cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Dhiva Trenadi
Contact Email
dhivatrenadi@upnvj.ac.id
Phone
+6281330274228
Journal Mail Official
jicls@upnvj.ac.id
Editorial Address
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta Jl. RS Fatmawati No. 1, Pondok Labu, Cilandak, South Jakarta, 12450 Indonesia
Location
Kota depok,
Jawa barat
INDONESIA
Ius Comparatum: Journal of Law Studies
Published by Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jakarta
ISSN : -     EISSN : 31635628     DOI : https://doi.org/10.35586/icjls.v1i2.12314
Core Subject :
Ius Comparatum: Journal of Law Studies (ICJLS) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published in English by the Doctoral Programme of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta. The journal is devoted to promoting scholarly discourse and innovation in the field of comparative legal studies, serving as a platform for the dissemination of research that bridges legal traditions, systems, and cultures. ICJLS focuses on research-based novelty and encourages contributions that offer original insights, critical analysis, and interdisciplinary approaches to legal issues from a comparative perspective. It aims to deepen the understanding of how different legal systems operate, interact, and evolve in response to global, regional, and local developments. Published three times a year, in January, May, and September, the journal covers a wide spectrum of legal disciplines, including but not limited to civil law, private law, constitutional law, human rights law, public health law, and civil society issues. ICJLS particularly welcomes manuscripts that explore the dynamics of legal convergence and divergence across jurisdictions.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 12 Documents
 1   2 
Enhancing Digital Security via E-Law Optimization and Deepfake Regulation: A Comparative Study of China Widya Tri Lestari; Reva Fitri Ramadani; Yasinta Diva Negara; Fadli Ananda Putra
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jicls.v1i1.10824

Abstract

The development of artificial intelligence (AI), especially deepfake technology, presents new challenges in the realm of law and digital security. Although initially developed for the purposes of the creative industry, this technology is often misused to spread false information, defamation, and even extortion. Indonesia does not yet have regulations that specifically regulate deepfake, so law enforcement against its misuse still relies on the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), which does not explicitly cover this technology. This study discusses the urgency of deepfake regulation in Indonesia by analyzing the "Deep Synthesis Provisions" policy implemented in China. The results of the analysis show that an adaptive regulatory approach, co-regulation, development of detection technology, increasing digital literacy, and a multistakeholder framework can be solutions in formulating deepfake regulations in Indonesia. Therefore, a revision of the ITE Law is needed to include specific regulations regarding deepfake, as well as collaboration between the government, technology industry, and society to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI.
the The Roots of Corruption in Indonesia and Singapore: Building Real Anti-Corruption Solutions stefie yuliandra; Abror Jilan Yankusy; Selma Dwi Anaya Pebriyanti; Aliya Sari
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jicls.v1i1.10826

Abstract

Corruption in Indonesia is a serious problem that continues to hamper national development, undermine public trust in government, and cause huge losses to society. Although various regulations have been implemented, corrupt practices remain rampant in various sectors. This paper discusses the main causes of corruption in Indonesia, including weak oversight systems, low transparency, lack of individual integrity, permissive legal culture, and weak law enforcement. One of the root causes identified is excessive interest in material wealth, weak internal and external legal culture, and lack of transparency in financial management and public policy. The case study of the PT Pertamina Patra Niaga scandal shows gaps in the supervisory system and the ineffectiveness of regulations in preventing corruption. In comparison, Singapore's success in curbing corruption is referenced, with an emphasis on the principle of zero tolerance, the use of modern technology, monitoring of officials' assets, and public participation. From this analysis, several solutions are recommended for Indonesia, including strengthening the independence of law enforcement agencies, applying advanced technology in surveillance, increasing transparency, and providing decent salaries for public officials to reduce incentives for corruption. In conclusion, eradicating corruption requires a holistic approach that includes reforming the legal system, increasing public awareness, and strict supervision in all strategic sectors.
Revitalising the Juvenile Criminal Justice System in Indonesia: a Comparative Study with International Law and Evaluation of Practice Yasmin Arinda Lubis; Reyva Cahyaningrum; Suci Andara Sari; Khashia Nadia Safitri
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jicls.v1i1.10829

