cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
Mochammad Fahlevi
Contact Email
admin@privietlab.org
Phone
+628131000351
Journal Mail Official
ijlgr@privietlab.org
Editorial Address
Jl. DR. Ide Anak Agung Gde Agung, RT.5/RW.2, Kuningan Timur, Setiabudi, South Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta 12950, Indonesia
Location
Unknown,
Unknown
INDONESIA
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation
Published by PRIVIETLAB
ISSN : -     EISSN : 31639720     DOI : https://doi.org/10.55942/ijlgr.v1i2.2217
Core Subject :
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation is an international scholarly journal dedicated to publishing high-quality and impactful research in the fields of law, governance, regulation, public policy, and related interdisciplinary areas. The journal aims to provide a rigorous academic platform for the dissemination of original empirical studies, theoretical developments, critical reviews, and policy-relevant insights that advance knowledge and practice in legal, institutional, and regulatory issues. The journal welcomes manuscripts that offer clear theoretical contributions, robust methodological approaches, and practical implications for academics, legal practitioners, policymakers, public institutions, regulators, and governance stakeholders. It particularly encourages studies that address contemporary legal challenges, governance transformation, regulatory reform, institutional accountability, public administration, compliance, and the relationship between law, society, and development.
Arjuna Subject : -
Articles 8 Documents
 1 
Rule of law and legal pluralism in Indonesia: Constitutional transformation, regulatory governance, and rights protection in a decentralized state Maya Shaffina Putri
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i1.1885

Abstract

Indonesia’s legal system is often described through apparently contradictory images: a civil-law jurisdiction that relies heavily on statutes, a constitutional democracy with an assertive Constitutional Court, a decentralized state with thousands of local regulations, and a plural society in which adat, Islamic norms, administrative practice, and national legislation operate simultaneously. This paper examines Indonesian law as a site of constitutional transformation, regulatory governance, and rights contestation after Reformasi. Using a qualitative doctrinal and socio-legal literature review, it synthesizes peer-reviewed research and key legal materials on constitutional review, decentralization, anti-corruption, legal pluralism, the Job Creation regime, the 2023 Criminal Code, and digital defamation law. The central argument is that Indonesia’s rule-of-law challenge is not primarily the absence of law, but the interaction of institutional fragmentation, uneven legal reasoning, politicized rulemaking, and unresolved tensions between legal pluralism and constitutional rights. The paper finds that Indonesia has built important legal institutions since 1998, particularly constitutional review and specialized courts, but these institutions operate within a regulatory environment marked by overlapping jurisdictions, weak harmonization, and contested public participation. Legal reform should therefore shift from episodic statutory change to a systemic agenda: integrated judicial review of subordinate regulations, rights-sensitive recognition of living law and adat, more transparent judicial reasoning, strengthened anti-corruption safeguards, participatory regulatory impact assessment, and narrow interpretation of speech and morality offenses. These reforms would improve legal certainty for citizens and businesses while preserving Indonesia’s plural constitutional identity.
Investment law and realized investment in Indonesia: An empirical legal analysis of regulatory reform, institutional quality, and capital formation in 2019-2025 Radha Aulia Putri
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i1.1887

Abstract

Indonesia has repeatedly redesigned its investment laws to convert regulatory reforms into capital formation, industrial upgrading, and employment creation. This study examines whether the contemporary regime of capital investment law is consistent with observed empirical outcomes in 2019-2025. Using an empirical legal method, it triangulates public legal instruments, Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM) realized investment statistics, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Foreign Direct Investment (UNCTAD FDI) data, and institutional indicators from the World Bank and World Justice Project. The legal framework is anchored in Law No. 25 of 2007 on Capital Investment, the Job Creation Framework, Government Regulation No. 5 of 2021 on risk-based business licensing, and Presidential Regulation No. 10 of 2021 on investment business fields. The data show a record realized direct investment of Rp1,714.2 trillion in 2024 and Rp1,931.2 trillion in 2025. Foreign investment remained important, but domestic investment became a larger contributor in 2025. UNCTAD data show FDI inflows of US$24.212 billion in 2024, recovering from 2023 but remaining below the 2022 peak value. The study concludes that Indonesian investment law is more facilitative; however, high-quality investment still depends on implementation certainty, regional coordination, environmental due process, dispute prevention, and credible enforcement.
Property law, customary tenure, and tourism-driven land conversion in Bali, Indonesia: An empirical socio-legal study Devi Afrianty
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i1.1888

