Despite sharing colonial legacies in the development of their criminal law systems, Indonesia and Malaysia have pursued markedly different paths of criminal law reform, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and legislative philosophies. This article examines how these divergent reform trajectories are manifested through a comparative analysis of Indonesia's Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code and Malaysia's Penal Code (Act 574). Focusing on three analytical dimensions—the principle of legality, criminal responsibility, and sentencing policy—the study adopts a normative legal research method supported by statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials were collected through library-based research and analysed qualitatively using a descriptive-comparative method. The findings reveal that while both jurisdictions continue to rely on codified criminal law as the primary basis of their criminal justice systems, they have adopted fundamentally different approaches to reform. Indonesia has pursued comprehensive criminal law reconstruction through recodification, incorporating the recognition of living law, an expanded framework for corporate criminal liability, and a double-track sentencing system combining criminal punishment with corrective measures. In contrast, Malaysia has retained the Penal Code as the foundation of its criminal law, relying on incremental legislative amendments and judicial interpretation characteristic of the common law tradition. The comparison demonstrates that contemporary criminal law reform is shaped not only by colonial legal legacies but also by each country's legal tradition, constitutional values, and legislative policy. These findings contribute to comparative criminal law scholarship by illustrating how neighbouring jurisdictions with similar historical foundations may pursue different institutional and doctrinal pathways toward achieving legal certainty, justice, and the protection of society.
This article examines mining share divestment in Indonesia as an instrument of state control over natural resources and assesses the legal, institutional, and environmental challenges affecting its implementation. Using a normative legal approach, the study analyzes the applicable constitutional, statutory, and regulatory framework, supported by cases involving PT Kasongan Bumi Kencana, PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara, and PT Freeport Indonesia. The analysis identifies recurring problems relating to delayed compliance, fragmented institutional authority, limited financial capacity among Indonesian participants, and disputes concerning share valuation. Public Choice Theory and Rational Choice Theory are employed as supplementary analytical lenses to explain governmental decision-making concerning the implementation, financing, and valuation of divested shares. The article further argues that, although a transfer of shares does not alter the legal identity of the mining company or extinguish environmental liabilities arising from its operations, Indonesian divestment regulations do not expressly require existing and contingent environmental liabilities to be identified, disclosed, valued, and allocated during the transaction. This transaction-specific regulatory gap may expose Indonesian purchasers to undisclosed remediation costs and diminish the economic benefits of divestment. Accordingly, the article proposes operationalizing the polluter pays principle through mandatory environmental due diligence, liability disclosure and valuation, verification of reclamation guarantees, and appropriate indemnity or financial-reserve mechanisms. These measures are necessary to ensure that mining share divestment promotes not only domestic ownership and public welfare but also legal certainty and environmental accountability.
Tremendously copyrighted works are used to train Generative AI (Gen-AI) at the epicenter of current sectors. In many countries, there is a dilemma as to whether the amount of data used may infringe copyright. The EU is the one that has regulations on the use of copyrighted works as text and data mining (TDM) to train GenAI. Meanwhile, Indonesia does not yet have a regulation, even though Gen-AI has been massively developed in Indonesia. Data has been used freely to train Gen-AI, even to modify works and damage the author’s reputation. This article investigates whether the EU’s copyright of Gen-AI legislation is relevant to Indonesia. It is important because there remains a legal gap regarding this issue. The method used in this article is juridical normative research with a comparative law approach. This article argues that the EU’s copyright of Gen-AI legislation is inappropriate for full adoption in Indonesia. For certain purposes, EU legislation may override the author’s moral rights. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, moral rights are perpetual and inalienable. Therefore, a sufficiently detailed summary of the works, including the identity of the author used for general-purpose training, must be available. Besides, the author must be protected from any derogatory output from Gen-AI that could infringe on his honor and reputation. This article concludes that the EU’s copyright legislation on Gen-AI is relevant to be adopted in Indonesia, but not entirely.
In early 2023, Indonesia promulgated the National Criminal Code, which will be effectively enforceable in 2026. The promulgation is considered a historical milestone in the development of Indonesia’s criminal law that has strategic consequences for the criminal justice system in Indonesia. This new code repeals criminal provisions from 29 different acts, including the Electronic Information and Transactions Act (EIT Act). Policymakers inserted and developed new concepts into the new code, one of which is the concept of cybercrime. Employing a doctrinal legal research method, this article analyses the approaches used in the new code to regulate cybercrime. The results showed that the approaches implemented in the National Criminal Code have widened the scope of cybercrime with discordances. In that regard, the article emphasises the importance of law enforcement agencies scrutinising the use of cybercrime provisions according to their purposes, and they have to address inconsistencies and disharmonious provisions found within the code to prevent overcriminalisation.
Blockchain technology has been used in various sectors, notably in facilitating crypto asset transactions, specifically for processing an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) or token sales that were first introduced in 2013. In Indonesia, it can be observed that there are several legal issues in the execution that expose them to potential misuse in the ICO transaction, leading to criminal activities. Additionally, Indonesia was ranked as the second-highest country in the world to experience crypto assetfraud schemes in 2019. To address legal issues related to ICO, this study aims to provide a comprehensive legal assessment of ICO as a modern technology-based approach that is commonly used for raising organizational capital through the issuance of tokens. Following an analysis of the legal vulnerabilities in ICO and their impacts on the public, this study mainly proposes to regulate ICO in capital market law, which includes preventive legal measures and fundamental legal principles to protect the public. This study, using a comparative method, also explores the global prevalence and negativities associated with ICO, examines regulatory frameworks related to ICO in Switzerland and the United States, and identifies legal issues in the general use ofblockchain technology, as well as emphasizes the needs of the Indonesian government's response to ensuring legal certainty for ICO. Based on this assessment, it can be argued that regulatory framework for ICO, particularly in Indonesia, is crucial in preventing criminal actions related to this transaction and ensuring legal protection as well as legal certainty for the public.
