cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Muhammad Akib
Contact Email
jurnalpdih@fh.unila.ac.id
Phone
+628127902728
Journal Mail Official
jurnalpdih@fh.unila.ac.idd
Editorial Address
B. Building, Faculty of Law Universitas Lampung. Prof. Sumantri Brojonegoro St. No 1, Gedong Meneng, Bandar Lampung. Lampung-35145. Indonesia
Location
Kota bandar lampung,
Lampung
INDONESIA
Pancasila and Law Review
Published by Universitas Lampung
ISSN : 2723262X     EISSN : 27459306     DOI : https://doi.org/10.25041/plr
Core Subject : Humanities, Social,
Humanities Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences
The Journal of Pancasila and Law Review is published by the Faculty of Lampung, Universitas Lampung as a platform of communication and legal science development. The scope of the Journal of Pancasila and Law Review is the result research or conceptual study of the law, values and meanings contained in Pancasila. Specifically, the Journal of Pancasila Law Review covers on Pancasila in the definition of state, Pancasila as ideology, Pancasila as the source of law, and Pancasila as law values. Nevertheless, the discussion in the Journal of Pancasila and Law Review is not limited towards Pancasila but also embraces other scopes in the law perspective such as foreign policy, international law, constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, and other scopes regarding the law. The Journal of Pancasila and Law Review is published two issues a year. Moreover, the Journal of Pancasila and Law Review is available both print and online. This journal supports research availability, through an open access publication. Therefore, motivation in studies and research are easily acquired which contributes significantly in global knowledge exchange that highlights the Pancasila.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 84 Documents
 5   6   7   8   9 
Deforestation and Violations Against Indigenous People’s Spiritual Rights in Indonesia: an Ecological Perspective Ricco Andreas; Mona Ervita
Pancasila and Law Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/plr.v7i1.5158

Abstract

This article examines the impact of deforestation on the spiritual rights of indigenous peoples in Indonesia through the lens of ecological justice. As one of the world's most biodiverse countries, Indonesia continues to experience deforestation driven by plantation expansion, mining activities, and infrastructure development. These processes have not only degraded forest ecosystems but have also disrupted the spiritual, cultural, and social relationships between indigenous communities and their customary territories. This study addresses two questions: (1) how deforestation affects indigenous peoples within the ecological justice framework, and (2) how state policies protect indigenous spiritual rights in the context of environmental governance. Using a normative legal method, this article analyzes constitutional provisions, environmental legislation, human rights instruments, and legal frameworks concerning indigenous peoples, supported by case studies of the Mutis Indigenous People in East Nusa Tenggara and the Suku Anak Dalam in Jambi. The findings indicate that development policies in Indonesia remain largely oriented toward economic growth and have not adequately integrated the protection of indigenous spiritual rights. Consequently, deforestation continues to threaten sacred sites, customary territories, cultural identity, and traditional livelihoods. This article argues that ecological justice provides an appropriate framework for balancing development, environmental protection, and indigenous rights through the recognition of customary territories, meaningful participation based on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), ecosystem protection, and intergenerational sustainability. The study contributes to the development of environmental law scholarship by positioning indigenous spiritual rights as an integral component of environmental governance and sustainable development in Indonesia.
China Coast Guard’s Water Cannon Use Against Philippine Vessels: UNCLOS Legality and Policy M. Fabian Akbar; Hilmi Fattahuddhiyaa Putra Pramono; Laras Lingganingrum; Arif Reksa Pambudi; Ayesha binti Abul Hisyam
Pancasila and Law Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/plr.v7i1.5207

Abstract

This article examines whether the China Coast Guard's use of water cannons against Philippine vessels in the disputed South China Sea can be justified as a maritime law enforcement measure under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The analysis focuses on three legal issues: the legal status of the maritime area where the incident occurred, China’s jurisdictional basis to conduct law enforcement, and the compliance of water cannon use with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and due regard. This study uses a normative legal research method by analyzing UNCLOS provisions, the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration, and relevant international standards on the use of force in maritime law enforcement. The article argues that the legality of water cannon use cannot be assessed only from its non-lethal character. It must first be determined whether China had lawful jurisdiction over the area and the vessel concerned. If the incident occurred in an area where the Philippines holds sovereign rights under UNCLOS, or where China’s historic rights claim has no legal basis, China’s use of water cannons cannot be justified as lawful maritime enforcement. Such conduct may instead constitute coercive action that interferes with navigational rights, Philippine sovereign rights, and the duty of due regard. The article concludes that the use of water cannons in disputed maritime areas must meet strict requirements of necessity and proportionality, and any excessive or jurisdictionally unsupported use may give rise to international legal responsibility.
Philosophy Positivism Law In Implementation Law In State Of Emergency Fathiya Firdiansyah Putri
Pancasila and Law Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/plr.v7i1.5123

Abstract

This study examines how legal positivism justifies the implementation of law during states of emergency and how constitutionalism limits emergency powers to prevent abuses of authority. Using normative legal research, it analyzes legislation, legal principles, doctrines, theories, and relevant literature concerning the validity of emergency measures within the Indonesian legal system. Legal positivism conceives law as a system of norms enacted and enforced by legitimate authorities, irrespective of moral considerations. Hans Kelsen's theory of hierarchical norms suggests that emergency measures are legally valid only when they derive from higher legal norms and are adopted through prescribed legal procedures. The study finds that legal positivism provides a formal basis for rapid state action during emergencies but is inadequate without constitutional constraints. Accordingly, emergency powers must remain subject to the 1945 Constitution, human rights protections, proportionality, temporal limitations, and checks and balances. The study recommends strengthening Indonesia's emergency law framework through clearer regulations, greater transparency, and more effective constitutional oversight to prevent arbitrary exercises of power during crises.
The Principle of Utmost Good Faith in the Rejection of Life Insurance Claims Based on Pre-Existing Conditions: An Analysis of Medan District Court Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Mdn Wiwin Windiantina Wintarsih; Riksa Arwin Aliasanti
Pancasila and Law Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/plr.v7i1.5557

Abstract

The principle of utmost good faith requires both parties in insurance agreement to disclose all material facts relevant to the insured risk. Disputes often arise when insurers reject life insurance claims based on alleged non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions. This study examines the application of the utmost good faith principle under Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance and analyzes the legal reasoning in Medan District Court Decision No. 743/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Mdn. Using a normative juridical method with statutory and case approaches, the study finds that claim rejection is justified only if the insurer proves that the insured failed to disclose a material fact that affected the underwriting decision. A pre-existing condition alone is insufficient without proof of its materiality, its causal relationship to risk acceptance, and compliance with a professional underwriting process. The study proposes a reconstructed model of the utmost good faith principle based on balanced legal protection, treating disclosure obligations, the burden of proof, and underwriting responsibilities as reciprocal duties of the insurer and the insured. This model advances existing scholarship by providing a more balanced framework for resolving life insurance claim disputes involving pre-existing conditions.

Page 9 of 9 | Total Record : 84

 5   6   7   8   9 

Filter by Year

2020 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026) Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025) Vol. 6 No. 1 (2025) Vol. 5 No. 2 (2024) Vol. 5 No. 1 (2024) Vol 4 No 2 (2023): Issue In Progress (August 2023) Vol 4 No 2 (2023) Vol 4 No 1 (2023) Vol 3 No 2 (2022) Vol 3 No 1 (2022) Vol 2 No 2 (2021) Vol 2 No 1 (2021) Vol 1 No 2 (2020) Vol 1 No 1 (2020) More Issue