This research examines how artificial intelligence and algorithmic systems deployed by dominant digital platforms, particularly in Indonesia’s e-commerce, undermine consumer autonomy through extensive data harvesting and preference manipulation. The study aims to analyze these AI-driven mechanisms against the consumer protection principles set out in Law No. 8/1999, particularly regarding consumers’ rights to accurate information and protection from deceptive practices. The research problem centers on the interpretive legal analysis of whether AI-powered personalization and opaque algorithmic decision-making violate consumer protection obligations, specifically transparency requirements and honest business practices mandated by Indonesian Consumer Protection Law. This study employs a doctrinal legal analysis methodology, incorporating a comparative assessment of Indonesian consumer law against the European Union’s regulatory framework, examining consumer protection frameworks, and conducting comparative case studies from global jurisdictions to develop comprehensive regulatory solutions. The research proposes an AI-Consumer Protection Framework requiring dominant platforms to provide clear, comprehensible information about algorithmic processes affecting consumers, ensuring compliance with transparency obligations under Articles 4 and 7 of the Consumer Protection Law. Findings reveal that current AI practices by digital platforms often violate consumer rights through manipulative algorithms and insufficient disclosure mechanisms. The study concludes that implementing mandatory algorithmic transparency and explainable AI practices would effectively safeguard consumer autonomy while ensuring fair business practices in digital markets. The proposed framework establishes governance structures that uphold consumer rights, promote algorithmic accountability, and support equitable digital commerce while balancing technological innovation with fundamental consumer protections required by Indonesian law.
The rapid development of Industry 4.0 technologies, including artificial intelligence, big data, the Internet of Things, automation, blockchain, and digital platforms, has fundamentally transformed social, economic, and governmental activities and generated increasingly complex regulatory challenges. These technological transformations require legislation to move beyond conventional and predominantly reactive approaches toward a more adaptive, anticipatory, and technology-responsive regulatory design. In Indonesia, significant reforms have been introduced to improve the legislative process, including recognizing electronic law-making and strengthening meaningful public participation. Nevertheless, the existing legislative framework remains insufficiently responsive to the speed, complexity, uncertainty, and cross-sectoral nature of technological change. The central problem is therefore not merely the absence of technology-related regulation, but the inadequacy of the existing legislative design to anticipate technological developments, maintain regulatory coherence, incorporate technological expertise, and ensure continuous public participation and regulatory evaluation. This study examines the need to redesign legislation in the era of Industry 4.0 and to formulate a technology-responsive regulatory framework for Indonesia. Using a socio-legal approach, the study examines legislation, regulatory policies, institutional practices, and the interaction between technological transformation and legal development. The findings show that Indonesia needs to shift from a reactive legislative model to an adaptive, anticipatory model characterized by technological foresight, evidence-based lawmaking, regulatory coherence, interdisciplinary expertise, meaningful digital participation, regulatory experimentation, and continuous monitoring and evaluation. Accordingly, this study proposes a technology-responsive legislative framework that integrates technological assessment into the legislative cycle, strengthens institutional and expert capacity, facilitates inclusive digital participation, and establishes mechanisms for periodic regulatory review. The proposed framework supports a more adaptive, coherent, participatory, and future-oriented legislative system that can respond to technological transformation while safeguarding legal certainty, accountability, public interests, and fundamental rights.
Mining activities in Indonesia have contributed significantly to economic development, but have also generated adverse impacts on communities living in mining-affected areas. The existing legal framework predominantly emphasizes compensation for losses while providing limited protection of community rights through meaningful participation in mining governance. This study aims to reconstruct the legal protection of mining-affected communities’ rights through a participatory justice approach within Indonesia’s mining governance system. The main problem addressed in this research is the inadequacy of current regulations in ensuring substantive and procedural rights for communities affected by mining operations. This research employs a normative legal method, drawing on statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, to analyze mining regulations, legal doctrines, and relevant governance principles. The findings reveal that current regulations tend to position mining-affected communities as beneficiaries of compensation rather than as rights holders with the capacity to participate in decision-making processes. As a result, community involvement remains limited, legal protection is fragmented, and social conflicts frequently arise due to unequal power relations between mining companies and local communities. The study further finds that the absence of effective mechanisms for participation, transparency, accountability, and equitable benefit-sharing weakens the realization of justice in mining governance. This research concludes that the reconstruction of legal protection should be based on participatory justice by strengthening community participation, recognizing both substantive and procedural rights, and establishing inclusive governance mechanisms. Such reconstruction is expected to enhance legal certainty, reduce conflicts, and promote a more equitable and sustainable mining governance system in Indonesia.
This study examines compliance with procedures for imposing disciplinary sanctions on civil servants, the deterrent effect of such sanctions, and their effectiveness in organizational learning at Universitas Negeri Semarang. The main research issues include the appropriateness of sanction procedures implemented by unit heads, patterns of enforcement of violations at the work unit level, and the effectiveness of sanctions in improving employee compliance. The study employs an empirical legal approach. Primary data were obtained through interviews with faculty deans, the Directorate of General Affairs and Human Resources, the Internal Audit Unit, the Employee Development Team, general staff, and employees who had previously been sanctioned. Observations, internal documents, and literature on legal and organizational management further supported the data. The research results indicate that formal sanction imposition procedures at UNNES have been carried out fairly systematically once cases enter the official investigation mechanism. Documents such as chronologies, summons letters, investigation minutes, investigation reports, and sanction decisions are available for formal cases. However, procedural compliance has been inconsistent at the pre-formal stage, as minor violations are often resolved informally without documentation. The culture of “ewuh pakewuh,” limitations in post-sanction monitoring, and weaknesses in digital presence reduce the effectiveness of organizational learning. This study concludes that formal sanctions have a deterrent effect but need to be integrated with records of initial guidance, post-sanction monitoring, and anonymous case studies to become an instrument of sustainable disciplinary reform. This finding contributes to legal reform in public institutions by emphasizing the importance of documenting pre-formal disciplinary measures, strengthening procedural accountability, and integrating organizational learning into disciplinary governance systems.
Indonesia’s Counterterrorism Law (Law No. 5 of 2018) has not regulated one of the rapidly growing radicalization vectors: multiplayer online games, where recruitment is decentralized, extremist narratives are embedded in in-game content, and migration to encrypted platforms operates outside existing regulatory frameworks. This research addresses that normative gap by examining how extremist content is disseminated through online games played by Indonesian teenagers and identifying legal weaknesses that leave this vector unregulated. Using a normative-qualitative approach combining doctrinal analysis, literature review, and exploratory questionnaire data from 46 junior high school students (ages 12–15) in Gunungpati, Semarang, this study analyzes radicalization mechanisms—including narrative infiltration, extremist symbols, and in-game recruitment—through Moghaddam’s Staircase to Terrorism framework and Ware’s Third Generation of Radicalization. The findings indicate significant exposure to ideological recruitment through in-game social features and psychosocial vulnerabilities among respondents, strengthening the doctrinal urgency beyond generalized statistical claims. The doctrinal analysis identified three normative gaps in Law No. 5 of 2018: the absence of due diligence obligations for game operators, the lack of detection and school-based reporting mechanisms, and the failure to recognize children vulnerable to radicalization as subjects of legal protection rather than criminal responsibility. By integrating empirical evidence with doctrinal analysis, this study provides the first legal-empirical account linking online game–based radicalization to Indonesian counterterrorism law and highlights the need to shift from a repressive to a prevention-oriented legal framework through early intervention in digital radicalization.
