cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Abdul Kadir Jaelani
Contact Email
indonesiacontrariusinstitute@contrariusactus.com
Phone
+6287738904981
Journal Mail Official
jaelaniabdulkadir@staff.uns.ac.id
Editorial Address
Sibela Utara Street No.3, Mojosongo, Kec. Jebres, Kota Surakarta.
Location
Kota surakarta,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Contrarius
Published by Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia
ISSN : 30909309     EISSN : 31090931     DOI : https://doi.org/10.53955/contrarius.v1i3
Core Subject : Social,
Environmental Science Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice
Contrarius focuses on administrative law at global, national, regional, and local levels worldwide. The journal addresses specific issues on tax law, consumer protection law, environmental law, medical law, spatial law, labour law, agrarian law, transportation law, mining law, energy law, administrative, and legal justice. Contrarius publishes peer-reviewed while increasing the efficiency of the process. In addition, Contrarius also covers legal research in constitutional law with specific topics such as separation of powers and procedural due process, the structure and workings of the various agencies, procedural requirements for adjudication and rulemaking, enforcement discretion, methods of enforcement, government tort liability, freedom of information, and state finance. The journal warmly welcomes contributions from scholars with related disciplines. Novelty and recency of issues, however, are the priority in publishing.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius" : 5 Documents clear
Toward a One-Roof System and an Independent Tax Court: Indonesia between the United States and Germany Ibnususilo, Efendi; Yassine Chami; Saminu Abacha Wakili; Faiqah Nur Azizah
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i3.291

Abstract

The research departs from a fundamental problem, the dual roof system that historically placed the Tax Court under divided supervision between the judiciary and the executive, particularly the Ministry of Finance, thereby creating structural ambiguity and potential conflicts of interest between tax collection and adjudication functions. This condition raised concerns regarding the judicial independence, accountability, and public trust in tax dispute resolution. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study analyses constitutional provisions, statutory regulations, and institutional practices governing the Tax Court. The research finds that, first, the reform of Indonesia’s tax adjudication system reflects a constitutional imperative to secure genuine judicial independence by ending the dual roof structure and fully integrating the Tax Court under the authority of Supreme Court, as mandated by Decision No. 26/PUU-XXI/2023 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Second, comparative insights from the United States and Germany demonstrate that effective judicial independence in tax matters requires structural separation from fiscal authorities, hierarchical judicial review, professional specialisation, and administrative as well as financial autonomy. Moreover, procedural differentiation, digital transparency, and layered oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability within a unified judicial framework. Third, as a policy model, Indonesia should adopt a fully integrated one-roof tax court system supported by tiered appellate review, institutional autonomy, specialised judicial training, and comprehensive digital governance to guarantee an independent, transparent, and accountable tax judiciary.
Questioning Ecological Justice in Indonesian Forestry Regulations Al-Fatih, Sholahuddin; Clarizze Yvoine Mirielle; Enas Qutieshat; Uzoho Kelechi; Narzullaev Olim Kholmamatovich
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i3.295

Abstract

This study examines forestry regulation from the perspective of ecological justice by analysing the relationship between state control, environmental protection, and the rights of indigenous peoples. The research employs a normative legal research method based on secondary data comprising primary and secondary legal materials. The approaches adopted include statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to assess forestry governance in Indonesia and to compare it with Canada. The findings indicate that, at the normative level, forestry regulations have accommodated the principles of sustainability and social justice; however, their implementation continues to face challenges, including centralised authority, tenure conflicts, and environmental degradation. The comparative analysis demonstrates the importance of integrating ecosystem protection, recognising the rights of indigenous peoples, and ensuring public participation. Accordingly, the reconstruction of forestry regulation is required to strengthen participation, to reaffirm the meaning of state control as a public mandate, and to enhance enforcement mechanisms grounded in environmental restoration for the benefit of intergenerational sustainability.
[Manuscript Correction]-Indonesia’s Palm Oil Plantation Regulations for Promoting Community Protection and Justice Dedi Wahyudi; Bambang Tri Bawono; Bahtiyar Efendi
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i3.296

