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. 3 (2025): July 2025" : 5 Documents clear
Regulatory Responses to Platform Dominance: Insights from Global Digital Markets Vebritha, Silvy
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i3.811

Abstract

This study reviews global regulatory responses to platform dominance in digital markets. It examines the interplay between competition law and data protection, focusing on ex-ante approaches such as the EU Digital Markets Act. Using a narrative review of peer-reviewed literature, the findings show that preventive frameworks are more effective than traditional ex-post models in curbing anti-competitive practices. Evidence highlights systemic risks from data asymmetry and algorithmic manipulation, particularly in developing countries with limited enforcement capacity. The review underscores the need for coherent policies that balance innovation, fairness, and user rights, recommending further research on algorithmic accountability, harmonized governance, and the socioeconomic impacts of digital regulation.
Children’s Rights in Family Law: Comparative Insights into Best Interests Principles Azis, Mariya; Mery, Lisa; Basuki, Siti Hatia Adzannya
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i3.812

Abstract

This narrative review examines how the principle of the “best interests of the child” is applied across legal systems. Using a thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed literature (2020–2025) from Scopus, Google Scholar, and PubMed, the study explores its implementation in custody, adoption, immigration, child marriage, and non-traditional families. Findings highlight uneven enforcement shaped by patriarchal norms, legal pluralism, and institutional gaps. While European jurisdictions showcase holistic child-centered approaches, many developing countries face persistent challenges. Key recommendations include harmonized legislation aligned with the CRC, guaranteed child participation rights, and systemic reforms that strengthen judicial training, inter-sectoral collaboration, and public awareness. This review contributes by integrating comparative insights across regions and emphasizing the urgency of context-sensitive, rights-based reforms.
Designing Justice: The Influence of Constitutional Review Mechanisms on Minority Rights Protection in Democracies Siswadhi, Reyhan Mahardika; Aprilliani
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i3.1123

Abstract

This study examines the empirical relationship between constitutional review models and the protection of minority rights in democratic states. While international human rights instruments set normative standards, domestic institutional designs determine how these norms are implemented and enforced. The research evaluates whether countries with stronger constitutional review systems—particularly those featuring centralized courts, abstract review powers, and individual constitutional complaint mechanisms—are more effective in protecting minority rights. Using a cross-national panel dataset covering 2000–2024, the analysis integrates data from the Comparative Constitutions Project, World Justice Project, V-Dem, and Minority Rights Group. Key dependent variables include the WJP Fundamental Rights Index and V-Dem’s Equality before the Law and Liberty Index. Independent variables capture review typologies and structural features, while controls address regime type, economic development, and minority risk context. Analytical methods—OLS, GLS, event studies, and propensity score matching—are employed to test causal robustness. Results show that centralized constitutional review and individual access mechanisms significantly correlate with higher levels of minority rights protection. Event-study analyses demonstrate post-reform improvements in rights indices, and matched comparisons confirm positive treatment effects. These findings underscore how institutional design influences human rights enforcement. The study contributes to comparative constitutional law and political science by empirically linking judicial structure to rights outcomes. It concludes that robust constitutional review mechanisms, supported by democratic governance and institutional integrity, are critical to translating normative commitments into tangible protections for minority groups.
Procedural Justice in Housing: The Impact of Legal Safeguards on Eviction Outcomes for Low-Income Renters Hermansyah
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i3.1125

Abstract

Housing insecurity and eviction disproportionately impact low-income renters, undermining social and economic stability. This study assesses the effectiveness of procedural legal protections—specifically the right to counsel and the proportionality test—in reducing eviction rates across jurisdictions. Grounded in international human rights frameworks such as the ICESCR and UN-Habitat guidelines, the research investigates whether codified procedural safeguards correspond with lower levels of involuntary displacement. Using a panel Difference-in-Differences (DiD) design, the study analyzes data from the Eviction Lab (U.S.), OECD Affordable Housing Database, and a custom legal protections index. Comparisons were made between jurisdictions with and without procedural safeguards, controlling for unemployment, rent inflation, and urban density. Results show that right-to-counsel statutes significantly reduce eviction filings—by up to 60% in cities like New York and San Francisco (2013–2020). Proportionality tests were also linked to improved housing outcomes, particularly when integrated into broader legal frameworks. Subgroup analyses reveal that informal tenants and racial minorities benefit less unless explicitly covered by law. The effectiveness of these protections depends heavily on enforcement capacity and the availability of legal aid. The study concludes that procedural legal protections are vital policy tools for advancing housing justice. To maximize their impact, legal reforms must extend beyond codification to include inclusive design, public awareness, and strong institutional enforcement. These findings contribute to housing law and social policy by empirically demonstrating the role of legal safeguards in preventing eviction and promoting tenure security.
Breaking Default Bias: How Regulatory Choice Architecture Shapes Competition in Platform Ecosystems Hermansyah
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): July 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i3.1126

Abstract

This article examines how default bias and switching frictions reinforce platform dominance and whether regulatory interventions can reduce these barriers. The research employs a difference-in-differences framework combined with event-study analysis to measure the causal effects of DMA obligations on user switching. Data sources include browser adoption statistics, app store analytics, and compliance monitoring reports from the European Commission. Key outcome variables include browser switching rates, alternative browser market shares, and adoption of link-out billing systems. The introduction of DMA choice screens resulted in a marked increase in consumer switching, with browser switching rates rising from 8.5% to 13.2%, demonstrating the policy’s effectiveness in breaking consumer inertia associated with defaults and alternative browser shares increasing from 19.6% to 24.5%. Link-out billing adoption grew from 2.1% to 8.3%. Cross-country heterogeneity reveals that countries with high digital literacy and strong infrastructure, such as Germany and the Netherlands, saw stronger switching effects compared to southern European countries with entrenched default reliance. The discussion highlights the role of behavioral economics in designing effective choice screens, the challenges posed by dark patterns, and the comparative advantages of interoperability mandates over structural remedies in fostering sustained competition. The analysis underscores that interoperability lowers switching costs, enhances contestability, and incentivizes platforms to innovate, thereby benefiting consumers and promoting long-term market dynamism. The study concludes that ex ante regulatory mandates under the DMA are effective in reducing consumer lock-in and reshaping digital market dynamics. However, regulatory vigilance is essential to prevent circumvention through manipulative design practices. The findings contribute to ongoing policy debates on digital regulation, emphasizing the need for adaptive, user-centered governance frameworks that balance competition, innovation, and consumer welfare.

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