cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Dr. Patricia Rinwigati Waagstein
Contact Email
ilrev@ui.ac.id
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
ilrev@ui.ac.id
Editorial Address
DRC Office Building F 3rd Floor, Faculty of Law University of Indonesia, Depok - 16424
Location
Kota depok,
Jawa barat
INDONESIA
Indonesia Law Review (ILREV)
Published by Universitas Indonesia
ISSN : 20888430     EISSN : 23562129     DOI : 10.15742/ilrev
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Indonesia Law Review (ILREV) is an open access, double-blind peer-reviewed law journal. It was first published by the Djokosoetono Research Center (DRC) in 2011 to address the lack of scholarly literatures on Indonesian law accessible in English for an international audience. ILREV focuses on recent developments of legal scholarship, covering legal reform and development, contemporary societal issues, as well as institutional change in Indonesia. Realizing the global challenges and ever-increasing legal interaction among developing countries, ILREV also welcomes articles on legal development in the ASEAN region and the larger Global South. By that token, it aims to provide a platform for academic dialogue and exchanges of ideas between scholars and professionals, especially from the Global South. As such, ILREV encourages comparative, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and other approaches to law which can enrich the development of legal scholarship not only in Indonesia but also the Global South as a whole.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 12, No. 3" : 5 Documents clear
THE CONCEPT OF “ELDERLY CITIZENS” IN THE INDONESIAN CONSTITUTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS Hertanto, Ari Wahyudi; Arinanto, Satya; Rizal, Jufrina
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Human existence is the most important element of the law and the state. They contribute greatly to the growth and development of a nation. Despite their great contribution, all human beings will experience a gradual decrease in their physical and psychological capacity due to ageing. According to the latest Central Statistics Agency report, there exists 29.3 million elderly citizens in Indonesia. This figure is equivalent to 10.82% of the total population. To anticipate this demographic condition, the government ought to ensure the welfare of its elderly citizens in accordance with the mandate of the 1945 Constitution. However, the 1945 Constitution does not specifically regulate the term “elderly citizen”. Human beings who are considered as legal subjects under the 1945 Constitution are simply referred to as “citizen.” The term “elderly citizen” can only be found under Law Number 13 of 1998 concerning the Welfare of Elderly Citizens. Although the law is intended to provide sufficient social and legal protection to elderly citizens, it has not yet to grasp the essence of elderly citizen as an overall legal subject. This is indicated by the use of the term “Potential Elderly Citizen” and “Non-Potential Elderly Citizen” in its provisions. Therefore, a more in-depth legal study regarding human beings (elderly citizens) as an overall legal subjects is required. This article tries to answer how elderly citizens are viewed theoretically as legal subjects, how the 1945 Constitution regulates elderly citizens as overall legal subjects, and how the concept of elderly citizens is critically interpreted as a form of reorientation.
GENDER INEQUALITY AGAINST WOMEN FISHERS IN INDONESIA Purwanti, Ani; Wijaningsih, Dyah; Mahfud, Muh. Afif; Natalis, Aga
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This study explores whether or not Law No. 7 of 2016 for the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Cultivators, and Salt Farmers discriminates against women. This law supports small fishermen since it requires the government to provide them with financial stability through harvest season output guarantees. On the other hand, we discovered that Law No. 7 of 2016, about the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Cultivators, and Salt Farmers, has discriminatory consequences damaging the welfare of female fishermen. Because of sociological and cultural bias, female fishermen are the most neglected segment in the fishing sector. This is in comparison to other individuals employed in the fishing industry. The Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Cultivators, and Salt Farmers Act of 2016 do not recognise or compel affirmative action for women fishermen to have equal access to protection and empowerment programmes. Because the law seeks to protect and empower fishermen, fish farmers, and salt producers, this is the case. This makes it exceedingly challenging for female fishermen, who are already socially expected to remain at home and away from the fishing industry. This type of research is qualitative and collects data using a socio-legal methodology. This approach blends legal research with other types of research, including language and contextual research. People feel that patriarchal societies significantly impact the research topic, despite the fact that this is not a legal issue. The results of this study indicate that Law No. 7 of 2016, Concerning the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Cultivators, and Salt Farmers, Does Not Adequately Regulate the Fulfillment of the Rights of Women Fishermen. This is because the law only addresses the topic of empowerment and does not address the aspect of protection. Because Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Service employees consider fishermen to be ship owners and crews, women in Kendal Regency, who are equivalent to men in the fishermen's insurance plan, are not eligible for fishermen's insurance and hence cannot obtain it.
