Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations
Iustitia is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to publishing high-quality scholarly works in legal studies, political science, and international relations. The journal provides an international platform for researchers, legal scholars, political analysts, diplomats, and policymakers to disseminate original research articles, theoretical contributions, empirical studies, and critical analyses addressing contemporary legal and political challenges in national and global contexts. The journal welcomes manuscripts in areas such as legal theory, constitutional law, criminal law, civil law, human rights, governance, public policy, comparative politics, political institutions, democracy studies, international law, diplomacy, global security, regional cooperation, and interdisciplinary research connecting law and politics. All submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure originality, academic integrity, analytical depth, and meaningful scholarly contribution. Published quarterly in February, May, August, and November, Iustitia aims to foster global academic dialogue, promote critical and evidence-based legal and political research, and strengthen the role of law and international relations in advancing justice, democratic governance, and international cooperation at local, national, regional, and global levels.
Articles
15 Documents
<![CDATA[Constitutionalism and Democratic Backsliding: A Normative Analysis of Contemporary Governance Trends ]]>
<![CDATA[Mappasessu Mappasessu]]>;
<![CDATA[Erniati Erniati]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relati ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This article develops a normative-doctrinal framework for assessing democratic backsliding within contemporary constitutional governance. Departing from purely descriptive accounts of institutional decline, the study reconstructs constitutionalism as a principled architecture grounded in separation of powers, judicial independence, electoral equality, emergency limitation, and administrative neutrality. Through comparative constitutional analysis across federal, unitary, and multilevel systems, the research demonstrates that democratic regression frequently occurs through formally lawful amendments, statutory reforms, and regulatory recalibrations that preserve textual compliance while undermining substantive democratic guarantees. By synthesizing scholarship on executive aggrandizement, populist constitutionalism, supranational oversight, and emergency governance, the article articulates evaluative benchmarks capable of distinguishing adaptive constitutional reform from erosive transformation. The study further advances the concept of constitutional repair as a doctrinal mechanism for restoring institutional equilibrium. Its contribution lies in integrating normative reconstruction with comparative constitutional methodology to generate analytically rigorous and generalizable standards for diagnosing and responding to democratic backsliding in the twenty-first century.]]>
<![CDATA[The Evolution of International Human Rights Norms: A Doctrinal Study of United Nations Legal Instruments ]]>
<![CDATA[Sherena Anodhea Eka Pramudita]]>;
<![CDATA[Qolbi Hanif Fadhlulloh]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relati ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[The evolution of international human rights norms represents a dynamic intersection of law, policy, and institutional practice, wherein the United Nations serves as both norm-maker and supervisory authority. This doctrinal study examines primary and secondary legal sources, including treaties, optional protocols, General Assembly resolutions, Human Rights Council outputs, and treaty body interpretations, alongside scholarly monographs and travaux préparatoires, to trace the historical development and thematic expansion of human rights obligations. Employing textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation pursuant to Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the research identifies patterns of continuity, modification, and normative innovation, highlighting the integration of emerging domains such as climate justice, corporate accountability, refugee protection, mental healthcare, and gender equality. The study further analyzes supervisory mechanisms, interpretative guidance, and cross-instrument harmonization that reinforce legal coherence and operational legitimacy. Findings indicate that thematic expansion, coupled with institutional oversight, consolidates the UN human rights framework while accommodating contemporary global challenges. This research contributes both theoretically and methodologically by providing a systematic, normatively grounded account of the evolution, integration, and practical relevance of United Nations human rights norms.]]>
<![CDATA[Judicial Independence and Rule of Law: A Comparative Legal Policy Review ]]>
<![CDATA[Sahal Hanafi]]>;
<![CDATA[Ekberth Valen Noya]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relati ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This study examines judicial independence and the rule of law through a non-empirical, doctrinal-comparative legal policy approach that integrates constitutional interpretation, statutory analysis, and cross-jurisdictional jurisprudence. Drawing upon primary legal instruments, including constitutional provisions, statutes, governmental regulations, and landmark judicial decisions, alongside comparative scholarship, the research analyzes how formal guarantees of independence are operationalized through institutional mechanisms and enforcement practices. The findings demonstrate that judicial independence is multidimensional, encompassing structural safeguards, procedural integrity, disciplinary autonomy, and collective professional agency. Comparative assessment between Indonesia and European Union member states reveals that multilayered enforcement, including supranational judicial oversight, strengthens resilience against executive encroachment, populist intervention, and emergency governance expansion. The study further identifies the interdependence between independence and legal certainty, public trust, and economic stability, arguing that independence acquires substantive meaning only when embedded in enforceable and context-sensitive institutional frameworks. The research contributes theoretically by refining the conceptual integration of autonomy and accountability, and methodologically by advancing structured doctrinal-comparative analysis within contemporary constitutional scholarship.]]>