Abstract

This article examines property law in Bali as a plural socio-legal system in which national land statutes, provincial regulation, desa adat authority, subak irrigation institutions, and tourism-driven markets interact. The study uses a doctrinal and empirical socio-legal design. Open data from Statistics Indonesia for Bali, Bali legal-information systems, reports attributed to the Bali regional office of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, and published government statistics are combined with peer-reviewed scholarship on Indonesian land law, legal pluralism, property rights, and Bali's subak landscape. The empirical results show a central governance tension. Bali has very high formal land-registration coverage, reported at 2,035,418 registered parcels or 95.4% of estimated parcels in 2023, yet registration has not prevented rapid changes in land use and market access. Reported rice-field area declined from about 70,995.82 ha in 2019 to 64,474 ha in 2024, with Denpasar and Gianyar experiencing particularly steep proportional losses. Only 39,973 ha of the 2024 rice-field area was classified as protected sustainable food agricultural land, leaving an estimated gap of more than 16,000 ha if the 87% national protection benchmark is applied. Tourism recovery after the COVID-19 shock intensified demand: direct foreign arrivals returned to 6.33 million in 2024, while accommodation and food services dominated Bali's fourth-quarter 2024 GRDP structure. The paper argues that Bali's property law problem is not merely weak titling; it is the misalignment between title security, spatial control, customary obligations, and market incentives. Policy reforms should integrate cadastral, spatial, and beneficial-ownership data, strengthen LP2B enforcement, and protect adat and subak land as social-ecological property rather than as ordinary alienable commodities.
Regulating Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Indonesia: An opinion paper on legal certainty, developmental selectivity, and sustainable openness  Muhammad Dimas Aditya Heru
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i1.1902

Abstract

Indonesia has spent more than two decades trying to reconcile two pressures that pull investment law in different directions: the need to attract long-term Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and the constitutional responsibility to govern natural resources, labor, land, public services, and local enterprise in the public interest. This opinion paper argues that Indonesia should not treat liberalization as the main measure of investment-law success. A more defensible model is sustainable openness: a regime that is open enough to reduce unnecessary entry barriers, but sufficiently disciplined to preserve democratic regulatory space, environmental safeguards, domestic capability building, and fair treatment for investors. The paper reviews the contemporary legal architecture of Indonesian FDI regulation, including Law Number 25 of 2007 on Investment, the Job Creation framework consolidated through Law Number 6 of 2023, the positive investment-list system, risk-based licensing through Government Regulation Number 28 of 2025, and the 2025 ministerial OSS implementing rules. It then develops a normative position on legal certainty, sectoral selectivity, licensing, investor protection, and treaty policy. The central recommendation is that Indonesia should move from formal deregulation toward transparent, reviewable, and development-oriented regulation. Legal certainty is not the absence of regulation; it is the existence of clear rules, accountable administration, credible dispute settlement, and predictable safeguards.
The law of fraud in the contemporary regulatory state: A systematic literature review of doctrine, enforcement, and digital victimization M Faizaldo Sujatmoko
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i1.1904

Abstract

Fraud law is no longer confined to a single criminal offence or a narrow civil misrepresentation doctrine. Contemporary fraud is regulated through criminal law, tort and equity, securities disclosure rules, corporate governance, whistleblower mechanisms, consumer protection, anti-money-laundering controls, and cybercrime policy. This systematic literature review synthesizes peer-reviewed research on fraud law and enforcement design, with emphasis on studies published in journals commonly indexed by Scopus and/or Web of Science. Following a PRISMA-informed approach, the review maps 42 core studies and complementary legal instruments across five domains: doctrinal elements, enforcement architecture, corporate and securities fraud, organizational detection and whistleblowing, and online fraud victimization. The synthesis shows that fraud law is most effective when it treats deception as both an individual wrongdoing and an institutional failure. The literature consistently links enforcement effectiveness to materiality standards, credible public resources, private enforcement incentives, reputational sanctions, whistleblower protection, and digital guardianship. Yet the review also identifies fragmentation between criminal, civil, regulatory, and platform-based remedies. The paper proposes an integrated fraud-law model that combines clear offence elements, proportionate sanctions, organizational compliance duties, victim-sensitive reporting, and cross-border data cooperation. It concludes that future fraud law should move from reactive punishment toward adaptive legal architecture capable of detecting complex and digitally mediated deception.
Consumer protection in food trade: Reconstructing Indonesia’s safety standards under WTO SPS and TBT frameworks Andri Sutrisno; F.X. Joko Priyono; Nanik Trihastuti; Muhammad Wendra
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): August 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i2.2215