Abstract

The expansion of palm oil plantations in Indonesia has generated complex legal issues related to community protection around Cultivation Rights areas, land tenure conflicts, and the effectiveness of justice mechanisms in natural resource governance. Although agrarian, plantation, environmental, and human rights regulations formally recognise community protection, empirical evidence shows recurring agrarian conflicts and unequal benefit distribution. This study aims to: (1) analyse legal instruments governing community protection in palm oil plantation management; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of justice mechanisms and the role of state institutions in regulatory enforcement; and (3) formulate justice-based regulatory reconstruction through an international comparative approach. This research applies an empirical juridical method with a socio-legal approach, combining statutory analysis and fieldwork conducted in the operational areas of PT Agri Andalas, PT Bio Nusantara Teknologi, and PT Pamor Ganda in Bengkulu Province. The analysis applies Rawl’s distributive justice, the social function of land rights, and law as social engineering. The findings show that Indonesia faces a legal gap between regulation and implementation, marked by administrative legality dominance, fragmented institutions, and procedural participation. Although justice mechanisms formally exist, unequal access limits the availability of substantive remedies. Comparative insights from the Netherlands, Canada, and Norway emphasise integrated governance, binding community consent, transparency, and restorative grievance systems. Strengthening community protection, therefore, requires shifting from administrative legality toward social legitimacy and distributive justice through institutional integration and stronger enforcement.
The Impact of Asset Recovery Regulations on Corruption Cases in Indonesian: A Leap Forward? Shalihah, Fithriatus; Bakhshillo Kamolovich Khojaev; Fitrat Umirov; Mohammad Ishaque Husain; Deslaely Putranti
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i3.297

Abstract

The central problem lies in the structural limitations of the asset recovery regime under the Anti-Corruption Law, which requires a criminal conviction for confiscation. This restriction has hindered full recovery of state losses, particularly in cases involving hidden or transferred assets and transnational challenges. The research aims to assess the paradigmatic nature of Indonesia’s asset forfeiture reform by analysing its conceptual transformation, constitutional legitimacy, and systemic coherence. This research employs a normative juridical method, relying on statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The research reveals that, first, the shift from conviction-based forfeiture to non-conviction-based (NCB) forfeiture reflects an emerging transformation from offender-oriented justice toward asset-oriented justice. However, in Indonesia, this transformation remains transitional and has not yet restructured the philosophical and institutional foundations of asset recovery. Second, the comparative analysis demonstrates that the United Kingdom has successfully institutionalised civil recovery mechanisms within a strong framework of judicial oversight and proportionality, supported by human rights safeguards, thereby illustrating that effectiveness and constitutional protection are not mutually exclusive. Finally, Indonesia’s reform, while normatively progressive, still depends on harmonisation with constitutional guarantees and requires clearer standards of proof, differentiated procedural safeguards, and stronger institutional coordination to ensure systemic coherence and prevent abuse of power. The research recommends adopting a hybrid-restorative constitutional model of asset forfeiture. Such a model should provide limited autonomy for non-conviction-based confiscation, integrate early asset tracking and freezing mechanisms, apply differentiated standards of proof, and embed strict constitutional safeguards through effective judicial review and proportionality principles.
Legal Challenges of Swarm Intelligence Exploitation in Cybercrime across Distributed Systems AllahRakha, Naeem
Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius
Publisher : Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.53955/contrarius.v2i3.301

Abstract

Cybercrime continues to evolve at a pace that challenges the adaptability of existing legal frameworks, particularly with the emergence of swarm intelligence as a tool for coordinating autonomous and distributed cyberattacks. This study aims to analyse the adequacy of contemporary international cybercrime law in addressing the exploitation of swarm intelligence, with specific reference to recent global regulatory developments. The research employs a doctrinal legal method, combining normative analysis of treaty provisions with a qualitative review of recent enforcement practices. The findings reveal four principal deficiencies: the ambiguity of legal liability in decentralized systems lacking identifiable control; jurisdictional fragmentation that enables regulatory evasion; inherent limitations in detecting multi-agent coordinated attacks; and a structural mismatch between legal norms and states’ technical enforcement capacities. These gaps demonstrate that existing frameworks remain insufficient to respond effectively to technologically sophisticated cyber threats. The study concludes that without targeted legal reform, including the development of specialized regulatory instruments, enhanced international cooperation mechanisms, and improved technical capacity, the enforcement of cybercrime law will remain reactive and fragmented. Strengthening the integration between legal doctrine and technological realities is therefore essential to ensure effective governance and protection in the evolving digital landscape.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2026 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 2 No. 3 (2026): Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 2 (2026): Contrarius Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): Contrarius Vol. 1 No. 3 (2025): Contrarius Vol. 1 No. 2 (2025): Contrarius Vol. 1 No. 1 (2025): Contrarius