cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Hariyadi Fajar Nugroho
Contact Email
gjlae@journals.cognispectra.com
Phone
+6285725769193
Journal Mail Official
gjlae@journals.cognispectra.com
Editorial Address
Sejahtera Street Number 15, Gumpang, Kartasura, Sukoharjo, Indonesia
Location
Kab. sukoharjo,
Jawa tengah
INDONESIA
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics (GJLAE)
Published by CV. Cognispectra Publishing
ISSN : -     EISSN : 31108733     DOI : https://doi.org/10.65917/gjlae.1.1.2025
Core Subject : Science, Education, Social,
Computer Science & IT Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Other
Focus and Scope Focus and Scope The Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics (GJLAE) is a peer-reviewed international journal dedicated to exploring the intersection of law, ethics, and emerging technologies in a global context. In an era of rapid technological advancement and increasing legal complexity, GJLAE provides a dynamic platform for discussing regulatory frameworks, ethical considerations, and comparative legal developments. GJLAE aims to contribute to legal scholarship by fostering interdisciplinary discussions and in-depth comparative legal analysis. The journal encourages contributions that analyze legal, ethical, and technological challenges from a transnational perspective, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of legal transformations worldwide. GJLAE is an open-access, peer-reviewed, and refereed journal published by the Lembaga Contrarius Indonesia. Scope The journal covers a broad range of topics, with a particular focus on comparative studies in public and private law, AI governance, and digital ethics. The Editors encourage submissions that integrate interdisciplinary approaches and examine legal issues through a comparative and global lens. Key topics include but are not limited to: Jurisprudence, Philosophy of Law, and Legal Theories Islamic Law, Customary Law, and Legal Pluralism in the Digital Era Comparative Studies in Constitutional and Administrative Law International Human Rights Law and Global Justice Ethical AI and the Role of Law in Tech Policy Digital Platform Law and Regulatory Challenges Legal and Ethical Implications of AI & Emerging Technologies Cyberlaw, Data Protection, and Digital Privacy AI Law & Governance, including Algorithmic Accountability Corporate Governance, Business Ethics, and International Trade Law Criminal Law and Cybercrime Regulations Environmental Law and Sustainable Development in the Age of AI The journal invites original contributions from scholars, practitioners, and policymakers worldwide. Priority is given to submissions that address contemporary legal challenges with a focus on novelty, innovation, and the application of comparative legal methods
Arjuna Subject : Umum - Umum
Articles 15 Documents
 1   2 
Legal Basis And Grounds For The Dismissal Of Claims Before The State Administrative Court (a Study of Decision No. 27/Plw/2024/PTUN.SMD) Dewi Iriani; Dwi Bambang Wisnu Atmaja; Aisah; Dian Puspita Dewi; Maya Indah Purnama Putri
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026
Publisher : CV. Cognispectra Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65917/gjlae.v2.i2.39

Abstract

The dismissal procedure plays a strategic role in maintaining judicial effectiveness, preventing abuse of the right to bring a claim, and ensuring that only cases satisfying the applicable legal requirements proceed to examination and adjudication. This study examines the legal basis governing the dismissal procedure for claims before the State Administrative Court, with reference to Decision No. 27/Plw/2024/PTUN.SMD, and the grounds on which the judges rejected the opposition to the dismissal order. The study employs normative legal research based on a literature review and qualitative analysis. The findings show that the dismissal procedure is principally governed by Article 62(1), in conjunction with Article 62(3), of Law No. 5 of 1986 concerning State Administrative Courts. The assessment of legal standing concerns direct impact, a legitimate legal interest, and the relevance of the legal issue raised. The court rejected the opposition because, first, the claim concerned a dispute that had previously been filed with substantially the same subject matter and parties; and, second, the claim was submitted after the applicable filing period had expired
The Effectiveness of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle in Managing the Anti-Bribery Management System at the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court Icha Febi Hana Rohmatul Zhaza; Dewi Iriani; Tegar Bintang Aji Putra; Nabillah U. Khasanah; Ambarwati
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026
Publisher : CV. Cognispectra Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65917/gjlae.v2.i2.42

Abstract

This study comprehensively examines the effectiveness of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle in managing the Anti-Bribery Management System (ABMS) at the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, data were collected through in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, direct observation of the implementation process, and a review of relevant documents and policies. The findings indicate that consistent and structured implementation of the PDCA cycle has significantly improved organizational awareness and individual compliance with anti-bribery requirements. Through systematic planning, implementation, evaluation, and continuous improvement, the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court has strengthened its internal-control, monitoring, and evaluation mechanisms, thereby improving its capacity to identify, prevent, and mitigate bribery risks. However, several challenges continue to hinder optimization of the PDCA framework, including a shortage of competent human resources, organizational resistance to cultural change, and limited managerial commitment to sustaining the process.
Reforming Mining Governance in Indonesia’s National Strategic Projects: Lessons from Canada and Australia A. Muhammad Hasgar A.S.; Adhe Ismail Ananda
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026
Publisher : CV. Cognispectra Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65917/gjlae.v2.i2.48