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY ON THE INTERVENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN INDONESIA COMPARED TO DEVELOPED COUNTRIES Agus, Mochammad Arief; Alamsyah, Andi Muhammad Irvan
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Practical improvements in the national institution context brought numerous changes regarding interactions between The Constitutional Court & The legislature including contemporary polemics. The check and balances framework is important to be noticed related to the Judge’s Independence. Aswanto’s recall as one of the Judges of the Indonesian Constitutional Court encourages us to elaborate more about the essence of independence. At the same time, checks and balances should stand out. What is the legal standing of any actions taken by the parliament to the constitutional court? How do developed countries practice the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary? The answer should be clearly explained in front of the public. To answer those questions, comparative studies were also conducted on particular advanced developed countries concerning any relationship or interventions of the legislature to the Constitutional Court or any other highest level of judicial power. The existing method is normative-juridical, a research conducted by examining various formal legal rules, using secondary data obtained through document studies or literature studies and sharpen with comparative approaches. Nevertheless, the final conclusion shows that several forms of legislative interventions are legal in Indonesia. In the context of the relationship between the legislature and the constitutional courts, the independency of Constitutional Court Justices is strictly protected among developed countries in various aspects. Those aspects are concluded as important factors that represent the image of the relationship between the house and the constitutional court. It will enhance our perspective to overview similar constraints in the future
ANALYSIS OF DISCRIMINATORY MEASURES FROM EUROPEAN UNION RENEWABLE ENERGY DIRECTIVE II TO INDONESIA AS A PALM OIL PRODUCER COUNTRY Sihotang, Enrico Denis
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

On 21 December 2018, the European Union (EU) issued a regulation titled Renewable Energy Directive II (RED II), where the RED II policy introduced the indirect land use change (ILUC) criteria for palm oil. RED II states that palm oil is classified as a commodity with a “ high ILUC risk” type, and as such, the EU will gradually reduce palm oil consumption and no longer use palm oil by 2030. Indonesia brought this issue to WTO in 2020. Indonesia, through its consultation, argued that the RED II is inconsistent with the few provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994, particularly under the National Treatment obligation. Indonesia argued that the measures derived from the RED II policy might cause discrimination against palm oil-based biofuel, considering RED II classifies palm oil as a high ILUC-risk commodity. Such discrimination occurs by gradually reducing the use of palm oil as a material for biofuels until it reaches zero percent by 2030. Further, Indonesia assumed that the RED II policy prioritizes other vegetarian oil produced in the EU countries, such as sunflower and rapeseed. This paper will analyze whether the RED II policy may be considered discriminative measures by the EU to palm oil producer countries under WTO regulations. Hence, such RED II policy is likely inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 regarding National Treatment
LIABILITY RULE PRACTICES AMIDST THE PROPERTY RULE OF INDONESIAN CAPITAL MARKET Adiwarman, Adiwarman
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Shareholder protection is the most important legal issue in capital market law. Conflict of interest is one of the corporate actions in the capital market. The property rule requires independent shareholders’ approval for conflicts of interest transactions. The property rule paradigm empowers independent shareholders in the company’s decision-making process. In practice, listed companies violate the property rule and are subject to sanctions, but the rights of shareholders will be reduced due to fines imposed by the capital market authorities. A normative method is used to answer the problem of how does Indonesia enforce the conflict of interest rule in order to protect the independent shareholders? OJK enforces the law and on violations of conflicts of interest transactions. In this perspective, the liability rule principle emerges to execute the conflict of interest transaction. Recommendations from the results of this study: 1) OJK strictly asks the listed company previously to have approval from independent shareholders for conflict of interest transactions. If it does not harm the listed company, then OJK exposes administrative sanctions without a fine. For the repetitive conflict of interest transactions, OJK can give administrative sanctions with a fine to the listed company. 2) If a conflict of interest causes a loss, then OJK does not stop at enforcing the conflict of interest transactions rule, but should also include the implementation of the liability rule and compensation to shareholders. 3) The fairness of conflict of interest transactions is the determinant of the validity of the transaction. Profit and loss analysis and market price can be applied to assess the fairness of the conflict of interest transaction. 4) The Court becomes a forum to determine the value of compensation for detrimental conflicts of interest transactions.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2022 2023


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 15, No. 2 Vol. 15, No. 1 Vol. 14, No. 4 Vol. 14, No. 3 Vol. 14, No. 2 Vol. 14, No. 1 Vol. 13, No. 3 Vol. 13, No. 2 Vol. 13, No. 1 Vol. 12, No. 3 Vol. 12, No. 2 Vol. 12, No. 1 Vol. 11, No. 3 Vol. 11, No. 2 Vol. 11, No. 1 Vol. 10, No. 3 Vol. 10, No. 2 Vol. 10, No. 1 Vol. 9, No. 3 Vol. 9, No. 2 Vol. 9, No. 1 Vol. 8, No. 3 Vol. 8, No. 2 Vol. 8, No. 1 Vol. 7, No. 3 Vol. 7, No. 2 Vol. 7, No. 1 Vol. 6, No. 3 Vol. 6, No. 2 Vol. 6, No. 1 Vol. 5, No. 3 Vol. 5, No. 2 Vol. 5, No. 1 Vol. 4, No. 3 Vol. 4, No. 2 Vol. 4, No. 1 Vol. 3, No. 3 Vol. 3, No. 2 Vol. 3, No. 1 Vol. 2, No. 3 Vol. 2, No. 2 Vol. 2, No. 1 Vol. 1, No. 3 Vol. 1, No. 2 Vol. 1, No. 1 More Issue