Application of Digitalization Through E-Court as Renewal of Administrative Law Procedure in Indonesia
Fatria Khairo
Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Hukum Sumpah Pemuda fatriakhairo79@gmail.com
* corresponding author
I. Introduction
Where there is a society, there must also be law, as the adage "ubi societas, ibi ius" suggests.
According to this axiom, the development of law follows that of society. According to Paul Scholten, the legal system is "open," meaning that it lacks and can never have all the answers, but rather serves as the basis for all the decisions that bring about the system's evolution. “Law is society too”, so “new societal relations will form new rules” [1]. Since written law (rules, statutory regulations) become static texts once ratified, the belief that law always lags behind the rate of society evolution (het recht denkt achter de feiten aan) must be understood to apply only to such law. The law, understood as a set of ideas and moral ideals, is in a constant state of flux, evolving together with society [2].
In the era of the Third Wave world, as stated by Alfin Toffler, the development of the current civilization of society has entered the Uber Civilization Model in Rhenald Kasali’s terms. The Uber Civilization model is characterized by changes in time series civilization to real-time, individualistic attitudes change to collaboration/networking, speed, multitasking, and invisible competitors [3].
The State Administrative Court is undoubtedly affected by the Uber Civilization's rate of information technology development. Previously, case administration was performed manually, which was time-consuming and expensive. Information technology has sped up, simplified, and decreased the cost of case administration within the State Administrative Court environment.
Compared to the transition from typewriters to computers, the implementation of judicial duties has now advanced toward digitization. For case management, there is a “Case Tracing Information System or Sistem Informasi Penelusuran Perkara (SIPP)”; for personnel administration, there is a “Personnel Information System or Sistem Informasi Kepegawaian (SIKEP)”; and for supervision, there is a
“Monitoring Information System or Sistem Informasi Pengawasan (SIWAS)”, in addition to various other information systems developed by the Working Unit at First and Appeal Levels, such as the Integrated Public Service (Excellent Court Services) created by the Serang State Administrative Court [4].
Rapid progress is being made in the direction of Electronic Courts (e-Court), in which information technology is used for case administration and procedural law implementation. Comparatively, Online Dispute Resolution already exists in Australia, where litigants can resolve their disputes online. In the
ARTICLE INFO A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 30 Sep 2022 Revised 06 Nov 2022 Accepted 13 Dec 2022
Based on Law Number 48 of 2009, justice must be done quickly and cheaply.
The embodiment of this law is carried out by implementing Electronic Courts.
The State Administrative Court can implement Electronic Court (E-Court) by empowering the already owned resources. This study aims to look at the application of digitization through the implementation of Electronic Courts as a renewal of the State Administration procedural law. The method used in this study is the statute approach and the conceptual approach. The data used in this study comes from the results of previous research and existing legislation in Indonesia. The results of this study found that information technology greatly supports the implementation of E-Court. Partial E-Court can be carried out electronically by issuing a Supreme Court Regulation. As for the full implementation of E-Court, we still have to wait for changes to the procedural law through changes to the State Administrative Court Law.
Copyright © 2023 International Journal of Artificial Intelegence Research.
All rights reserved.
Keywords:
E-Court, Law,
State Administration
United States, “Public Access to Electronic Records (PACER)” has been in operation since 1999, and there is also a “Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)” system and various uses of information technology to support judicial tasks. The Indian Supreme Court launched the Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS) on May 10, 2017, and will soon launch an integrated criminal handling information system with the Indian Police in the form of the “Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS)” [5].
In the Indonesian State Administrative Courts, the use of information technology for the administration of cases has long been initiated, such as the “State Administrative Court Case Administration Information System or Sistem Informasi Administrasi Perkara Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara (SIADTUN)”, which the Supreme Court has now integrated into the Case Tracing Information System (SIPP). The utilization of information technology for the settlement of cases related to procedural law in the State Administrative Court is still new in the form of an embryo with the promulgation of Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2017 concerning Procedures for Settlement of Election Process Dispute at the State Administrative Court. In Article 3, paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2017, it has been stated that filing lawsuits electronically is a way of filing lawsuits. It’s just that the tools and machinery for further arrangements for the electronic acceptance of lawsuits at the State Administrative Court have not been adequately prepared.
However, this is significant progress toward using information technology in handling cases within the State Administrative Court (Putra, 2020).
Electronic Justice is of great assistance in realizing the Supreme Court's Vision to become the Supreme Indonesian Judicial Body, which at point 10 of the 2010-2035 Judicial Renewal Blueprint represents the Supreme Court's Vision to realize a Modern Judicial Body based on integrated Information Technology. To accomplish the Supreme Court's Vision, it has been announced that there would be a Modernization of Case Management, beginning with Electronic-Based Case Reporting and ending with Online Courts [6].
