cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Novianita Rulandari
Contact Email
journal@idscipub.com
Phone
+6285218596868
Journal Mail Official
journal@idscipub.com
Editorial Address
Gondangdia Lama Building 25, RP. Soeroso Street No.25, Jakarta, Indonesia, 10330
Location
Kota adm. jakarta pusat,
Dki jakarta
INDONESIA
Legalis : Journal of Law Review
Published by PT Penerbit Ilmiah Indonesia
ISSN : -     EISSN : 30308658     DOI : https://doi.org/10.61978/legalis
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Legalis : Journal of Law Review with ISSN Number 3030-8658 (Online) published by Indonesian Scientific Publication, published original scholarly papers across the whole spectrum of law. The journal attempts to assist in the understanding of the present and potential ability law review.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025" : 5 Documents clear
The Role of Justice Law Enforcement By Judges In Handling Criminal Cases Sari, Nani Widya; Yanto, Oksidelfa; Widodo, Guntarto; Rejeki , Henlia Peristiwi; Ramadan, Tubagus Ahmad
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i2.515

Abstract

Law enforcement is a process of making efforts to reinforce the existing legal norms. One of the parties that plays a role in law enforcement is the judge. The role of judges in law enforcement, especially criminal law, is very urgent in the criminal justice system in Indonesia. This is because the judge is the one who decides a case through his decision which will always be the concern of justice seekers. Therefore, in handling cases, the judge is impartial and may not be influenced by any party, so that his decision can realize a sense of justice in society. The research method used in this writing is the normative legal research method using secondary data obtained through literature studies. The focus of this research is the role of judges in law enforcement, especially in handling criminal cases through their just decisions.
Applying XBRL, RegTech, and DLT to Strengthen Shareholders’ Rights in Uzbekistan Habibullaev, Asliddin
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i1.672

Abstract

Despite the rapid digital transformation taking place in Uzbekistan, the application of XBRL, RegTech, and DLT to the exercising of property and corporate shareholder rights has not yet been studied. Technologies such as XBRL, RegTech, and DLT offer potential to improve shareholders’ rights protection through process automation. This study explores how each of the above digital technologies can provide access to information, fulfil regulatory requirements and facilitate the transfer of ownership of shares. In this scientific article the following methods were used: legal-dogmatic and comparative-legal analysis, qualitative and quantitative analysis, analysis of positive and negative impact, as well as synthesis of results. The study found that: 1) with the help of XBRL, shareholders would have quick access to the information of the joint-stock company, which would help exercise the right to information; 2) with the help of RegTech, shareholders could timely stop wrongful related-party transactions and large transactions; 3) with the help of DLT, shareholders could quickly, transparently, and reliably realize the shares belonging to them. The results of the research show how the regulator of Uzbekistan can apply XBRL, RegTech, and DLT to the activities of joint-stock companies. The conclusion indicates that XBRL, RegTech, and DLT can be applied to the exercise of shareholders’ property and corporate rights, and proposals are given for the phased implementation of these digital technologies in a test mode.
Revisiting Criminal Justice: From Retribution to Restoration in a Technological Era Hermansyah
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i2.792

Abstract

This narrative review explores contemporary challenges and reform trends in comparative criminal justice systems, emphasizing the interaction between retributive and restorative approaches and the integration of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). The study aimed to identify effective reform strategies and the systemic factors influencing their success. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Scopus, Google Scholar, and other academic databases using Boolean operators to locate studies published in the last ten years, with inclusion criteria focusing on relevance, methodology, and language. Selected studies included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research examining judicial systems in civil and common law countries. Results reveal that reform efforts are significantly shaped by institutional transparency, civic engagement, and corruption control. Countries like Rwanda and Germany demonstrated progress through inclusive reforms, whereas developing nations such as Indonesia face obstacles due to institutional limitations. Retributive models, particularly in the United States, contribute to high recidivism and neglect victims' needs. In contrast, restorative practices in Canada and New Zealand show enhanced outcomes in offender rehabilitation and victim satisfaction. Moreover, the use of AI in judicial systems, while improving efficiency, raises ethical concerns regarding algorithmic fairness and data governance. The findings highlight the urgent need for balanced policy frameworks that promote restorative justice, community engagement, and ethical integration of technology. Future research should examine adaptive models of justice reform suited to varying socio-political environments to enhance justice delivery globally.
Governing AI: A Narrative Review of Algorithmic Accountability and Legal Frameworks Rumlus, Muhamad Hasan
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i2.810

Abstract

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into legal systems has sparked critical debates regarding algorithmic accountability and the adequacy of current regulatory frameworks. This narrative review aims to examine the intersection of AI and law, focusing on global responses to the ethical, legal, and social challenges posed by AI-driven decision-making systems. Utilizing a comprehensive literature search through databases such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed, key studies were identified based on relevance to AI ethics, algorithmic bias, legal governance, and data privacy. Inclusion criteria emphasized empirical and conceptual works related to legal and ethical dimensions of AI regulation. The findings reveal significant disparities in the regulatory readiness of nations, with developed countries often employing a combination of hard and soft law to enhance accountability, while developing regions struggle with infrastructural and institutional constraints. Case studies from the United States, European Union, and Southeast Asia illustrate contrasting approaches and outcomes. Central themes emerging from the literature include the need for transparency, explainability, and human rights-based governance. The review highlights systemic barriers, such as inflexible legal systems and limited stakeholder engagement, that hinder effective regulation. It calls for adaptive legal frameworks, greater interdisciplinary collaboration, and proactive policymaking. These findings underscore the imperative to build ethical and accountable AI governance models that safeguard individual rights without stifling innovation.
Grave Risk and the Right to Return: A Comparative Study of Judicial Responses to International Child Abduction Hermansyah
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i2.1127

Abstract

This article analyzes the application of the grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, comparing approaches in the United States, the European Union, and the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). With international child abduction cases increasing by about 35% over the past two decades (HCCH, 2021), courts face growing tension between ensuring the prompt return of children and safeguarding their welfare. The study employs a comparative doctrinal and case study methodology, examining legal texts, jurisprudence, and soft-law instruments such as the HCCH Guide to Good Practice, complemented by empirical data from the HCCH Statistical Study (2021) and regional reports. Findings reveal marked divergence across jurisdictions. U.S. courts apply a high evidentiary threshold and defer to trial-level findings, prioritizing return obligations. EU courts, guided by Brussels II bis, integrate structured timelines and protective measures to mitigate potential harm. The HCCH, through soft-law harmonization, encourages consistent interpretation, though implementation remains uneven. Protective tools—such as mirror orders and supervised contact—are most effective when supported by enforceable judicial mechanisms. The article concludes that achieving consistency in grave risk assessments requires legal harmonization, judicial education, and stronger cross-border enforcement frameworks. Policy recommendations include standardized evaluation protocols, enhanced training for judges, and international cooperation to align legal practices with the child’s best interests.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2025 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 4 No. 1 (2026): January 2026 Vol. 3 No. 4 (2025): October 2025 Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025 Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): April 2025 Vol. 3 No. 1 (2025): January 2025 Vol. 2 No. 4 (2024): October 2024 Vol. 2 No. 3 (2024): July 2024 Vol. 2 No. 2 (2024): April 2024 Vol. 2 No. 1 (2024): January 2024 Vol. 1 No. 1 (2023): October 2023