Abstract

Although it has been stipulated in Law Number 11 of 2012 concerning the Juvenile Criminal Justice System (UU SPPA), the juvenile criminal justice system in Indonesia still faces challenges in ensuring the protection of children's rights. Therefore, this study aims to examine the urgency of revitalizing the juvenile justice system with a normative legal approach and empirical analysis. In this study, the author compares the juvenile justice system in Indonesia with international legal standards, and evaluates practices in courts to identify steps for improvement. The research findings indicate that the juvenile criminal justice system in Indonesia has not yet fully accommodated the principle of prioritizing optimal protection for children. Some of the problems found include violations of children's rights, social stigma, and lack of psychosocial support. In addition, limited facilities and professional staff at the Special Child Development Institution (LPKA) also hamper optimal rehabilitation of children. Thus, revitalizing the juvenile criminal justice system is urgent by optimizing diversion mechanisms, implementing restorative justice, increasing the capacity of law enforcement officers, strengthening the role of LPKA, and socializing to the community and families. With these efforts, the juvenile criminal justice system can be more responsive to developments in international law and there are concrete recommendations for policy makers to create a legal system that is more in line with the main priority of child welfare.
A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF CHILD CRIMINAL LAW: (Juvenile Justice Criminal Law Policy in Indonesia and Malaysia: A Comparison) Farhan Taufiqurahman; Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jicls.v1i1.10846

Abstract

This paper aims to compare juvenile justice criminal law policies in Indonesia and Malaysia. Child protection is an important aspect of social development and community welfare. In this context, a comparison between these two countries provides valuable insight into child protection approaches, policies and implementation. From the research results, it appears that both countries have serious efforts to protect children's rights. However, there are differences in legal approaches and implementation of child protection policies. In Indonesia, there are regulations governing child protection, such as Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection, while in Malaysia, there is the 2001 Children's Act which regulates children's rights. Both countries have their own characteristics in dealing with children in conflict with the law, both in terms of legal basis, institutions and approaches to resolution. This research uses a normative juridical method with a statutory and comparative legal approach. The results of the study show that Indonesia has progressive regulations through the SPPA Law, but still faces challenges in implementation. Meanwhile, Malaysia still applies a relatively conservative and institutional approach.
Comparison of Legal Systems in Land Acquisition for Public Interest in Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and the United States Sahne Fa Alhama Ibrahim Sakti; Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 2 No 1 (2026): January
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/icjls.v2i1.10847

Abstract

Land acquisition for the public interest is an important aspect of a country's development, with different policies in eachcountry according to the legal system and socio-political factors. This study compares the legal systems governing landacquisition in Indonesia, Malaysia, China, and the United States, focusing on procurement, compensation, and dispute-resolution mechanisms. The method used is a normative legal approach with qualitative analysis of secondary data fromregulations, journals, and literature. The results show that Indonesia and Malaysia rely on deliberation, but still facechallenges in fair compensation. China prioritises state control over land, often overriding individual rights, whereas theUnited States applies eminent domain with stronger legal protections for landowners. Each country has advantages anddisadvantages in balancing development interests and the rights of landowners. Indonesia needs to increase transparencyin land price valuations and strengthen legal access for landowners. The adoption of best practices from other countries,such as market-value-based compensation systems and clearer government authority, can help achieve fairer and moreeffective land acquisition policies.
The Effectiveness Of The Death Penalty In Indonesia Through A Human Rights Perspective (A Comparative Study Of The Application Of The Death Penalty With Australia) Nadia Marsya Ramdhani; Khoirunnisa Putri Diksy; Daniella Sitanggang; Kirana Amelia
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/jicls.v1i1.10859

Abstract

The death penalty is included in the main punishment and is currently regulated in Law No. 1 of 2023 or the new Criminal Code as an alternative punishment and last resort. One of the death penalty cases occurred in 2015 against Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, two of the nine Bali Nine drug syndicates from Australia. However, Australia rejected the execution because there are differences in the application of the death penalty which Australia has abolished the death penalty. The purpose of this study is to find out how the comparison of the application of the death penalty in Indonesia with Australia and how the effectiveness of the death penalty in Indonesia through a human rights perspective. Through the normative research method with a legislative approach and a comparative approach by comparing with Australia, it can be seen that there are differences in the application of the death penalty in Indonesia and Australia where Australia has abolished the death penalty as a form of protecting human rights and there is no evidence that shows the effectiveness of the application of the death penalty. Then, for drug dealers and producers, the death penalty is ineffective because it only increases awareness of the risks without actually providing a deterrent effect. Therefore, the government needs to evaluate the death penalty policy in Indonesia so that the credibility of the death penalty as a means of deterrence for serious criminals increases and creates a deterrent effect.
Comparison of Election Law in Indonesia, England, The United States, and Malaysia Dina Cynthia Putri Dina Cynthia Putri; Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 2 No 2 (2026): May
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/icjls.v2i2.11021