In addition to combating corruption and poor administration in the judicial system, information technology is also incredibly valuable for this purpose. Application of the Directory of Decisions, for instance, where Judges/High Court Judges/Supreme Court Decisions are immediately published and proclaimed online, has been shown to reduce corruption through the use of decision information.
Similarly, the Case Information and Tracing System (SIPP) program considerably aids judicial personnel in completing case administration so that there are no complaints of maladministration, such as misplaced case files, confusing trial dates and processes, and very long minutes of cases [7]. In comparison, the use of information technology in preventing corruption is also implemented by the Corruption Eradication Commission, which divides its applications into three areas: Enforcement, Office Management, and Prevention. For Enforcement, there are major applications called Administrative Systems for Case Management (SIMAS), Open Source Integration (OSIN), and Electronic Coordination and Supervision (e-Korsup). For Office Management, there is the e-PIKADE application, the head office of the Corruption Eradication Commission, so that letters are never lost, scattered, or wandering around. As for Prevention, there are e-LHKPN, GRATis, “Sahabat Pemberani” Boardgame, JAGA, and so on [8].
Although the role of Information Technology is very vital in law enforcement and justice, several factors hinder the full use of information technology in handling cases in the State Administrative Court, starting from the availability of technological devices, the readiness of human resources to the arrangement of procedural law which still determines the handling of cases manually. The validity of the summons of the parties through a Registered Letter in an Ordinary Procedure examination, for example, is still interpreted as a paper letter that must be sent through the post office [9]. Likewise, the submission of Replicas, Duplicates, and Conclusions must still be submitted in person at the trial, even though the submission of these letters can be made electronically, the result of which is that all judges and clerks are comfortable not needing to convene in the courtroom so that time can be used to study case files; the bailiff does not need to deliver the summons which might cause the risk of an accident on the way; and the parties also do not need to spend a lot of money to visit the Court building to deliver letters (registration of lawsuits, replicas, duplicates, or conclusions) [10].
Through the explanation above, the researcher intends to see how digitization is implemented through e-court as a renewal of state administrative and procedural law in Indonesia.
II. Methods
This research will be carried out using the statute approach and conceptual approach. The statute approach is intended to inventory, describe, interpret, systematize, and evaluate laws and regulations relevant to this research’s legal issues. Meanwhile, the conceptual approach examines, identifies, and analyzes legal concepts relevant to this study’s discussion, including case settlement, procedural law, case administration, and electronic justice. The data used in this study comes from the results of previous research and the laws and regulations in Indonesia.
III. Result and Discussion
A. The Development of Information Technology for the Judiciary World
Information Technology is a procedure for managing and storing data. In its evolution, the word Information Technology is sometimes equated with Communication Technology, which encompasses all aspects of message transmission, from transmission to reception. Consequently, the two terms are interchangeable; therefore, the concept of Information Technology already includes communication, or vice versa.
Herbert Maeshall McLuhan asserted that the development and type of technology mastered by a particular community determines the social interaction pattern of its members. “Technology has changed the way we communicate,” said Mc Luhan. In addition, McLuhan argued that media technology is the heart of human civilisation. Its history is separated into four eras: the oral era, the literary era, the printing era, and the electronic era. Therefore, in the current electronic era, all individuals/communities/nations must utilize electronic media in order for their civilizations not to become obsolete.
Rapid advancements in IT have allowed for the Data Revolution to take place. The United Nations has used the term "the data revolution" to describe a set of initiatives designed to help keep track of progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which succeeded the Millennium Development Goals in 2015. Data accessibility, SDGs, data innovation, and the data landscape are the four main pillars of the Data Revolution, with the objective of enhancing the data gathering system through the use of information and communication technology and community involvement. By implementing the Data Revolution, everyone may read and comprehend an event or case in its entirety, beginning at the beginning and progressing to the end. Such information is crucial for the government and society to take action or solve their problems swiftly and effectively.
The rapid development of Information Technology has also penetrated the world of law because
“the law is the same society”, so “new public relations will form new regulations.” The publication of law books (law books or treatises) on the effects of technological advances on law and on the use of technology for law (judiciary) illustrates the expansion of advances in communication and data technology in the legal field, such as “Technology and Justice” by George Grant, 1986; “The Future of Law, Facing the Challenges of Information Technology” by Richard Suskind, 1998; and
“Technology for justice: How Information Technology Can Support Judicial Rationality” by Michael J. Sullivan, 2002. In addition, the judiciary has implemented electronic courts, including “Online Dispute Resolution in Australia, Public Access to Electronic Records (PACER)” and “Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF)” in the United States, and the “Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS)” in India.
