cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
-
Contact Email
pandecta@mail.unnes.ac.id
Phone
-
Journal Mail Official
pandecta@mail.unnes.ac.id
Editorial Address
Law Journals Development Center, Faculty of Law, Universitas Negeri Semarang. K 3 Building 1st Floor, UNNES Sekaran Campus, Jln. Kampus Timur, Sekaran Gunungpati, Semarang 50229, Indonesia
Location
Kota semarang,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Pandecta : Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum (Research Law Journal)
Published by Universitas Negeri Semarang
ISSN : 19078919     EISSN : 23375418     DOI : https://doi.org/10.15294/pandecta
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Pandecta Research Law Journal is a scientific legal publication dedicated to exploring contemporary legal issues in Indonesia. Specializing in Indonesian law, this journal consistently publishes a diverse array of articles across various legal domains. With a firm commitment to fostering international collaboration and knowledge exchange, Pandecta Research Law Journal serves as a prominent platform for disseminating legal research findings and facilitating discussions on the dynamic developments in the Indonesian legal landscape. Indonesia, as a developing country, offers a rich and fascinating landscape for legal development studies. Its extensive jurisdiction encompasses a diverse array of factors, including social politics, culture, ethnicity, religion, and local wisdom. These multifaceted influences contribute to the complexity and diversity of legal developments in Indonesia, rendering them both captivating and highly relevant to the international community. The unique interplay of these elements makes legal studies in Indonesia not only interesting but also invaluable for gaining insights into the broader global context and understanding the dynamics of legal systems worldwide.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 15 Documents
 1   2 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024" : 15 Documents clear
A Double-Edged Sword? Legal Certainty and the Perils of Authority in Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act Hisbul Luthfi Ashsyarofi; Arfan Kaimuddin; R.B. Muhammad Zainal Abidin; Bastomi, Ahmad
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.2939

Abstract

The urgency of enacting the Draft Asset Deprivation Act in Indonesia stems from the need to recover assets linked to criminal activities, even in the absence of a conviction. This approach is seen as a preventive measure to safeguard illicitly acquired assets; however, its implementation raises serious legal concerns. The potential violation of property rights—recognized as fundamental human rights—poses risks to justice and legal certainty. The lack of clear procedural safeguards could lead to authority abuse, arbitrary asset seizures, and disproportionate impacts on individuals. This study identifies critical inconsistencies within the draft law. First, the phrase "asset deprivation is only carried out once" in the explanation of Article 3 contradicts Article 5(1)(c), which allows additional asset deprivation if previously seized assets are insufficient. This antinomy undermines legal certainty and fairness. Second, Article 56 permits the auctioning of assets before a final court decision without specifying clear conditions for its application. The absence of rigid legal criteria opens avenues for abuse of authority, further exacerbating risks of injustice. The novelty of this research lies in its critical legal analysis of these contradictions and their implications for property rights and procedural fairness. This research contributes to the global discourse on asset deprivation laws by critically examining the tension between crime prevention and fundamental human rights. The study highlights how ambiguities in legal drafting and the absence of clear procedural safeguards can lead to authority abuse, a challenge faced by many jurisdictions implementing non-conviction-based asset forfeiture (NCB) frameworks. By comparing Indonesia’s Draft Asset Deprivation Act with international best practices, this research offers valuable insights into the legal balance between state power and individual rights, which is crucial in developing laws that do not unduly compromise fundamental freedoms.
Interfaith Marriage and the Submission of One Spouse: Should District Courts Legalize It? Maharani Christy Anggraeni; Nugraheni, Destri Budi; Dzahaby, Ja’far Al
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.2999

Abstract

This research investigates the legal complexities surrounding interfaith marriages in Indonesia, particularly focusing on the concept of self-submission as outlined in the Supreme Court's fatwa Number 231/PAN/HK.05/1/2019. The study explores the validity of interfaith marriages from the perspective of Islamic, Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, and Confucian religious laws. It also examines the role of district court judges in determining the validity of such marriages based on self-submission. The findings reveal significant disparities in legal interpretations, with judges who support the legalization of interfaith marriages considering them valid when conducted according to religious procedures that permit interfaith unions. However, judges opposing such marriages reference the prohibitions inherent in the religious laws of one of the spouses. The novelty of this research lies in its analysis of the intersections between religious law and civil law in determining the validity of interfaith marriages in Indonesia, especially the concept of self-submission. The study underscores the urgency of creating a clear, unified legal framework that addresses interfaith marriages, balancing respect for religious beliefs with the need for legal certainty. Nationally, this research contributes to ongoing debates about religious freedoms, marriage equality, and the role of the judiciary in interpreting religious norms within the broader legal system. Globally, it adds to the discourse on how countries with diverse religious populations navigate the intersection of tradition, modernity, and legal recognition of interfaith unions, offering comparative insights into the challenges faced by similar jurisdictions.
Politics and International Environmental Law in Global Perspective Atika Sari, Diah Apriani; Triatmodjo, Marsudi; Purwanto, Harry
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.3115