Abstract

A General election is a forum or medium for the people to express their sovereignty. Ideally, the general election aims to regularly and peacefully effect changes in government power in accordance with the mechanism guaranteed and determined by the constitution. This study aims to examine how differences in the General Election Systems of Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and the United States affect aspects of government systems, election frequencies, political participation, and party systems. Second, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the election process in Indonesia, Britain, and the United States. Based on the study's results, the electoral system in Indonesia follows the principle of direct representative democracy.In contrast, in the UK, the general election adopts the parliamentary system with the first-past-the-post principle. In the United States, the electoral system combines representative democracy and Electoral College principles to elect the president, while in Malaysia, it uses the FPTP system. In addition, there are advantages and disadvantages to elections in these three countries: for example, in Indonesia, elections directly confer strong legitimacy and increase people's political participation, but they are vulnerable to money politics. These four countries use different approaches to their democratic systems, even though their goals remain aligned: to provide people with opportunities to vote for their leaders and representatives.
Juvenile Justice Criminal Law Policy Between Indonesia and Malaysia: A Comparison Farhan Taufiqurahman; Handar Subhandi Bakhtiar
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 2 (2025): Justice in The Legal System
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This paper aims to compare the criminal law policies of juvenile justice in Indonesia and Malaysia. Child protection is an essential aspect of social development and community welfare. In this context, a comparison between the two countries offers valuable insights into the approaches, policies, and implementations of child protection. The results of the study show that both countries have made serious efforts to protect children's rights. However, there are differences in the legal approach and implementation of child protection policies. In Indonesia, regulations governing child protection exist, such as Law Number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection. In Malaysia, the Children's Law of 2001 regulates children's rights. Both countries have their own characteristics in dealing with children in conflict with the law, both in terms of legal basis, institutions, and settlement approaches. This study employs a normative juridical method, incorporating a statutory and comparative legal approach. The results of the study indicate that Indonesia has progressive regulations in place through the SPPA Law, but still faces challenges in their implementation. Meanwhile, Malaysia still applies a relatively conservative and institutional approach.
Procedural Justice in Continental & Anglo-Saxon Systems: Philosophical Comparative of Due Process & Rechtsstaat Principles Agam Ibnu Asa Agam
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 2 (2025): Justice in The Legal System
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/icjls.v1i2.12007

Abstract

This study comparatively analyzes the philosophical nature of procedural justice in the Continental (Civil Law) and Anglo-Saxon (Common Law) legal systems, centered on the fundamental principles of Due Process of Law and Rechtsstaat. The debate over the balance of state authority and individual rights underscores the importance of this study, with foundations rooted in legal theory and political philosophy differing in both traditions. The purpose of this research is to identify similarities, differences, and potential convergence in ensuring justice in the legal process. The methodology used is an in-depth philosophical comparative analysis, tracing the philosophical foundations, historical evolution, and practical manifestations of the two concepts, beyond descriptive comparisons. The results show that despite coming from different historical and philosophical paths, the Anglo-Saxon (Due Process of Law) and Continental (Rechtsstaat) legal traditions show fundamental differences in approaches to procedural justice. Ontologically, Due Process is rooted in the empiricism and essence of ex-post individual protection through fair procedures, with epistemology growing out of case precedents. Meanwhile, ontologically, the Rechtsstaat is based on rationalism and the essence of a just and predictable state structure ex-ante through the codification of law, with epistemology derived from the systematization of coherent law. Despite these differences, the two legal traditions are increasingly facing similar challenges in the global legal landscape, indicating the potential for shared learning and reform. The novelty of this research lies in an integrated philosophical and comparative approach, uncovering the normative foundations of legal procedures and contributing to the understanding of the convergence of procedural justice in the global era.
Reconceptualizing Justice: Utilizing The Fair Trial Principle As A Standard For A States' Criminal Justice Systems M. Rizki Yudha Prawira
Journal of Ius Comparatum Law Studies Vol 1 No 2 (2025): Justice in The Legal System
Publisher : Faculty of Law |Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.35586/icjls.v1i2.12026

Abstract

This publication emphasizes the critical importance of the right to a fair trial within the criminal justice system, highlighting its role in protecting human rights and ensuring justice. Referencing international treaties like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the article illustrates that fair trials are a fundamental entitlement, requiring independent and impartial hearings. The principle serves as a safeguard against state abuses, such as arbitrary detention and torture, and encompasses essential guarantees like the presumption of innocence, the right to legal defense, and public hearings. These components are vital for preventing miscarriages of justice and maintaining transparency and accountability in the judicial process. Engaging with theories of justice, the article discusses John Rawls’ concept of fairness, which advocates for equitable treatment in the legal system. Amartya Sen emphasizes addressing real injustices, while Ronald Dworkin argues that individual rights, including the right to a fair trial, should not be compromised for the majority. Thus, the fair trial principle is foundational to the legitimacy of any criminal justice system.

Page 1 of 2 | Total Record : 12

 1   2 

Filter by Year

2025 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol 2 No 2 (2026): May Vol 2 No 1 (2026): January Vol 1 No 2 (2025): Justice in The Legal System Vol 1 No 1 (2025): Comparative Studies on Law Perspective