The Australian Federal Court's e-services are classified into two categories in Australia: Internal Services and External Services. Internal Services refers to the use of information technology by court personnel, whilst External Services refers to the use of information technology by litigants and the general public. Case Track (a case management application that records the progression of cases), Decision Template Application (to facilitate the preparation of decisions), Document Management System (manages court documents), Electronic Court File (electronic/paperless case filing), Website Portal (portal for uploading court decisions), e-Trial (an electronic trial service application), and e- Courtroom are internal services (online courtroom for Judges and Registrars). External services involving litigants or the general public include e-lodgments (applications for transferring case files to the court), common law portals (portals for showing all court documents/files), and court websites with trial schedules, decisions, and others.
By comparing the services of Electronic Courts in Australia, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Courts under it have started implementing Internal Services electronically apart from e-Trial and e-Courtroom. The Supreme Court has implemented a case tracking, document management system, and electronic court file through the Case Tracing Information System (SIPP).
The application of the Decision Template has also started at the Supreme Court level with the promulgation of Supreme Court Regulation Number 9 of 2017 concerning Format (Template) and Guidelines for Writing Decisions or Decisions of the Supreme Court. As for the Website Portal, the Supreme Court already has a Directory of Decisions application integrated with SIPP version 3.2.0 so that all decisions of the Supreme Court and courts under it are immediately displayed in the Directory of Decisions. As for External Services involving litigants or the public, as has been implemented by the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Court has not implemented them.
B. Simple, Fast, and Low-Cost Court with Information Technology
Article 24, paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Unitary State of Indonesia declares that dispensing justice is intended to uphold law and justice. Moreover, according to Article 2 paragraph 4 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, trials are conducted quickly and affordably.
Consequently, this mandate to carry out law and justice enforcement in a simple, quick, and cost- effective manner must guide the Indonesian court in its primary duties and responsibilities.
The emphasis on implementing the principles of a simple, speedy, and low-cost trial must not reduce the fulfillment of other General Principles of a Good Trial (algemene beginselen van behoorlijk rechtspracht), such as the Principle of a trial Open to the public, the Principle of Equality Before the Law, The Principle of Opportunity to Defend Yourself (Audi Et Alteram Partem), the Principle of Accountability, the Principle of a Decision Must Be Delivered in an Appropriate Time and Not Too Long, and so on. On the contrary, these principles must work together to realize a great judiciary.
In implementing Electronic Courts in the State Administrative Court Environment, there are no General Principles of Good Justice that are inconsistent with Electronic Courts. On the other hand, the Electronic Court strongly supports the realization of the General Principles of a Good Judiciary in carrying out the duties of the judiciary. For example, the Principle of Trials that are Open to the public, whereby the application of Electronic Courts makes the trial (and its documents) accessible and controlled by the public, not just limited to those present in the courtroom. In terms of the Principle of Opportunity to Defend Yourself (audi et alteram partem), the Electronic Court provides wide access to parties to submit their defense (even technologically, it is possible to provide a “reminder note”
menu (notification) to parties so that they use the opportunity to submit their defense, thus providing more protection for the parties compared to conventional justice).
Regarding the Principle of Accountability, the Electronic Court firmly supports it, bearing in mind that electronic activity leaves a digital footprint that is stored indefinitely, so that, in addition to making files more publically controllable, it can also prevent files from becoming corrupted.
C. Procedural Law Obstacles in Electronic State Administrative Courts
As a coercive law (dwingend recht), the State Administrative Court Procedure Law must be followed as it is. In implementing Electronic Courts, there are stages of trials that have been expressly stated to be conducted manually, namely Preparatory Examination, Reading of Lawsuits and Answers, Evidence, and Reading of Decisions, so trials at these stages cannot be carried out electronically.
Whereas regarding the Registration of Lawsuits, Payments, Summons, Replicas, Duplicates, and Conclusions, the form of the mechanism/event is not explicitly stated, making it possible to carry out electronically. In this regard, two procedures in the procedural law of the State Administrative Court must be clarified in advance before entering the scope/coverage of Electronic Courts, namely regarding the procedure for “Trial Open to the Public” and the procedure for “entry of a third party (intervention)”.
In the case of “Trial Open to the Public”, Article 70 paragraph (1) of Law Number 5 of 1986 states that for an examination, the Chief Judge of the session shall open the session and declare it open to the public. The purpose of the provision requiring trials to be held open to the public is as a form of control by the public over the court, therefore, anyone can attend trials unless, for certain reasons based on the law, the trial is declared closed to the public. In Electronic Courts, the provision of “Trial Open to the Public” can be implemented optimally because the public can follow the proceedings and view court files. Suppose a conventional trial is only open and attended by the people who come with
the Electronic Court. In that case, all people in the world (including academics on campus) can participate, not just during the trial, but the trial data can be reviewed at any time. Thus, the Electronic Court does not conflict with the provisions of “Trial Open to the Public” as referred to in Article 70 paragraph (1) of Law Number 5 of 1986.