<![CDATA[Geopolitical Rivalry and International Legal Order: A Theoretical Examination of Contemporary Power Politics ]]>
<![CDATA[Imam Syafi'i]]>;
<![CDATA[Deo Renaldi Saputra]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relati ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This article examines how contemporary geopolitical rivalry reshapes the international legal order through normative reinterpretation, selective enforcement, and pluralized economic governance. Employing a non-empirical normative–theoretical methodology, the study integrates doctrinal analysis with structural and critical-constructivist interpretation to assess how great power competition recalibrates foundational legal principles. The analysis demonstrates that sovereignty and recognition doctrines under the United Nations Charter are not eroded but recontextualized within competing geopolitical narratives. Collective security mechanisms exhibit patterns of selective enforcement and discretionary activation, generating legitimacy tensions while preserving institutional continuity. In the economic and technological domains, expansive national security exceptions and regulatory bifurcation illustrate how strategic rivalry restructures treaty interpretation without formally displacing multilateral frameworks. The findings indicate that contemporary power politics embeds rivalry within the operational semantics of international law, producing adaptive constitutional pluralism rather than normative disintegration. International legality emerges as a dynamic equilibrium in which institutional resilience coexists with differentiated application shaped by strategic alignment.]]>
<![CDATA[Cyber Sovereignty and International Law: Legal Challenges in the Digital Age ]]>
<![CDATA[Maulana Anwar]]>;
<![CDATA[Afkarul Azmi]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relati ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This article examines the evolving doctrine of cyber sovereignty within contemporary international law through a non-empirical doctrinal and comparative legal approach. It reconstructs the normative foundations of sovereignty in cyberspace by analyzing the United Nations Charter, customary international law, state responsibility principles, and national regulatory frameworks, including Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions Law and related implementing regulations. The study clarifies the relationship between jurisdiction, due diligence, and attribution in determining the legality of state conduct in cross-border cyber operations. Comparative legal policy analysis demonstrates that divergent regulatory models ranging from sovereignty-centric territorial control to cooperative multistakeholder governance reflect competing interpretations of sovereignty rather than its decline. The findings indicate that cyber sovereignty functions as a relational and adaptive principle conditioned by proportionality, human rights safeguards, and cooperative responsibility. By integrating doctrinal interpretation with comparative assessment of state practice, the article advances a structured analytical framework that reconciles sovereign autonomy with global digital interdependence and contributes to the development of coherent international legal standards for cyberspace governance. ]]>
<![CDATA[The Regulation of Digital Platforms and Freedom of Expression in Indonesia’s Constitutional System ]]>
<![CDATA[Zahra Nabilla]]>;
<![CDATA[Azka Syifaul Maula]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): May: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This study examines the constitutional relationship between digital platform regulation and freedom of expression within Indonesia’s legal system by analyzing the normative imbalance between state moderation authority and constitutional protections of communicative liberty. The research employs a non empirical juridical methodology grounded in constitutional, doctrinal, conceptual, and comparative legal analysis through the examination of the Constitution of Indonesia 1945, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, Ministerial Regulation Number 5 Year 2020, Constitutional Court decisions, and scholarly discussions concerning digital constitutionalism and democratic governance. The findings demonstrate that Indonesian digital regulation continues to prioritize administrative control, platform compliance obligations, and public order rationales without developing sufficiently coherent proportionality standards capable of protecting constitutional freedom of expression. Constitutional adjudication has recognized the significance of online participation within democratic society, yet judicial interpretation remains inconsistent in defining legality, necessity, procedural fairness, and restrictive limits applicable to digital expression regulation. The study argues that reconstruction of Indonesian digital governance requires rights based constitutional proportionality, transparent moderation mechanisms, independent oversight institutions, and stronger safeguards against disproportionate state intervention in digital communicative spaces.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Harmonization of Electronic Evidence within Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System ]]>
<![CDATA[Imroatun Solekah]]>;
<![CDATA[Teddy Delano]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): May: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This study examines the harmonization of electronic evidence regulation within Indonesia’s criminal justice system by analyzing normative inconsistencies between the Criminal Procedure Code, the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, and sectoral electronic system regulations. The research employs a normative doctrinal and comparative legal approach using statutory interpretation, conceptual analysis, and comparative legal reasoning to evaluate admissibility standards, authentication procedures, evidentiary value, and procedural safeguards governing electronic evidence. The findings demonstrate that fragmented evidentiary regulation has generated judicial inconsistency concerning digital authentication, forensic verification, chain of custody, and procedural legality in criminal proceedings. Indonesian courts continue to apply divergent interpretations regarding the relationship between electronic evidence and the principle of negative statutory proof, particularly in relation to evidentiary reliability and constitutional due process. The study proposes a harmonized evidentiary governance model integrating procedural codification, forensic standardization, institutional synchronization, and unified judicial interpretation in order to strengthen legal certainty, procedural fairness, and technological accountability within Indonesia’s digital criminal justice administration. The proposed framework reinforces institutional coherence across investigation, prosecution, and adjudication processes.]]>