Abstract

This article examines the rising regulatory challenges posed by intensifying global food trade under liberalization and highly integrated supply chains, where food safety standards operate not only as public health safeguards but also as de facto trade instruments. The study aims (i) to assess whether Indonesia’s food safety standards provide adequate consumer protection in global food trade while complying with the WTO SPS and TBT Agreements, and (ii) to formulate a reconstruction model of Indonesia’s food safety standards grounded in a One Health approach. Employing normative (doctrinal) legal research with a statute approach and a conceptual approach, this study analyzes WTO instruments (SPS Agreement, TBT Agreement), relevant WTO interpretive materials, and Indonesian food safety regulations, supported by authoritative reports from international organizations (e.g., FAO/WHO/WOAH) and key scholarly works. The findings indicate that Indonesia has formally adopted core SPS–TBT principles public health protection, precaution, and quality control yet substantive implementation remains partial. Regulatory practice is still sectoral and administrative, with risk assessment not consistently functioning as the central scientific basis required by SPS Articles 2 and 5, while limited transparency and incomplete harmonization with international standards may weaken legal legitimacy under TBT disciplines. The study’s novelty lies in demonstrating that the principal problem is not regulatory absence but regulatory orientation and method, and in proposing a One Health–based, risk-based, consumer oriented, SPS–TBT compliant, and trade-defensible reconstruction framework to strengthen consumer protection and reduce SPS–TBT dispute risks in the WTO.
Two decades of the elimination of domestic violence act in Indonesia: Attrition, restorative diversion and the severity discount in the enforcement of Law No. 23 of 2004 Stivany Agusia
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): August 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i2.2216

Abstract

Indonesia's Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Domestic Violence or Undang-Undang Penghapusan Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga (UU PKDRT) is widely regarded as a landmark statute, yet two decades of operation have not closed the gap between its promise and what victims receive. Combining doctrinal analysis with secondary quantitative data and four purposively selected documented Indonesian case pathways decided or processed between 2020 and 2026, it traces how severity is progressively discounted across different stages of the justice process. Three mechanisms are identified. First, police charge selection under Article 44 silently determines whether a case can later be diverted, because prosecutorial guidelines apply a five-year penalty ceiling. Second, the victim's forgiveness operates as a mitigating factor at first instance and again on appeal, compounding rather than replacing reductions. Third, non-physical violence is reported far more often than it is prosecuted, and is sanctioned near the floor of the range when it is. The article further examines differences between national monitoring series and argues that inconsistencies in definitions, counting units, and reporting practices represent a data-governance challenge for evaluating enforcement outcomes. Reforms are proposed on charge review, sentencing structure, exclusion of domestic violence from restorative diversion, and statutory publication duties.
Licensing authority without licensing power: Regional business licensing law and investment regulation in Indonesia, with a case study of nickel governance in Sulawesi Fawaz Muhammad Khaer
Indonesian Journal of Law, Governance, and Regulation Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): August 2026
Publisher : Privietlab

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55942/ijlgr.v1i2.2217

Abstract

Indonesia has spent two decades reforming business licensing, moving from big-bang decentralisation to a centrally operated, risk-based online system. This article asks what that trajectory has done to the licensing authority of regional government, and with what consequences for investment regulation. Using a socio-legal design that combines doctrinal analysis of statutes, government regulations and court decisions with an embedded case study of nickel licensing in Sulawesi between 2020 and 2026, it argues that Indonesian licensing law now exhibits a three-way decoupling: authority has moved to the centre, administrative capacity has not followed it, and legal accountability for licensed harm has remained local. The evidence includes the 2024 work-plan approval bottleneck that drove the world's largest nickel producer to import ore; a 2025 district court judgment holding a governor and a regent liable for pollution they cannot lawfully license; and a 39% fall in Morowali's revenue share between 2023 and 2025, during its fastest period of output growth. Comparison with revocation episodes in Raja Ampat and Wawonii shows revocation operating as a political instrument rather than a legal regime. The article proposes an authority–capacity–accountability alignment test for evaluating licensing reform in decentralised states.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 8

 1 

Filter by Year

2026 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 1 No. 2 (2026): August 2026 Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): February 2026