cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Bincar Nasution
Contact Email
info@ipinternasional.com
Phone
+6285360415005
Journal Mail Official
jsh.jurnal@gmail.com
Editorial Address
Cempaka Street, Number 25, Ujung Padang Village, Padang Sidempuan Selatan District, Padang Sidempuan City, North Sumatra Province, Indonesia, 22725 e-Mail: jsh.jurnal@gmail.com
Location
Kota padangsidimpuan,
Sumatera utara
INDONESIA
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH)
Published by PT Inovasi Pratama Internasional
ISSN : -     EISSN : 2961841X     DOI : https://doi.org/10.55299/jsh
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) E-ISSN. 2961-841X is a Legal science journal issued by Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd. The Editorial Board only accepts research and discussion in the field of law which is already in the form of journal articles to be considered for publication. The focus of this journal are Law with the fields of Criminal Law, Civil Law, International Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Islamic Law, Economic Law, Medical Law, Customary Law, Environmental Law and other parts related to contemporary issues in law.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 209 Documents
 17   18   19   20   21 
Reconstruction of The Principle of Proportionality In The Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Weapons Systems Based on International Humanitarian Law Yusty Foxdey Rahawarin
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 2 (2027): October-January
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i2.2100

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) in weapons systems has transformed the decision-making process in armed conflict, particularly in the stages of target identification, target verification, estimation of losses to civilians, and the use of force. These changes raise questions about the application of the principle of proportionality in International Humanitarian Law, which essentially requires an assessment of the anticipated incidental losses to civilians and civilian objects against concrete and direct military advantages. This study aims to analyze the legal construction of the principle of proportionality in the use of AI-based weapons systems, identify the problems of its application, and formulate a reconstruction of the principle of proportionality that can guarantee humanitarian protection amidst the development of modern weapons technology. This study employs normative legal research methods combining legislative, conceptual, and case approaches. The research results show that the principle of proportionality remains applicable to the use of artificial intelligence-based weapons systems through various provisions of International Humanitarian Law, including Article 36, Article 51 paragraph (5) letter b, and Article 57 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. The applicable legal construction still faces limitations in providing operational parameters for decision-making algorithms, system uncertainty, automation bias, opacity, dynamic changes in situations, and the limits of human control in the proportionality assessment process. This research offers a Dynamic Human-Controlled Proportionality Model that puts human legal judgment, explainable decision-making, dynamic reassessment, uncertainty-based civilian protection, and traceable human responsibility as the key elements of reconstructing the principle of proportionality in the use of artificial intelligence-based weapons systems.
Restorative Justice Approach in Juvenile Criminal Cases: Legal Implementation and Challenges in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System Ica Karina; Suhendar; Sopian; Rabith Madah Khulaili Harsya
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 2 (2027): October-January
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i2.2105

Abstract

This article examines the implementation of the restorative justice approach in juvenile criminal cases within the Indonesian criminal justice system, with a specific focus on diversion as mandated by Law No. 11 of 2012 on the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (Undang-Undang Sistem Peradilan Pidana Anak/UU SPPA). Indonesia has formally adopted restorative justice as a guiding principle in handling children in conflict with the law, emphasizing the best interests of the child, rehabilitation, and social reintegration rather than retribution. Despite this strong normative framework, empirical evidence shows a persistent gap between legal ideals and practice, including low diversion rates at the national level and significant regional disparities. Using a qualitative research design based on doctrinal analysis and literature review, this study explores the legal basis of restorative justice, its operationalization through diversion at the stages of investigation, prosecution, and trial, and the multi-dimensional challenges that hinder its effective application. The findings indicate that legal, institutional, and socio-cultural obstacles—such as regulatory disharmony, limited institutional capacity, insufficient training of law enforcement officials, and a prevailing punitive legal culture—constrain the realization of restorative justice. The article concludes by offering recommendations to strengthen regulatory coherence, build capacity for restorative mediation, and promote a child-rights oriented legal culture as prerequisites for optimizing restorative justice in juvenile cases
Resolution of Business Disputes and Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia: Barriers and Solutions Martono Anggusti
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024): October-January
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v2i2.2107

Abstract

International commercial arbitration has become the preferred mechanism for resolving cross-border business disputes due to its neutrality, procedural flexibility, and the near-global enforceability of arbitral awards under the 1958 New York Convention. Indonesia, as a contracting state, has regulated the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards through Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Nevertheless, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia remains inconsistent and often unpredictable. Indonesian courts have denied recognition and enforcement on broad and undefined public policy grounds, procedural technicalities, and restrictive reciprocity requirements. This study aims to identify the main legal, institutional, and practical barriers to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Indonesia and to propose comprehensive solutions. Using a normative qualitative research method with statutory, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches, this article analyzes primary and secondary legal materials. The findings reveal that the key obstacles include the ambiguous public policy doctrine, the centralized exequatur procedure at the Central Jakarta District Court, limited judicial specialization in international arbitration, and an outdated legislative framework that is not fully aligned with international standards. The article argues that Indonesia needs to amend its arbitration law, restrict public policy defenses to international standards, simplify enforcement procedures, establish specialized commercial courts, and enhance judicial training. These reforms are essential to improve Indonesia’s investment climate and its credibility as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction.
Corporate Legal Responsibility for Carbon Emission Disclosure and Environmental Litigation Risk in the Green Economy Era Martono Anggusti
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): October-January
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v3i2.2108

