative basis for regulating algorithmic evidence while safeguarding the presumption of innocence, due process, and meaningful human control over criminal responsibility.
Juvenile Criminal Responsibility in Al-Mughni: A Hanbali Perspective on Graduated Liability Bambang Sukoco; Dimas Amril Firmansyah; Dewi Eko Wati
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v11i3.15354

Abstract

This study examines the basis and gradation of juvenile criminal responsibility in Islamic criminal law through Ibn Qudamah’s Al-Mughni, particularly in relation to the tension between child protection and accountability for serious offenses. Using normative legal research, the study employs statutory and conceptual approaches to conduct a doctrinal and textual analysis of Al-Mughni, the Qur’an and Hadith, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Indonesia’s Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law, with particular attention to qisas, hadd for theft, and diyat within the aqilah mechanism. The findings demonstrate that criminal responsibility in Al-Mughni is determined not merely by the prohibited act or chronological age, but by legal capacity (ahliyyah), discernment (tamyiz), and maturity. Children lacking full legal capacity are exempt from qisas and hadd, while their conduct may generate compensatory consequences through diyat and educative responses such as ta’dib for those possessing discernment. The novelty of this study lies in identifying a doctrinal model of graduated juvenile responsibility in Al-Mughni that separates punitive liability from compensatory responsibility and calibrates legal consequences according to developmental capacity. This framework provides a conceptual bridge between classical Hanbali jurisprudence and contemporary child-centred justice by integrating child protection, proportionality, rehabilitation, restorative justice, and victim interests.
Gender Bias of Law Enforcement Officials Hendro Widodo; Andhika Yuli Rimbawan; Moh. Nurul Huda; Dzaka Imtiyaz Iqbal; Lutter Ariestino
Jurnal Ius Constituendum Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER
Publisher : Magister Hukum Universitas Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26623/jic.v11i3.15355

Abstract

This study aims to examine and analyze gender disparities in the handling of female victims of domestic violence (DV) within Indonesia’s law enforcement system and to identify the normative factors that contribute to unequal access to justice. The issue is urgent because, despite the protective framework established by UU PKDRT, female victims may continue to encounter patriarchal assumptions, victim-blaming attitudes, and institutional responses that frame DV as a private marital dispute. This study employs normative-juridical legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, with legal materials analyzed descriptively and qualitatively. The findings demonstrate that gender bias among law enforcement officials can influence the assessment of victims’ complaints, the interpretation of repeated violence, the evaluation of evidence, and the prioritization of reconciliation without adequate consideration of victim safety. These practices create a normative implementation gap between the protective objectives of UU PKDRT and its application in practice, potentially allowing escalating patterns of violence to remain inadequately recognized. The novelty of this study lies in conceptualizing gender bias in law enforcement as a normative implementation problem that directly affects the fulfillment of victims’ legal protection, rather than treating gender disparity merely as a social or cultural phenomenon. The study proposes a victim-centered and gender-sensitive enforcement model emphasizing risk assessment, early protection, recognition of recurring violence, and institutional coordination to strengthen substantive justice for female victims.

Page 25 of 25 | Total Record : 245

 21   22   23   24   25 

Filter by Year

2016 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 11 No. 3 (2026): OCTOBER Vol. 11 No. 2 (2026): JUNE Vol. 11 No. 1 (2026): FEBRUARY Vol. 10 No. 3 (2025): OCTOBER Vol. 10 No. 2 (2025): JUNE Vol. 10 No. 1 (2025): FEBRUARY Vol. 9 No. 3 (2024): OCTOBER Vol. 9 No. 2 (2024): JUNE Vol. 9 No. 1 (2024): FEBRUARY Vol. 8 No. 3 (2023): OCTOBER Vol. 8 No. 2 (2023): JUNE Vol. 8 No. 1 (2023): FEBRUARY Vol. 7 No. 2 (2022): OCTOBER Vol. 7 No. 1 (2022): APRIL Vol 7, No 1 (2022): APRIL Vol 6, No 2 (2021): OKTOBER Vol 6, No 1 (2021): APRIL Vol. 5 No. 2 (2020): OCTOBER Vol 5, No 1 (2020): APRIL Vol. 4 No. 2 (2019): OCTOBER Vol 4, No 1 (2019): April Vol. 3 No. 2 (2018): OCTOBER Vol 3, No 1 (2018): April Vol. 3 No. 1 (2018): April Vol. 2 No. 2 (2017): OCTOBER Vol 2, No 1 (2017): April Vol 1, No 2 (2016): Oktober More Issue