cover
Article Per Year (5 Year)
All
Home Page
OAI Link
Editorial Team
Contact
Reviewer
Google Scholar
Contact Name
MOHAMMAD ALVI PRATAMA
Contact Email
alvi.pratama@unpas.ac.id
Phone
+62224-217343
Journal Mail Official
litigasi@unpas.ac.id
Editorial Address
Jl. Lengkong Besar 68 Bandung 40261 Jawa Barat.
Location
Kota bandung,
Jawa barat
INDONESIA
JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal)
Published by Universitas Pasundan
ISSN : 08537100     EISSN : 24422274     DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.23969/litigasi
Core Subject : Social,
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences
JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) is a peer-review journal with vision to develop law and harmony between Indonesian positive law and the reality in the society. JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) aims to 1. Actively participate in national development and reformation of law; 2. Take part in educating higher education and legal profession in Indonesia; 3. Provide information on development of law in Indonesia 4. Enlight people in order to improve people’s knowledge of law JURNAL LITIGASI (e-Journal) is published by Fakultas Hukum Universitas Pasundan. LITIGASI covers articles on science of law, legal theories, legal philosophy, social study on law with latest and actual substances. LITIGASI publishes original and scientific articles whose values of novelty in the form of Research findings, Articles, Reviews, and Book Review.
Arjuna Subject : Ilmu Sosial - Hukum
Articles 5 Documents
 1 
Search results for , issue "vol. 27 no. 1 (2026)" : 5 Documents clear
Online Child Sexual Exploitation And Abuse As Organized Crime: Towards a New International Legal Framework Septianita, Hesti; Pujiyono; Cahyaningtyas, Irma
LITIGASI Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v27i1.43221

Abstract

Online child sexual exploitation and abuse (OCSEA) has developed as an important manifestation of transnational organized crime, constituting a systematic violation of children's fundamental rights under international law. This study considers the structural transformation of OCSEA — starting from local, offline incidents to coordinated darknet operations characterized by hierarchical criminal networks, role specialization, cryptocurrency-based financial flows, and cross-border coordination. Employing a doctrinal legal approach, blended with comparative jurisdictional analysis and concrete review of law enforcement data, this research carefully evaluates the capacity of existing international legal regimes to address OCSEA as organized crime. The analysis shows substantial normative and institutional deficiencies across key international instruments — including UNTOC, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, the Lanzarote Convention, and relevant ASEAN frameworks — encompassing definitional inconsistencies, fragmented jurisdictional authority, inadequately harmonized criminal standards, and enforcement gaps that organized criminal networks systematically exploit. The study further shows that OCSEA satisfies the defining criteria of transnational organized crime, as offenders across multiple jurisdictions collaborate in the production, distribution, and financial exploitation of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) through advanced technical infrastructure. Accordingly, this research develops a normative argument for a binding global legal framework that standardizes criminal definitions, establishes universal jurisdiction, strengthens cross-border cooperation, and institutionalizes international monitoring. In doing so, it contributes theoretically by reconceptualizing OCSEA within the transnational organized crime paradigm, and normatively by proposing a coherent direction for international legal reform.
Eksekusi Jaminan Kebendaan di Indonesia: Dilema antara Kepastian Hukum dan Kepentingan Dunia Usaha Dewi Mayaningsih; Agi Attaubah Hidayat; Fauzan Ali Rasyid; Rizaludin
LITIGASI Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v27i1.29718

Abstract

In Indonesia, the uniformity of it collateral implementation system is reflected in three instruments that are used: mortgage right, fiduciary security and pledge. Instruments have native insolvency law as part of the secured transaction system. Thus, this research aims to answer how much the system’s capacity can provide the certainty of legal norms that are claimed, especially by recent decisions of the Constitutional Court that restored judicial control over fiduciary execution. This study thus takes on a doctrinal approach to analyze the acts, decisions, and legal theories based on the three dimensions: legal certainty, efficiency, and justice. The study findings indicated that the implementation of fiduciary security institutions is not an isolated issue, but a structural one, in which each failure of the system is interdependent. Unnecessary costs arose from Jurisdictional overlaps among some incumbent courts, auction offices, and land agencies. Additionally, both ambiguous statutory language and court interpretations of pledges do not permit the creditor or the debtor to plan transactions based on the expected degree of surety or compliance with expectations about legal structure. Seizing digital and intangible collateral is not an obvious process. Currently, a lack of legal protection for the creditor and debtor means that neither party can anticipate the level of coverage. These are not just problems that can be addressed through incremental tweak. In this environment, reform should be harmonized, more efficient procedurally and responsive to the economics driving the secured transactions system.
Journalist Liability for Breaches of Good Faith under Indonesian Press Law Zainal Arifin; Emi Puasa Handayani; Herlina Manullang; Zico Junius Fernando
LITIGASI Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v27i1.32353

