cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Febri Adi Prasetya
Contact Email
garuda@apji.org
Phone
+6281269402117
Journal Mail Official
Jumadi@apji.org
Editorial Address
Perum Cluster G11 Nomor 17 Jl. Plamongan Indah, Pedurungan, Kota Semarang 50195, Semarang, Provinsi Jawa Tengah, 50195
Location
Kota semarang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Published by Asosiasi Peneliti Dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia
ISSN : 30471370     EISSN : 30471362     DOI : 10.62951
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
law and social politics, both theoretical and empirical. The focus of this journal is on studies of civil law, criminal law, constitutional law, international law, procedural law and customary law, politics and social sciences
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 216 Documents
 18   19   20   21   22 
Protection of Women Workers Under the Job Creation Law Zulhikmah Saputri; Iskandar A. Gani; M. Jafar
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1031

Abstract

This study examines challenges in protecting women workers following the enactment of Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, particularly regarding reproductive rights, discrimination, and termination of employment. It aims to analyze the legal framework and its conformity with legal certainty, justice, and gender equality. This normative legal research employs statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively using theories of legal certainty, legal protection, justice, and gender equality. The findings indicate that the law continues to guarantee reproductive rights, including menstrual, maternity, and miscarriage leave, wage entitlements, and protection against termination due to pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, or breastfeeding. However, amendments concerning Fixed-Term Employment Agreements (PKWT), outsourcing, and termination have not fully ensured legal certainty or adequate protection for women workers. Furthermore, the normative framework and enforcement mechanisms do not comprehensively guarantee their rights, leaving substantive justice and gender equality insufficiently realized. Therefore, implementing regulations and labor supervision must be strengthened, alongside consistent application of gender equality, to protect reproductive rights, prevent discrimination, and effectively ensure the fulfillment of women workers’ rights.
Individualized Criminal Sanctions for Children in Conflict with the Law: A Best Interests of the Child Approach Dewi Sinta Hulalata; Fenty U. Puluhulawa; Dian Ekawaty Ismail
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1032

Abstract

The imposition of criminal sanctions on children in conflict with the law requires a different approach from the sentencing of adults because children are still undergoing physical, psychological, moral, and social development. Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System has established diversion, restorative justice, and the principle of the best interests of the child as important foundations in handling juvenile cases. Nevertheless, the application of sanctions in practice still faces challenges because the determination of sanctions is not always sufficiently individualized according to the child's personal circumstances and developmental needs. This study aims to analyze the concept of individualization of criminal sanctions for children in conflict with the law and formulate an appropriate sanction model based on the best interests of the child. This research employs a normative juridical method with an analytical-prescriptive character, using a statute approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through deductive reasoning. The results demonstrate that individualization of juvenile sanctions requires consideration of factors beyond the legal classification of the offense, including the child's age, psychological and cognitive development, motive, role in the offense, family environment, educational background, impact on the victim, and rehabilitation potential. The best-interests principle requires judges and law enforcement authorities to place rehabilitation and social reintegration as central objectives while maintaining proportionality and accountability. Therefore, an individualized sanction model should be developed through a tiered framework that prioritizes diversion and community-based measures, followed by educational, supervisory, and rehabilitative sanctions, while imprisonment remains an exceptional measure. Strengthening assessment mechanisms, professional capacity, institutional cooperation, and judicial guidelines is necessary to ensure consistent implementation.
Normative Conflict in The Regulation of Electronic Evidence Between the Criminal Procedure Code and The Electronic Information and Transactions Law Doni Sekedang
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1036

Abstract

The rapid advancement of information and communication technology has fundamentally altered evidentiary practices within Indonesia's criminal justice system, particularly concerning the legal standing of electronic evidence, which is inherently susceptible to alteration and difficult to trace. As the lex generalis, the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) continues to adhere to a closed evidentiary system under Article 184 paragraph (1), which does not explicitly recognize electronic evidence as a distinct category, whereas the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) affirms it as a valid extension of admissible evidence. This study employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory and conceptual approaches, alongside a descriptive-prescriptive analytical technique grounded in grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation of primary and secondary legal materials. The findings reveal a paradigmatic conflict between the restrictive framework of KUHAP and the progressive orientation of UU ITE, resulting in ambiguity regarding whether digital evidence constitutes an independent category or merely falls under documentary or circumstantial evidence. This uncertainty is further compounded by law enforcement officials' limited understanding of chain of custody principles and digital forensic procedures, contributing to inconsistent judicial rulings across courts. The study concludes that comprehensive regulatory harmonization is essential, extending beyond partial amendments, and recommends leveraging Law Number 20 of 2025 as a foundation for strengthening the normative recognition of electronic evidence as an independent evidentiary category to achieve stronger legal certainty.
A Juridical Analysis of Marital Joint Property Used as Collateral For Debt Muhammad Aqil Azizi; Teuku Saiful; Teuku Muttaqin Mansur
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1041