<![CDATA[State Responsibility in Protecting Citizens’ Digital Rights under Indonesian Constitutional Law ]]>
<![CDATA[Bayu Romadon]]>;
<![CDATA[Ihsan Ihsan]]>;
<![CDATA[Muslim Muslim]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): May: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This study examines the constitutional construction of state responsibility in protecting citizens digital rights under Indonesian constitutional law within the context of expanding digital governance and increasing risks of surveillance based state intervention. The research employs non empirical normative legal research grounded in doctrinal, statutory, conceptual, and constitutional approaches through analysis of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia of 1945, the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, the Personal Data Protection Law, the Human Rights Law, Constitutional Court decisions, and relevant digital constitutionalism scholarship. The findings demonstrate that constitutional guarantees concerning privacy, freedom of expression, and informational autonomy have not yet been translated into coherent operational legal mechanisms capable of limiting excessive digital surveillance and protecting online civil liberties. Indonesian digital governance continues to reflect fragmented regulatory structures, weak institutional accountability, and insufficient constitutional safeguards concerning algorithmic governance and state monitoring practices. The study proposes a reconstruction of constitutional state obligations based on proportionality, democratic constitutionalism, judicial accountability, and algorithmic due process in order to establish enforceable constitutional protections capable of preserving civil liberties and democratic participation within technologically mediated governance systems.]]>
<![CDATA[Legal Reform of Carbon Trading Mechanisms in Indonesia’s Environmental Law Policy ]]>
<![CDATA[Zulfikri Akramul Akbar]]>;
<![CDATA[Ade Wahyuni Azhar]]>;
<![CDATA[Erniati Erniati]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): May: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This study examines the structural weaknesses of Indonesia’s carbon trading governance within environmental law, investment regulation, and international climate obligations. The research applies normative juridical, doctrinal, and comparative legal approaches through statutory interpretation and conceptual analysis of Indonesian environmental regulations, carbon market regulations, and international climate instruments. The analysis demonstrates that Indonesia’s carbon trading framework remains fragmented because institutional coordination, emissions verification, market supervision, and liability mechanisms are regulated through disconnected legal regimes lacking integrated enforcement structures. The study further identifies serious deficiencies concerning administrative accountability, judicial enforcement, ecological supervision, and climate related financial governance, particularly regarding carbon fraud, greenwashing, and anti money laundering safeguards. Comparative examination of China, Finland, Sweden, and New Zealand illustrates that integrated climate governance requires centralized supervision, transparent carbon registries, enforceable liability systems, and judicially supported environmental accountability. This study proposes an integrated legal reform model emphasizing institutional synchronization, sustainable finance governance, ecological justice, and conformity with the Paris Agreement and United Nations climate regime. The proposed framework strengthens regulatory coherence and climate legitimacy globally.]]>
<![CDATA[The Future of Smart Contracts in Indonesia’s Commercial and Business Law System ]]>
<![CDATA[Leonardus Teguh Handoyo]]>;
<![CDATA[Anggun Wida Prawira]]>;
<![CDATA[Aswanto Aswanto]]>
<![CDATA[ Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): May: Iustitia: Journal of Legal Theory, Politics, and International Relations ]]>
Publisher : <![CDATA[CV SCRIPTA INTELEKTUAL MANDIRI ]]>
Show Abstract
|
Download Original
|
Original Source
|
Check in Google Scholar
<![CDATA[This research examines the future regulatory position of blockchain based smart contracts within Indonesia’s commercial and business law system by focusing on the unresolved legal tensions between conventional contract doctrine and decentralized digital governance. The study applies normative juridical and doctrinal legal research methods supported by statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to analyze the Indonesian Civil Code, Government Regulation Number 71 of 2019, Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions, and Law Number 4 of 2023 concerning Financial Sector Development and Strengthening. The findings demonstrate that Indonesian contract law remains structurally dependent upon conventional assumptions concerning consent, enforceability, jurisdiction, evidentiary authority, and institutional dispute settlement, while blockchain based transactions increasingly operate through autonomous computational execution beyond traditional judicial intervention. Comparative analysis reveals that several jurisdictions have adopted technologically adaptive regulatory models integrating blockchain governance, legal sandbox mechanisms, digital commercial supervision, and hybrid dispute resolution frameworks. The research concludes that Indonesia requires comprehensive legislative reform capable of harmonizing commercial modernization, algorithmic governance, and legal certainty within the expanding architecture of decentralized digital commerce.]]>
