cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Winsherly Tan
Contact Email
winsherly@uib.ac.id
Phone
+6281277621673
Journal Mail Official
winsherly@uib.ac.id
Editorial Address
Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Jl. Gajah Mada, Baloi - Sei Ladi, Batam, Indonesia, 29442
Location
Kota batam,
Kepulauan riau
INDONESIA
Journal of Judicial Review
Published by Universitas Internasional Batam
ISSN : 19076479     EISSN : 27745414     DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v22i2
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
JJR is a journal which aim to publish the manuscripts of high-quality research as well as conceptual analysis that studies in any fields of Law. Articles submitted to this journal discuss contemporary legal discourses in the light of theoretical, doctrinal, multidisciplinary, empirical, and comparative studies. The scope of the paper submissions includes constitutional and administrative law, corporate law, business law, criminal justice, adat law, Islamic law, law and society, international law, international economic law, human rights law, and intellectual property law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 313 Documents
 28   29   30   31   32 
Legal Review of the Implementation of the Regulatory Sandbox by the Financial Services Authority: A Case Study of GORO Antonius Tampubolon; Nurlaily Nurlaily; Lu Sudirman
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12376

Abstract

Technological innovation in the financial services sector necessitates a legal framework that is adaptive while ensuring legal certainty and consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan/OJK) has introduced the regulatory sandbox mechanism as a controlled testing environment for financial innovations prior to full licensing. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing the regulatory sandbox in Indonesian positive law, its implementation, and the legal gaps that arise. The research employs a normative juridical method with statutory and case approaches, relying on secondary data sources. The findings indicate that regulatory strengthening through OJK Regulation Number 3 of 2024 has enhanced supervisory functions and improved consumer protection standards. However, significant legal gaps remain, including the unclear legal status of participants during the testing phase, overlapping institutional authority, and the absence of standardized technological security measures. These gaps have implications for weakened legal certainty and increased risks to consumers. Therefore, regulatory harmonization and stronger inter-institutional coordination are required to ensure that the regulatory sandbox effectively supports secure and sustainable digital financial innovation.
Benefit Sharing as a Legal Protection Mechanism for Traditional Cultural Expressions: A Comparative Study of Indonesia and Malaysia under International Law Susanti Susanti; Hari Sutra Disemadi; Elza Syarief
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12412

Abstract

This study examines the benefit-sharing mechanism as an instrument for the protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) from the perspective of international law through a comparative analysis between Indonesia and Malaysia. TCEs constitute part of intangible cultural heritage that embodies economic, social, spiritual, and collective identity values of indigenous communities, yet they remain vulnerable to exploitation and misappropriation without fair distribution of benefits to their rightful custodians. This research aims to analyze the regulation of benefit sharing concerning TCEs in Indonesia and Malaysia, assess its conformity with principles of international law, and formulate an ideal regulatory model for TCE protection. The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The legal materials consist of international instruments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol, UNDRIP, and WIPO-IGC documents, as well as national regulations of Indonesia and Malaysia concerning cultural protection and communal intellectual property rights. The findings indicate that both Indonesia and Malaysia have provided normative recognition of TCEs; however, benefit-sharing arrangements remain partial and lack operational mechanisms. Indonesia emphasizes cultural preservation and recognition of indigenous communities, while Malaysia adopts a more pragmatic approach through specific regulatory initiatives and cultural commercialization. Nevertheless, both countries have not fully implemented the principles of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) and Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as developed under international law. This study proposes a responsive law-based benefit-sharing model that positions indigenous communities as the primary legal subjects through meaningful participation, recognition of collective rights, transparency, and equitable and sustainable distribution of benefits.
Analysis of Contractual Imbalance in the Cooperation Agreement Between BPJS Kesehatan and Community Health Centers Nicko Krishna Pramudya
Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026
Publisher : Universitas Internasional Batam

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.37253/jjr.v28i1.12510

Abstract

The National Health Insurance (JKN) program, administered by BPJS Kesehatan, is implemented through cooperation with Community Health Centers (Puskesmas) as Primary Healthcare Facilities. This cooperation is formalized through a Cooperation Agreement, which is normatively intended to ensure the equitable and comprehensive delivery of healthcare services. However, in practice, the PKS between BPJS Kesehatan and Puskesmas demonstrates contractual imbalance, primarily due to the use of standard form contracts unilaterally determined by BPJS Kesehatan. This study aims to analyze the structure and substance of the PKS and to assess its conformity with the principles of justice and proportionality under Indonesian contract law. The research employs an empirical juridical method with a sociological approach, utilizing primary data obtained through interviews and cooperation agreement documents, as well as secondary data derived from statutory regulations and legal literature. The findings reveal that although the PKS satisfies the legal requirements for a valid agreement under Article 1320 of the Indonesian Civil Code, its substantive provisions do not adequately reflect a balanced allocation of rights and obligations between the parties. The dominant position of BPJS Kesehatan in determining contractual clauses, financing mechanisms, and administrative sanctions places Puskesmas in a weaker bargaining position, thereby affecting the implementation of healthcare services. Therefore, a reformulation of the cooperation agreement model is necessary to establish a more equitable, participatory, and sustainable contractual framework that supports the achievement of the objectives of the National Health Insurance (JKN) program.

Page 32 of 32 | Total Record : 313

 28   29   30   31   32 

Filter by Year

2007 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 (Articles in Press) Vol. 28 No. 1 (2026): June 2026 Vol. 27 No. 2 (2025): December 2025 Vol. 27 No. 1 (2025): June 2025 Vol. 26 No. 2 (2024): December 2024 Vol. 26 No. 1 (2024): June 2024 Vol. 25 No. 2 (2023): December 2023 Vol 25 No 1 (2023): June 2023 Vol. 25 No. 1 (2023): June 2023 Vol. 24 No. 2 (2022): December 2022 Vol 24 No 2 (2022): December 2022 Vol 24 No 1 (2022): June 2022 Vol. 24 No. 1 (2022): June 2022 Vol. 23 No. 2 (2021): December 2021 Vol 23 No 2 (2021): December 2021 Vol 23 No 1 (2021) Vol 22 No 2 (2020) Vol 22 No 1 (2020) Vol 21 No 2 (2019) Vol 21 No 1 (2019) Vol 20 No 2 (2018) Vol 20 No 1 (2018) Vol 19 No 2 (2017) Vol 19 No 1 (2017) Vol 18 No 2 (2016) Vol 18 No 1 (2016) Vol 17 No 2 (2015) Vol 17 No 1 (2015) Vol 16 No 2 (2014) Vol 16 No 1 (2014) Vol. 15 No. 1 (2013): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 14 No. 1 (2012): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 13 No. 1 (2011): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 12 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 11 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 10 No. 1 (2010): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 9 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 8 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2009): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 6 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 5 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 4 No. 1 (2008): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 3 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 2 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review Vol. 1 No. 1 (2007): Journal of Judicial Review More Issue