Abstract

Global environmental politics refers to the ways in which politics is practiced in various places to change or protect the environment. This means that global environmental issues and related political activities can occur at local, national, transnational, regional, or international levels, depending on the location, scale, or environmental issues being addressed. This research is normative, by a conceptual approach derived from several approaches of international legal and political theory. Environmental politics also transforms state practices in understanding state sovereignty and the international system. State sovereignty is often cited as a reason that limits the development of a country’s environmental policies. Globalization creates a debate between sovereignty and the influence of national interests in policy-making. Political authority is expressed as sovereignty, making it very challenging to reach agreements on global environmental issues when they conflict with national interests. Nevertheless, global politics offers opportunities for international cooperation in addressing global environmental problems.
Questioning the Validity of the New York Convention 1958 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.4099

Abstract

This article questions the legal validity of the New York Convention of 1958 ("NYC 1958") on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. A critical review is conducted based on the principle of lex posterior derogat lex priori when the provisions of NYC 1958 are compared with Articles 65 to 69 concerning the enforcement of international arbitral awards in Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Law 30/1999), which emerged approximately 18 years after (posteriori to) the ratification of NYC 1958 through Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981. There appears to be—from the perspective of legal scholars—a paradigmatic difference between the two, namely that NYC 1958 places greater value on foreign arbitral awards, while Law 30/1999 is less appreciative of them, leading to the presumption that Law 30/1999 nullifies the legal validity of NYC 1958. Can this perception be justified? The answer to this question shapes the judicial paradigm when faced with applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This article, doctrinally, compares and links the paradigmatic nuances between NYC 1958 and Law 30/1999 with regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by closely examining the textual provisions of each regulation.
The Urgency of Amending the Balikpapan City Regulation on License to Open State Land Rahmatika, Nur Auliya; Safa'at, Muchamad Ali; Hadiyantina, Shinta
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.4599

Abstract

Through the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, the central government has established a national priority program called the Acceleration of Systematic Complete Land Registration (PTSL). The program is a first-time land registration process undertaken synchronously in all parts of Indonesia. The PTSL is a form of legal certainty guaranteed by the central government related to land rights to the citizens. However, as part of its regional authority, Balikpapan City regulated the ownership of a License to Open State Land (IMTN) as one of the requirements for PTSL. In the end, it creates a problem in implementing PTSL in Balikpapan City due to the time-consuming process of IMTN letter registration. Although it is disadvantageous for citizens, the requirement of an IMTN letter is in accordance with the Regional Regulation of Balikpapan City. This research is aimed to determine the legal certainty of land rights registration for Balikpapan City people. The research method used in the research is normative juridical, with a statutory approach. The research data is obtained through a literature study for primary data and obtained by direct research in 2021 for secondary data. The research shows that local regulations of Balikpapan City that require IMTN ownership as a condition for PTSL submission are, in fact, in conflict with the Regulation of the Minister of ATR / BPN. Therefore, to achieve legal certainty related to land management in Balikpapan City, it is necessary to adjust the Regional Regulation of Balikpapan City Number 1 Year 2014 on IMTN.
Can Dual-Class Shares Thrive in Indonesia’s Capital Market? A Legal Comparison with Asia’s Financial Powerhouses Pati, Umi Khaerah; Pratama, Anugrah Muhtarom
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.4978

Abstract

The introduction of dual-class shares (DCS) in Indonesia, particularly for technology startups, aims to foster innovation and enhance market competitiveness by allowing firms to retain control while accessing capital. This study investigates the implementation of multiple voting shares (MVS) within the DCS framework as outlined in POJK Number 22/POJK.04/2021, analyzing its effectiveness in Indonesia compared to other Asian financial hubs like Hong Kong and China, and offering a comparative legal analysis with the United States and Singapore. The findings reveal that despite the potential of DCS, Indonesia’s capital market faces challenges, including the reluctance of companies to adopt this structure due to stringent requirements such as market capitalization and audited revenue, which often impede startups from going public. In contrast, countries like the United States and Singapore have adopted a more flexible approach, omitting such requirements, making the DCS model more attractive. The research underscores the urgency for Indonesia to reconsider its regulatory approach to technology startups and capital market access. The novelty of this study lies in its comparative analysis across diverse jurisdictions, identifying legal and regulatory barriers to the successful adoption of DCS in Indonesia. This study contributes to the discourse by proposing a hybrid regulatory approach, suggesting that market capitalization and audited revenue should only be considered when sustainability points cannot be quantified, as practiced in the United States and Singapore. Such a shift could help Indonesia foster a more dynamic and inclusive capital market, encouraging the growth of technology startups while maintaining investor protection and market stability.
Failure Of Diversion And Fulfillment Of The Best Interests Of Children In Conflict With The Law Waluyadi; Muslikhah; Mariana, Montisa
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.5972

