General Background Human rights protection is a constitutional foundation of democratic rule of law and a safeguard against authoritarian regression. Specific Background In democratic transitions, states must balance political stability, transitional justice, and human rights protection. Knowledge Gap Previous studies have not sufficiently compared how different legal systems shape institutional and judicial roles in protecting human rights during democratic transition. Aims This study analyzes human rights protection in transitional democracies through a normative comparative legal approach between Indonesia and the United States. Results The findings show that proportionality is the main standard for lawful rights limitation through legality, legitimate aim, suitability, necessity, and balancing tests. Non-derogable rights, including the right to life, freedom from torture, and freedom of religion, must remain absolutely protected. Indonesia’s civil law system places courts within statutory frameworks, while the United States’ common law system gives courts broader authority through judicial review. Novelty This study integrates proportionality and transitional justice in comparing civil law and common law models. Implications The findings emphasize institutional strengthening, judicial accountability, and state-society collaboration. Highlights: Proportionality guides lawful limitation of rights. Non-derogable rights remain absolutely protected. Legal systems shape judicial authority differently. Keywords: Human rights protection, democratic transition, transitional justice, proportionality, comparative law
General Background: Toll road development requires states to reconcile infrastructure objectives with constitutional protection of private property. Specific Background: In Indonesia and Kenya, land acquisition for commercially operated toll roads under Public Private Partnership schemes raises recurring questions concerning public interest, eminent domain, compensation, participation, and judicial protection. Knowledge Gap: Previous research largely addressed consultation, social conflict, or property protection within a single jurisdiction and did not comparatively examine commercial toll road acquisition across civil law and common law systems. Aims: This normative legal study compares statutory rules, constitutional provisions, legal doctrines, and jurisprudence governing toll road land acquisition in Indonesia and Kenya through comparative and conceptual approaches. Results: Both jurisdictions face difficulties in defining public interest and securing fair compensation for commercially operated infrastructure; Indonesia emphasizes procedural certainty, whereas Kenya allows broader substantive judicial review. Novelty: The study connects divergent legal traditions within one comparative framework focused specifically on eminent domain for commercial toll road partnerships. Implications: A balanced legal model requires proportionality, meaningful public participation, comprehensive compensation, livelihood-sensitive protection for vulnerable groups, and effective judicial safeguards. Highlights: One jurisdiction prioritizes procedural certainty, while the other permits broader substantive judicial review. Commercial infrastructure schemes complicate definitions of public interest and fair compensation. Proportionality, meaningful participation, comprehensive payment, and court protection form the proposed model. Keywords: Public Interest, Property Rights, Toll Road Land Acquisition
General Background Traditional cultural expressions constitute communal cultural heritage embodying identity, philosophy, and collective memory, requiring legal protection aligned with their communal and sacred nature. Specific Background In Indonesia, traditional batik motifs—particularly the sacred Parang motifs of the Yogyakarta Sultanate—are classified as traditional cultural expressions whose copyright is declared “held by the state” under Article 38 paragraph (1) of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. Knowledge Gap This formulation contains normative ambiguity, as it does not clearly define whether state authority represents ownership, public trusteeship, or mere administrative control, resulting in weak legal certainty for indigenous custodians. Aims This study examines the legal meaning of the phrase “held by the state” in relation to the protection of sacred Parang batik motifs within the framework of traditional cultural expressions. Results The analysis shows that the provision functions as a declarative norm lacking substantive mechanisms, failing to recognize customary authority, community consent, or benefit-sharing, and thereby permitting desacralization and misuse of sacred motifs. Novelty This research clarifies that state control over traditional cultural expressions should be interpreted as public trusteeship rather than ownership, drawing comparative insights from community-centered protection models in India and Thailand. Implications The findings support the development of a sui generis legal framework integrating customary law, community participation, and administrative facilitation to ensure sustainable and culturally respectful protection of sacred batik motifs. Highlights: Article 38 paragraph (1) operates as a declarative norm without concrete protective mechanisms Legal ambiguity weakens recognition of indigenous custodianship over sacred motifs Comparative models support community-based rights with state administrative roles Keywords: Batik, Traditional Cultural Expression, Copyright, State Held
General Background: The rapid digitalization of healthcare services after COVID-19 has expanded health data processing and increased privacy breach risks. Specific Background: Indonesia and Romania have developed comprehensive legal frameworks through the Indonesian Personal Data Protection Law, Health Law, GDPR, and Lege nr. 190/2018, yet both jurisdictions still face difficulties in protecting sensitive health information. Knowledge Gap: Existing studies have not sufficiently compared post-pandemic health data protection in Indonesia and Romania by examining supervisory institutions, law enforcement mechanisms, and the gap between legal norms and empirical implementation. Aims: This study analyzes and compares the regulation, enforcement mechanisms, supervisory capacity, and institutional governance of health data protection in Indonesia and Romania. Results: The findings show that both countries possess adequate normative frameworks but experience enforcement gaps caused by institutional weaknesses, inconsistent supervision, fragmented sectoral coordination, limited technical readiness, and weak compliance culture in healthcare institutions. Indonesia faces a critical institutional void because the independent data protection authority is not yet fully operational, while Romania faces selective and passive enforcement by ANSPDCP toward public healthcare institutions. Novelty: This study offers a comparative model that links regulatory design, health data governance, supervisory capacity, and institutional compliance in two distinct legal regimes: Indonesia’s national data sovereignty model and Romania’s GDPR-based free data flow model. Implications: Effective health data protection requires independent supervisory authorities, privacy by design, accessible dispute resolution, harmonized sectoral regulation, and sustainable institutional compliance culture.
General Background Financial market transactions involving negotiable instruments require legal certainty, proportional liability, and reliable protection for parties acting in good faith. Specific Background Negotiable Certificates of Deposit create complex chains of legal relations because they are transferable financial instruments involving issuers, investors, and intermediaries. Knowledge Gap Existing regulation has not clearly defined the legal status, duties, and civil liability limits of intermediaries, causing vulnerability in disputes and inconsistent legal interpretation. Aims This study analyzes intermediary protection in Negotiable Certificate of Deposit transactions through the PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk case and formulates a stronger legal framework through comparison with the United States legal system. Results The findings show that intermediary protection remains partial, reactive, and normatively ambiguous, while the Uniform Commercial Code provides a clearer model through holder in due course protection, good faith standards, transfer warranties, and fault-based liability. Novelty The study offers a comparative legal formulation that recognizes intermediaries as independent transactional actors requiring preventive and repressive safeguards. Implications The findings support specific regulation for negotiable instruments, explicit recognition of intermediary status, national due diligence standards, and adoption of good faith and holder in due course principles to strengthen fairness, legal certainty, and financial market stability. Highlights: Existing rules leave brokers vulnerable to broad liability interpretation. Good faith parties receive clearer safeguards under commercial paper doctrine. Regulatory reform should define duties, status, and due diligence standards. Keywords: Legal Protection, Negotiable Certificate of Deposit, Uniform Commercial Code.
