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 45 Documents
 1   2   3   4   5 
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.
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.
Inclusive Positivism and the Courts: Reconciling Legality and Legitimacy in Contemporary Democracies Widaningsih
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 4 (2025): October 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i4.1119

Abstract

This article critically reassesses legal positivism in the context of contemporary constitutional adjudication. Legal positivism traditionally maintains a strict separation between legal validity and moral reasoning, but modern courts increasingly rely on moral and constitutional principles to justify legal outcomes. This study analyzes four landmark legal texts: Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU (UK), S v Makwanyane (South Africa), Neubauer v Germany, and the European Union’s AI Act. Through doctrinal and comparative methodology, the research explores how judicial reasoning in each case explicitly reflects or diverges from exclusive and inclusive positivist theory. While Miller and the AI Act affirm source-based legality, Makwanyane and Neubauer reveal the judiciary's turn toward principle-based legitimacy. The findings suggest that inclusive positivism, and in some cases interpretivism, better reflects how courts navigate complex rights issues. The article concludes by proposing a hybrid jurisprudential model that retains the structural benefits of legal positivism while incorporating codified moral principles, offering a balanced approach suited to modern constitutional democracies.
Constitutional Review and Minority Rights: Aligning Domestic Courts with International Norms Syaefudin, Rochmat Ali
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2024): October 2024
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v2i4.1120

Abstract

The protection of minority rights is central to democratic governance and international human rights law. This article examines how constitutional review mechanisms interact with international normative frameworks to shape outcomes for ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities in democratic states. Drawing on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Declaration on Minorities, and the Council of Europe Framework Convention, the study outlines the legal obligations imposed on states. Through a comparative doctrinal and institutional analysis of Germany, India, South Africa, the United States, and the European Court of Human Rights, it evaluates the effectiveness of different constitutional review models. Data from the Comparative Constitutions Project and landmark case law illustrate the significance of institutional design particularly centralized review and individual complaint mechanisms in enabling courts to enforce minority protections. The discussion highlights the importance of institutional strength, alignment with international norms, resistance to political interference, and transjudicial dialogue in sustaining robust protections. The article concludes that judicial effectiveness in minority rights adjudication hinges on coherent legal frameworks, empowered institutions, and principled jurisprudence that resonates with international human rights standards.
Legal Design and Cyber Resilience: A Comparative Study of Cybersecurity Frameworks for Critical Infrastructure in Five Jurisdictions Supangat, Ajis; Taufiqurokhman
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 4 (2025): October 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i4.1121

Abstract

Cyber threats targeting critical infrastructure, particularly Operational Technology (OT) and Industrial Control Systems (ICS), have escalated globally in both frequency and severity, prompting nations to implement legal frameworks mandating risk management and incident reporting. This study provides a comparative analysis of cybersecurity regulations across five jurisdictions: the European Union, United States, Australia, Singapore, and Indonesia. It aims to evaluate how legal design, reporting obligations, and institutional coordination influence cyber risk outcomes. Using panel data from 2020 to 2025, this research employs Difference-in-Differences and fixed effects models to assess the relationship between regulatory adoption and indicators such as OT ransomware activity and ICS threat block rates. Legal variables include the implementation status of NIS2, CIRCIA, SOCI/SLACIP, the Cybersecurity Act (SG), and Perpres 82/2022 (ID). Outcome data are drawn from Dragos and Kaspersky ICS-CERT reports. The results indicate that jurisdictions with rapid reporting mandates (12–24h), standardized frameworks (NIST CSF), and strong institutional oversight demonstrate improved cyber resilience. For example, ransomware trends decline in Australia and the EU post-regulation, while malicious block rates increase in Singapore and Indonesia. However, compliance burdens and fragmented oversight reduce regulatory efficacy, especially in less coordinated systems like the US. The study concludes that successful cybersecurity governance depends on the alignment of legal mandates, operational feasibility, and institutional capability. For developing countries like Indonesia, enhancing cross-sector CSIRT capacity, aligning with global standards, and streamlining regulatory requirements are critical for improving national cyber resilience.
Cross-Border Consumer Disputes in the Digital Marketplace: Rethinking Jurisdiction and Law in Global E-Commerce Governance Taufiqurokhman; Sara, Rineke; Suseno, Wahyu Hanggoro; Zakaria, Ricky Muhamad
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 3 No. 4 (2025): October 2025
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v3i4.1122