Abstract

This article aims to explore the conflict between the good faith values of press law and the criminal liability implications in journalism within the wide-open context of such vague norms as they exist in Indonesia. Right of legal protection for journalist was guaranteed by Law Number 40 of 1999 on the Press, but this law had no operational criteria concerning whether acts of journalism are carried out in good faith or not. The absence of consistently interpreting such rulings has resulted in confusion molding law enforcement agencies. They lack a universal definition, and would especially fall under defamation, false information and electronic communication offences. This article is primarily a normative juridical one, which, with the support of various research methods including statute, conceptual, case and comparative methods, aims to argue that the good faith should not be perceived as just an abstract moral value but rather as a legal doctrine that could limit the journalist criminal liability. This leads to the definition of signs of bona fides as reasonable verification, balance of sources, orientation towards public interest, lack of malice intention, journalistic precaution, and willingness to be corrected or right-of-reply. This article develops a model of press freedom law in Indonesia that could integrate journalism ethics with the criminal accountability of journalists. It argues that the prosecution of journalists should be a last resort and is only warranted in cases of "intentional falsity, actual malice, or reckless disregard for the truth". 
Platform Responsibility and Good Faith Reformulation: Reconstructing Consumer Protection in Food E-Commerce Abdul Halim Barkatullah; Hairudinor; Trisna Agus Brata; Imam Syafa'i; Nurmaya Safitri
LITIGASI Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v27i1.37632

Abstract

Indonesia’s food e-commerce sector has grown rapidly and made purchasing easier, but consumers now face greater legal and transactional risks. Trade no longer involves only sellers and buyers, because digital platforms now stand between the two. This shift raises problems of information asymmetry, food safety, and unclear legal responsibility. This study uses a normative legal method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches to evaluate weaknesses in the current legal framework and to build a more adaptive consumer protection model. The findings identify two major problems. First, the “good-faith buyer” concept in Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 4 of 2016 on the Implementation of the Formulation of the Results of the 2016 Plenary Meeting of the Chambers of the Supreme Court as Guidelines for Court Duties does not suit online food transactions, which are frequent and involve small purchase values. Second, existing regulations do not clearly set out the legal obligations of e-commerce platforms. The study therefore proposes a three-dimensional protection framework: (1) modernizing the government’s regulatory function, (2) recognizing platforms as active curators with their own legal responsibility, and (3) strengthening consumers by applying a prudential standard based on “digital transactional vigilance.” Besides addressing practical regulatory weaknesses, the framework contributes to theory by redefining the principle of good faith in the digital marketplace.
Haruskah AI Menempuh Pendidikan Hukum? Wawasan dari Pendidikan Hukum di AS dan Indonesia Aan Aswari; Rizki Ramadani; Atikah Azza Rhamadani; Muhammad Ashoer
LITIGASI Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pasundan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23969/litigasi.v27i1.37916

Abstract

The growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education has sparked debate about its educational potential and ethical risks. The literature remains fragmented: many studies concentrate on ethical concerns or on the technology itself rather than on structured AI governance, particularly in legal education in developing countries. This study examines how AI may affect academic integrity in legal education and proposes an AI governance framework that considers ethical standards, pedagogical needs, and regulatory responsibilities. It takes a qualitative legal approach combining a normative analysis of laws and institutional policies, a conceptual analysis of AI and professional ethics in legal education, and a comparison between the United States, a mature system with well-established and varied AI governance, and Indonesia, an emerging system with limited regulatory development. The study rests on a systematic review of secondary sources: academic literature, policy documents, and institutional guidelines. The results suggest that AI can make legal education more efficient, support personalized learning, and build students’ professional readiness. Used without clear limits, however, it can undermine academic integrity by enabling academic dishonesty, encouraging overreliance on tools, and weakening students’ ethical judgment. The paper therefore proposes a multi-layered governance framework of institutional academic policies, AI literacy training, adaptive teaching approaches, and AI detection tools where appropriate, all set within national regulatory frameworks. Its key contribution is to connect institutional and national governance. It argues that Indonesia needs a clear, enforceable AI governance framework so that AI adoption strengthens rather than compromises academic integrity in legal education.

Page 1 of 1 | Total Record : 5

 1 

Filter by Year

2026 2026


Reset
Filter By Issues
All Issue Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026) Vol. 26 No. 2 (2025) Vol. 26 No. 1 (2025) Vol. 25 No. 2 (2024) Vol. 25 No. 1 (2024) Vol. 24 No. 2 (2023) Vol. 24 No. 1 (2023) Vol. 23 No. 2 (2022) Vol. 23 No. 1 (2022) Vol. 22 No. 2 (2021) Vol. 22 No. 1 (2021) Vol 21 No 2 (2020) Vol 21 No 1 (2020) Vol 20 No 2 (2019) Vol 20 No 1 (2019) Vol 19 No 2 (2018) Vol 19 No 1 (2018) Vol 18 No 2 (2017) Vol 18 No 1 (2017) Vol 17 No 2 (2016) Vol 17 No 1 (2016) Vol 16 No 2 (2015) Vol 16 No 1 (2015) Vol 15 No 2 (2014) Vol 15 No 1 (2014) Vol 14 No 2 (2013) Vol 14 No 1 (2013) More Issue