Abstract

Climate change has transformed corporate environmental responsibility from a voluntary corporate social responsibility practice into an increasingly enforceable legal and governance obligation. This article examines corporate legal responsibility for carbon emission disclosure and the associated environmental litigation risk in Indonesia’s green economy transition. Using normative qualitative legal research, it analyzes statutory and regulatory frameworks, including Law No. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, Law No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies, Law No. 16 of 2016 on the Paris Agreement, Law No. 7 of 2021 on Harmonization of Tax Regulations, Presidential Regulation No. 98 of 2021 on Carbon Economic Value, and OJK sustainable finance regulations. The findings reveal that although Indonesia has established a fragmented but expanding legal basis for carbon disclosure and carbon pricing, the absence of uniform mandatory verification standards creates legal uncertainty. Corporations face administrative, civil, and criminal liability, as well as climate-related litigation for non-disclosure, inaccurate disclosure, or greenwashing. Board members may be personally liable under corporate fiduciary duties. The article recommends integrating carbon disclosure into binding corporate reporting standards, strengthening third-party assurance, clarifying directors’ duties, and developing specialized environmental courts or chambers to manage climate litigation. These reforms are essential to align corporate conduct with Indonesia’s net-zero ambitions and reduce systemic litigation risk in the green economy era.
Implementation of Good Corporate Governance Principles and Business Judgment Rule in State-Owned Enterprises Governance Following the Amendment to the Indonesian State-Owned Enterprises Law of 2025 Martono Anggusti
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): October-January
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v4i2.2109

Abstract

The rapid expansion of the gig economy across Southeast Asia has fundamentally disrupted traditional labor market structures, creating a significant regulatory void in the protection of platform workers. This article presents a comparative legal analysis of labor law enforcement for gig economy workers in Indonesia and Singapore, two nations with distinctly different regulatory approaches. Employing qualitative legal research with a normative-comparative approach, this study examines statutory frameworks, judicial interpretations, and policy instruments in both jurisdictions. The findings reveal a striking regulatory divergence: Singapore has enacted the Platform Workers Act 2024, establishing a sui generis legal category with mandatory Central Provident Fund contributions, work injury compensation, and collective representation rights. In contrast, Indonesia continues to rely on fragmented regulations that relegate platform workers to ambiguous "partnership" status, excluding them from basic labor protections under Law No. 13 of 2003. The study identifies that less than 3.5% of Indonesian gig workers possess employment social security, while Singapore provides comprehensive coverage to approximately 70,000 platform workers. The article argues that Indonesia's regulatory inertia constitutes structural inequality that perpetuates worker vulnerability, and recommends the adoption of a hybrid "third category" legal framework inspired by Singapore's progressive model, while adapting it to Indonesia's unique socio-economic context. Furthermore, the article examines Indonesia's post-amendment governance of state-owned enterprises under Law No. 1 of 2025, which strengthens Good Corporate Governance and Business Judgment Rule protections, though implementation challenges persist. The effectiveness of both regulatory reforms depends significantly on consistent internal controls, transparent metrics, and principled judicial interpretation.
Harmonization of Competition Law and the 2026 Indonesian Standard Industrial Classification (KBLI) Regulation in Supporting the Investment Climate Martono Anggusti
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): June-September
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i1.2110

Abstract

This article examines the normative and institutional disharmony between Indonesia’s competition law, Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, and the 2026 Indonesian Standard Industrial Classification (KBLI) as the primary regulatory taxonomy for business licensing and investment. The 2026 KBLI introduces new industrial codes reflecting digitalization, the green economy, and service-based business models, yet its interface with competition law remains fragmented. Employing a qualitative normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, comparative, and case approaches, this study analyzes primary legal materials, KBLI 2026 documentation, KPPU decisions, and investment regulations. The findings reveal three layers of disharmony: definitional misalignment between KBLI economic activities and competition law market definitions; procedural disconnection between OSS-based licensing and merger or conduct oversight; and institutional overlap among the Ministry of Investment/BKPM, line ministries, and the KPPU. The article proposes a harmonization framework comprising a competition-sensitivity index for KBLI codes, a joint regulatory guideline between BKPM and KPPU, integrated digital notification protocols, and ex ante regulatory impact assessment for new KBLI classifications. Harmonization is argued not only to enhance legal certainty but also to reduce compliance costs, foster fair market entry, and strengthen Indonesia’s investment climate in an increasingly competitive ASEAN economic landscape.
Legal Protection for Notaries in Controversies over Deeds Suspected of Forgery Ida Ayu Mas Sri Patni; I Ketut Kasta Arya Wijaya; I Wayan Kartika Jaya Utama
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 3 (2027): February-May
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i2.2063