Abstract

Cross-border e-commerce has created unprecedented opportunities for global trade but also introduced complex legal challenges regarding jurisdiction and applicable law in consumer disputes. This article explores how legal systems particularly those of the European Union (EU), the United States (US), ASEAN, and Indonesia govern jurisdiction and applicable law in business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce transactions. Using a doctrinal and comparative legal method, the study analyzes key instruments such as the Brussels I Recast, Rome I and II Regulations, Hague Conventions of 2005 and 2019, and relevant national laws. Case law from the CJEU and US courts is used to illustrate doctrinal interpretations, with attention to the targeting test, forum-selection enforceability, and protection of consumer rights. Procedural tools such as the Hague Service and Evidence Conventions are also examined. Findings reveal that while the EU offers a harmonized, consumer-focused regime, enforcement across borders remains inconsistent. The Hague 2019 Convention presents a pathway toward enforceability but requires broader ratification. The US system emphasizes contractual freedom, often limiting consumer protections. Regional efforts, particularly in ASEAN and Indonesia, demonstrate varied progress in legal harmonization. Jurisdictional ambiguity, enforcement gaps, and fragmented legal standards continue to affect legal certainty in cross-border e-commerce. The article concludes that harmonized jurisdictional and applicable law standards, coupled with technological and institutional innovation, are necessary to ensure consumer protection and support legal predictability in global digital markets.
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.
Digital Contracts and Jurisdiction in Global E-Commerce: Legal Standards, Clause Validity, and Enforcement Across Borders Supangat, Ajis; Nasution, Emmi Rahmiwita; Sara, Rineke
Legalis : Journal of Law Review Vol. 2 No. 4 (2024): October 2024
Publisher : Indonesian Scientific Publication

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61978/legalis.v2i4.1124

Abstract

The exponential rise of cross-border e-commerce has presented critical legal challenges regarding jurisdiction, applicable law, and enforcement of consumer disputes. This article aims to provide a comparative and doctrinal analysis of how different jurisdictions primarily the European Union, United States, ASEAN, and Indonesia approach these challenges through domestic legislation, regional instruments, and global conventions. The research employs doctrinal comparative legal methods, analyzing legal instruments such as the Brussels I Recast, Rome I and II Regulations, the Hague Conventions (2005 and 2019), and the New York Convention. Key case law including Pammer, Emrek, Schrems, and Nguyen is examined to highlight judicial interpretations. The analysis includes ASEAN’s regional cooperation frameworks and Indonesia’s regulatory evolution. The results show significant divergence in jurisdictional tests (e.g., the EU’s targeting test vs. the US’s contractual autonomy), clause validity standards (clickwrap vs. browsewrap), and enforcement mechanisms. While the EU offers a structured consumer protection regime, the US emphasizes freedom of contract. ASEAN's soft-law frameworks and Indonesia’s domestic regulations show promise but face implementation and enforcement challenges. The Hague Judgments Convention remains underutilized, while arbitration via the New York Convention proves more reliable for cross-border enforcement. The study concludes that despite substantial progress in developing international legal tools, their effectiveness is undermined by fragmented implementation and regulatory divergence. Harmonization efforts must prioritize enforceable assent standards, broader ratification of international conventions, and capacity-building within national systems particularly in emerging economies.
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 4 of 5 | Total Record : 45

 1   2   3   4   5 

Filter by Year

2023 2025


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue 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