Abstract

The use of marital joint property as collateral for debt without the consent of one spouse raises legal issues concerning the validity of the encumbrance, the legal consequences for the parties, and the legal certainty of the injured spouse. Article 36 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage requires the consent of both spouses in legal actions involving marital joint property. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Circular Letter Number 3 of 2018 provides that a claim for the division of marital joint property whose disputed object is still pledged as collateral to a third party must be declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijke verklaard). This study aims to analyze the legal regulation of marital joint property used as collateral without the consent of one spouse, the legal consequences arising from such action, and the legal certainty for the injured party. This research uses a doctrinal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The data were obtained through library research using primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The analysis was conducted qualitatively and deductively. The results show that marital joint property cannot, in principle, be used as collateral without the consent of both spouses because such action is contrary to Article 36 paragraph (1) of the Marriage Law and the principle of joint control over marital property. However, when the property has already been encumbered as collateral to a third party, its legal consequences depend on the judicial approach. Decision Number 58/Pdt.G/2023/MS.Bna declared the claim inadmissible because the object was still subject to a third party's security interest, while Decision Number 81/Pdt.G/2019/MS.Bna proceeded to divide the joint property even though part of the property remained collateral. These different approaches indicate that legal certainty for the injured spouse has not been optimally achieved. Therefore, a more comprehensive judicial guideline is needed to balance the protection of creditors and the rights of spouses over marital joint property.
The Qualification of Unlawful Acts by Government (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) in the Control of Regional Asset Certificates Following Supreme Court Decision Number 2108 K/Pdt/2022 Wildan Habib Azhari; Surya Perdana
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1042

Abstract

The control of regional asset certificates by the government may give rise to legal issues when it concerns the rights of other parties and has become the subject of a dispute before the court. This study aims to analyze the qualification of unlawful acts by the government (Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad) in the control of regional asset certificates by the Bukittinggi Municipal Government in its dispute with the Fort de Kock Foundation based on Supreme Court Decision Number 2108 K/Pdt/2022. This study employs a normative juridical method with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. Legal materials were analyzed using a qualitative-descriptive method through legislation, legal doctrines, and court decisions. The results indicate that the actions of the Bukittinggi Municipal Government cannot be directly qualified as Onrechtmatige Overheidsdaad solely based on Supreme Court Decision Number 2108 K/Pdt/2022, as the case was a civil dispute and the decision did not explicitly declare the existence of OOD. However, governmental actions may be examined under the concept of OOD when they contradict legal obligations or the General Principles of Good Governance (AAUPB), fulfill the elements of an unlawful act, and cause losses. The principles of due care and legal certainty require the government to consider the history and legal basis of land control, as well as the legal status established by the court. The cassation decision is relevant as a basis for analysis because it rejected the Municipal Government's cassation petition and upheld the previous decision, which found the Municipal Government to be a purchaser acting in bad faith.
Allocating Losses from Online Fraud: Bank and Digital Platform Liability in Indonesia Hardianto Djanggih
International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Publisher : Asosiasi Penelitian dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62951/ijlcj.v3i3.1062

Abstract

Online fraud produces losses through interconnected communication and payment services, yet com-pensation disputes frequently isolate the victim’s final payment instruction from the institutional condi-tions that made deception actionable. This article examines how financial losses should be allocated between consumers, sending banks, receiving banks, and digital platforms in Indonesia. It employs doctrinal legal analysis and a functional comparison of Indonesian consumer and electronic-system reg-ulation with payment reimbursement in the United Kingdom, Singapore’s Shared Responsibility Framework, and Australia’s developing Scams Prevention Framework. The analysis distinguishes technical authentication, payment authorisation, institutional fault, causation, and the recovery of identifiable proceeds. It finds that existing Indonesian duties provide grounds for claims concerning defective services and institutional negligence, but should not be represented as a universal reimbursement guarantee for every scam. The article proposes a two-stage framework: accessible initial redress followed by evidence-based allocation among responsible institutions. Allocation should turn on the actor’s control over the relevant risk, breach of a specific duty, contribution to avoidable loss, and access to decisive evidence. Platform responsibility should vary with advertising, verification, transaction management, and notice-handling functions. Consumer conduct remains relevant, but valid credentials alone should not establish that the institution performed its duties. The proposed framework integrates recovery and compensation while preserving separate treatment of criminal responsibility. Its contribution is a legally bounded model of institutional loss allocation, rather than an explanation of victims’ choices of reporting channel.

Page 22 of 22 | Total Record : 216

 18   19   20   21   22 

Filter by Year

2024 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 3 No. 3 (2026): September: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): June: International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 3 No. 1 (2026): March : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 2 No. 4 (2025): December : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 2 No. 3 (2025): September : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 2 No. 2 (2025): June : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): March : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 1 No. 4 (2024): December : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 1 No. 3 (2024): September : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): June : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice Vol. 1 No. 1 (2024): March : International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice More Issue