Abstract

This study analyzes the forms of legal protection available to Notaries when deeds they draw up are subsequently suspected of containing elements of forgery and determines the legal consequences for such deeds. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through a literature review and analyzed qualitatively using descriptive-analytical and evaluative methods. The findings show that legal protection for Notaries includes preventive protection through the regulation of official powers and duties, the principle of due care, the right of refusal, professional confidentiality, and the approval mechanism of the Notary Honorary Council; and remedial protection through evidentiary proceedings in which the Notary's fault and involvement constitute the basis of liability. Indications of forgery do not automatically eliminate a deed's authenticity. A deed retains its status as an authentic deed when the formal requirements have been fulfilled and the Notary neither knew of nor participated in the forgery. Conversely, a defect in the subjective requirements renders the agreement voidable, whereas a defect in the objective requirements may render it null and void by operation of law. The novelty of this study lies in a tiered test that links the source of the forgery, the Notary's formal compliance, the form of fault, and the type of contractual defect to determine the protection afforded to the Notary and the legal consequences for the deed
Notary Liability for Authentic Deeds after the Expiration of the Term of Office Michael Jose Rizal; Putu Ayu Sriasih Wesna; Anak Agung Istri Agung
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 3 (2027): February-May
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i3.2064

Abstract

Notaries are public officials authorized to draw up authentic deeds with conclusive evidentiary force. However, the expiration of a notary's term of office raises questions concerning the continuing liability for deeds that are subsequently found to be legally defective. This study analyzes the legal requirements and procedures for drawing up authentic deeds and develops a framework for notarial liability after the notary has left office. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials were collected through library research and analyzed using systematic, comparative and forward-looking interpretation, content analysis, and deductive reasoning. The findings show that the authenticity of a deed depends on the fulfillment of requirements concerning the official's authority, the prescribed form and procedure, the legal capacity of the appearing parties, witnesses, reading aloud, and signing, as stipulated in the Notary Office Law. Depending on the nature of the defect, non-compliance may downgrade the deed's evidentiary force, render it voidable, or make it null and void by operation of law. The expiration of the term of office does not extinguish liability for deeds drawn up while the notary was in office. Liability must be based on fault, loss, causation, and the nature of the violation, and may take civil, criminal, administrative, or ethical forms according to the character of the conduct. Strengthening audits of notarial protocols before their handover is necessary to prevent disputes arising after the notary has left office.
Authenticity of the Cooperation Agreement Deed between PT Pertamina Patra Niaga and Fuel Distribution Agents Prasetyo Ramanda; I Nyoman Putu Budiartha; I Wayan Kartika Jaya Utama
Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH) Vol. 5 No. 3 (2027): February-May
Publisher : Inovasi Pratama Internasional. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55299/jsh.v5i3.2065

Abstract

The cooperation agreement deed between PT Pertamina Patra Niaga and Fuel Distribution Agents is a legal instrument that intersects the legal regimes governing contracts, notarial practice, and downstream oil and gas business activities. This study aims to analyze the legal force of deeds drafted as standard-form contracts and the legal protection available to the parties in the event of breach of contract. The study employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and limited case approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through library research and analyzed descriptively, systematically, interpretively, and prescriptively. The findings demonstrate that the legal force of a deed is determined not only by compliance with the formal requirements of an authentic deed and the validity requirements of a contract, but also by the substantive quality of its clauses, the balance of rights and obligations, good faith, and conformity with downstream oil and gas regulations. Preventive protection is provided through verification of the parties’ authority, the formulation of clear and proportionate clauses, and the application of notarial prudence, whereas repressive protection may be pursued through specific performance, damages, termination, arbitration, or litigation. The novelty of this study lies in its proposed ideal deed construction, which integrates formal, substantive, and sectoral dimensions.

Page 21 of 21 | Total Record : 209

 17   18   19   20   21 

Filter by Year

2022 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 5 No. 3 (2027): February-May Vol. 5 No. 2 (2027): October-January Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): June-September Vol. 4 No. 3 (2026): February-May Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): October-January Vol. 4 No. 1 (2025): June-September Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): February-May Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): October-January Vol. 3 No. 1 (2024): June-September Vol. 2 No. 3 (2024): February-May Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024): October-January Vol. 2 No. 1 (2023): June-September Vol. 1 No. 3 (2023): February-May Vol. 1 No. 2 (2023): October-January Vol. 1 No. 1 (2022): September (First Release) More Issue