Abstract

This study examines mining governance within Indonesia’s National Strategic Projects framework by comparing regulatory and institutional practices in Canada and Australia. It addresses the continuing gap between the acceleration of mineral-based development and the protection of environmental, social, and community interests. The research applies normative legal research through comparative and conceptual approaches. Legal materials are analysed using six criteria: institutional architecture, licensing and impact assessment, transparency, public and Indigenous participation, monitoring and enforcement, and mine closure. The findings show that Canada connects impact assessment with Indigenous rights, knowledge, and negotiated project obligations, while Australia combines federal environmental review, state mining authority, native title negotiation, and financial rehabilitation mechanisms. Both systems continue to face jurisdictional fragmentation, power imbalances, and inconsistencies in implementation. Indonesia possesses an extensive regulatory framework, but its effectiveness remains limited by fragmented coordination, formalistic participation, weak data integration, inconsistent enforcement, and inadequate post-mining accountability. This study proposes a contextualised mining governance model based on pre-design sustainability screening, integrated licensing, meaningful participation and benefit-sharing, and independent compliance monitoring. The model rejects direct legal transplantation and instead promotes the functional adaptation of comparative practices to Indonesia’s constitutional, administrative, and socio-ecological condition
Debtor Liability for Non-Performance of a Homologated Composition Agreement: Analysis Of Central Jakarta Commercial Court Decision No. 31/Pdt.Sus-Pembatalan Perdamaian/2023 Syarifah Bilqis Rasyida Harahap; Puspa Melati Hasibuan; Zulfi Chairi
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026
Publisher : CV. Cognispectra Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65917/gjlae.v2.i2.64

Abstract

This study examines the legal standard for debtor liability when a homologated composition agreement is not performed and clarifies the procedural steps that must precede bankruptcy under Indonesian bankruptcy law. The research uses a normative doctrinal method with statute, case, and conceptual approaches. Primary legal materials include Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU), the homologation decision in Case No. 78/Pdt.Sus-PKPU/2019/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst, Central Jakarta Commercial Court Decision No. 31/Pdt.Sus-Pembatalan Perdamaian/2023/PN Niaga.Jkt.Pst, and Supreme Court Decision No. 186 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024. The study finds that debtor non-performance does not automatically produce bankruptcy. Under Articles 170, 171, and 291, a creditor must seek cancellation, the debtor bears the burden of proving performance, and the court may grant a maximum thirty-day period to cure the default before deciding whether cancellation is justified. In the case studied, PT Oilrig Binamas Pratama had paid an initial IDR 1 billion but failed to pay the remaining IDR 6.114 billion due by 27 July 2020. After repeated demands in May 2023, the debtors submitted no evidence of performance, relied on an unsubstantiated asset-sale proposal, and later offered a post-dated cheque. The Commercial Court treated these circumstances as sufficient proof of neglect and cancelled the composition agreement; the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the decision. The article contributes an operational framework for assessing material non-performance and good faith based on maturity, duration and magnitude of default, repeated demands, evidentiary proof, and the credibility of a proposed cure, thereby balancing business rescue with creditor protection
State Responsibility and Corporate Accountability for Transboundary Haze Pollution: a Comparative Analysis Of International and Indonesian Law Maura Alifia Khairunnisa; Jelly Leviza; Fajar Khaify Rizky
Global Journal of Law, AI & Ethics Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026
Publisher : CV. Cognispectra Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.65917/gjlae.v2.i2.79

Abstract

Transboundary haze pollution from forest and land fires raises two distinct legal questions: when a State may incur international responsibility for harm originating within its territory, and how private corporations responsible for fire-related conduct may be held accountable under domestic law. This study analyzes those questions through a normative juridical method using treaty, statute, conceptual, case, and comparative approaches. The analysis focuses on the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP), the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), relevant international jurisprudence, and Indonesia's environmental and plantation laws. The study finds that corporate land burning is not automatically attributable to Indonesia under the law of State responsibility. International responsibility requires an applicable primary obligation, conduct attributable to the State, and a breach of that obligation; in this context, the relevant State conduct may consist of a failure by public authorities to exercise the due diligence required for prevention, supervision, information exchange, cooperation, or enforcement. ARSIWA supplies the secondary rules governing the consequences of an established breach rather than the primary environmental duty itself. The AATHP is a binding regional treaty with substantial preventive and cooperative duties, but its enforcement architecture remains limited because disputes are confined to consultation or negotiation. Indonesian law, by contrast, can impose administrative, civil, and criminal consequences directly on corporations. The article develops a two-layer accountability framework linking international State responsibility with domestic corporate accountability and identifies evidence-sharing, source attribution, and enforcement coordination as the principal interface gaps that must be addressed

Page 2 of 2 | Total Record : 15

 1   2 

Filter by Year

2025 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 2, No. 2, August 2026 Vol. 2, No. 1, February 2026 Vol. 1, No. 1, August 2025