Abstract

This study critically examines the failure of diversion programs in fulfilling the best interests of children in conflict with the law. Diversion, which aims to redirect juvenile offenders from the formal justice system toward rehabilitation, has been a key principle in juvenile justice systems. However, its failure to achieve effective outcomes—particularly in safeguarding children’s rights and welfare—remains a pressing concern. This research aims to identify the factors contributing to the failure of diversion, associating these with the broader endeavor to protect and promote the best interests of children. The study reveals several factors leading to the failure of diversion: the lack of consensus between victims and offenders or their families, the non-implementation of agreements, and differing interpretations of key legal provisions under Article 3 of Perma No. 4 of 2014 and Article 7 of the Juvenile Criminal Justice System Law (SPPA). These factors have contributed to inconsistencies in the application of diversion measures. Despite these failures, the study finds that the law still offers avenues for protecting the best interests of children, particularly when diversion is successful. Achieving effective diversion can lead to faster, simpler, and lower-case examinations, promoting rehabilitation and reintegration over punishment. The study contributes to the national and global discourse on juvenile justice by highlighting the challenges of implementing diversion programs and offering insights for reform.
Indonesia's Accountability as a State That Did Not Ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention on the Rohingya Ethnic Group in the Perspective of International Human Rights Ahmad Lukman Hadi; Kholifatul Muna; Fanisa Mayda Ayiliani
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.6680

Abstract

of Rohingya ethnic refugees who come to Indonesia where Indonesia has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention so that it poses its own challenges in dealing with Rohingya refugees, so human rights aspects and various moral and empathetic efforts are still needed. The study uses a normative legal approach to analyze legal frameworks relevant to the Rohingya ethnic situation, highlighting the human rights protections provided by international legal instruments such as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ongoing conflict in Myanmar shows the allegations/assumptions of systematic human rights violations, showing the need for joint action in upholding human rights principles. Although Indonesia has not ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, the state has a moral and legal obligation to respect human rights, including in addressing the problem of the arrival of the Rohingya in terms of seeking asylum and shelter. The protection of refugees, including the Rohingya, is a fundamental moral and legal responsibility of the international community, which includes the Indonesian government. The Indonesian government has also taken steps to provide protection to refugees, including working with UNHCR in finding solutions for Rohingya refugees in Aceh. In the absence of Indonesia ratifying the refugee convention, moral and legal efforts are still needed to ensure proper protection for Rohingya refugees and uphold human rights principles at the international level.
Toward Equal Access to Justice: Can Regulating Attorney Fees Ensure Fairness and Broaden Legal Access in Indonesia? Utami, Nurani Ajeng Tri; Sudrajat, Tedi; Wahyudi, Setya; Pati, Umi Khaerah
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.8316

Abstract

In Indonesia, the role of attorneys in resolving legal issues is indispensable, yet the absence of standardized attorney fee regulations has led to significant barriers in accessing legal services. Despite attorneys' rights to receive fees for their services, the lack of clear guidelines has resulted in public perception that hiring legal representation is a luxury, with many unable to afford it. This study explores the urgent need for state regulation of attorney fees to ensure fairness and broaden access to justice for all segments of society. The findings indicate that the lack of fee standardization contributes to inequities in the legal system, creating barriers for lower-income individuals to access legal assistance. Furthermore, it reveals that establishing a clear regulatory framework would provide legal certainty, protect consumers, and promote a more equitable system for all citizens. The novelty of this research lies in its exploration of attorney fees as a critical element in improving access to justice in Indonesia, framing the issue beyond economics and highlighting its social justice implications. By addressing the urgency of regulating attorney fees, the study contributes to the ongoing legal reform discourse, providing policy recommendations for creating a fee structure that balances fairness with professional responsibility. The research emphasizes that deliberative processes, considering factors such as case complexity, impact, and operational costs, should guide the determination of fees. Ultimately, the study presents a compelling argument for rethinking how attorney fees are regulated to ensure that justice is accessible to all, not just the wealthy.
Penal Policy: Decriminalization of Election Crimes in Indonesia Muhammad Azil Maskur; Pujiyono; Irma Cahyaningtyas; Fikri, Wildan Azkal; Zadataqi, Faikar Sir
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.8831

Abstract

Several election crime articles in Law No. 7/2017 are suspected of causing injustice to subjects who commit election infractions, particularly civil servants, village heads, and election organizers. The potential for injustice arises because the imposition of election crimes on civil servants, village heads, and election organizers causes all three to receive double jeopardy, although double jeopardy is contrary to the constitution and human rights, meaning that enacting election crimes is unfair to all three. These intrigues should be resolved immediately to achieve legal justice for all three. To answer these dynamics, further research needs to be carried out to find out where the injustice lies and the appropriate solution to overcome it. This research utilizes normative legal or doctrinal to examine injustice and find appropriate advisers. The penal policy approach is the right measure to eliminate injustice in election crime articles in Law No. 7/2017. This injustice is precisely in Articles 490, 494, and 546 of Law No. 7/2017 which regulates criminal sanctions for civil servants, village heads, and election organizers who commit election crimes. Decriminalization of Articles 490, 494, and 546 of Law No. 7/2017 needs to be applied because the application of these three articles has caused civil servants, villages, and election organizers to receive double jeopardy, while double jeopardy is contrary to the constitution and human rights so that the application of these three articles is real injustice.

Page 1 of 2 | Total Record : 15

 1   2 

Filter by Year

2024 2024


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 20 No. 1 (2025): June, 2025 Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024 Vol. 19 No. 1 (2024): June, 2024