Regarding the inclusion of a third party (intervention) in an ongoing case, Article 83 of Law Number 5 of 1986 states that during an examination, every person with interest in another party’s dispute being examined by the court, either on their initiative by submitting a request, or on the initiative of the Judge, may enter into an ongoing State Administrative dispute. This provision is legal protection for interested third parties, so their aspirations are not protected by law. Concerning Electronic Courts, the rights of third parties must be protected and fulfilled, namely by notifying their rights, either through electronic mail, regular mail, or bailiffs. In electronic justice, the inclusion of a third party as an intervention can be carried out at the Preparatory Examination event, the Lawsuit and Answer Reading event, at the time of Evidence, or before the Reading of the Verdict. Thus, the Electronic Court protects the rights of interested third parties and does not conflict with the provisions of Article 83 Law Number 5 of 1986.
D. Coverage of Electronic Courts in the State Administrative Court Environment
In the context of State Administrative Courts, the scope and restrictions of Electronic Courts can be separated into two categories: Partial Electronic Courts and Fully Electronic Courts.
1) Partial Electronic Courts
Partial Electronic Court (Partial e-Court) is implemented for all procedural law and case administration with the exception of Preparatory Examination, Read-out of Complaint and Answer, Proof, and Read-out of Verdict. Thus, beginning with the phases of Case Registration, Payment of Case Fees, Summons of the Parties, Replies, Duplicates, and Conclusions, these processes can be conducted electronically, eliminating the need for parties to physically appear before the State Administrative Court..
Regarding Case Registration and Payment of Case Fees, the initiative for electronic Case Registration and Payment of Case Fees is currently being implemented in the General Courts Environment, per the Decree of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court No. 176A/KMA/SK/IX/2017 concerning the Establishment of a Working Group for the Review and Preparation of Electronic Registration, Payment, and Summons of Case Regulations in Court. The State Administrative Court will mimic identically the General Court's Case Registration and Payment of Case Fees paradigm.
In the case of the summons of the parties, the General Court is also preparing it. It is different from the General Court, where in civil cases, it has been determined that the validity of the summons is the delivery of the summons directly by the bailiff as referred to in Article 388 juncto 390 paragraph (1) HIR, the validity of summons at the State Administrative Court is declared valid if it is carried out by registered letter (Article 65 of the Law on State Administrative Court). Thus, to summon the parties at the State Administrative Court, it is only necessary to change the meaning of a Registered Letter from a paper letter to an electronic letter (e-mail), not as burdensome as the General Court environment, which has to change from direct summons by bailiffs to the electronic summons. The Defendant in the State Administrative Court environment where only certain State Administrative Agencies or Officials also greatly facilitate the issue of this summons, unlike general courts where the defendant parties are very diverse. In the practice of the State Administrative Court, an electronic summons has also been made possible based on various Supreme Court Regulations which regulate several special procedures at the State Administrative Court, such as Supreme Court Regulation Number 4 of 2015, Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2015, to Supreme Court Regulations Number 8 of 2017.
In the case of Replik and Duplik, Article 75 of the Law on State Administrative Court does not order the Chief Judge of the Session to read it. The parties submit their Replica and Duplicate to the Chief Judge of the Session, and then the Chief Judge of the Session will give the Replica/Duplicate to the opposing party. Thus, the submission of the Replica and Duplicate can be interpreted as electronic delivery via Electronic Mail (e-mail), and then the court will send the Replica and Duplicate to each party via Electronic Mail.
Likewise with the Conclusion. Article 97, paragraph (1) of Law Number 5 of 1986 states that parties can submit their conclusions when the dispute examination has been completed. The
conclusions given by the parties are only given to the Panel of Judges, there is no exchange of Conclusions between the parties. Thus, the parties can convey their conclusions to the Panel of Judges via Electronic Mail.
As for the Preparatory Examination, Read-out of Lawsuit and Answer, Proof and Read-out of Verdict, the procedural law in the current State Administrative Court Law still requires the presence of the parties, so it cannot be carried out electronically.
This partial electronic court can now be implemented by the Supreme Court because there is no procedural law stipulated in the State Administrative Court Law that has been violated. From a regulatory perspective, the Supreme Court only needs to stipulate a Supreme Court Regulation to implement this Partial Electronic Court within the State Administrative Court Environment.
2) Fully Electronic Court
The fully electronic court (full e-Court) implements the Electronic Court for all stages of procedural law and case administration within the State Administrative Court environment. As referred to above, the form is a Partial Electronic Court, with added electronification of the Preparatory Examination, Read-out of Lawsuit and Response, Evidence, and Read-out of Verdict. To arrive at this Fully Electronic Court, amendments must be made to the State Administrative Court Law, bearing in mind that the coercive Law of Procedure regarding Preparatory Examination, Read-out of Lawsuit and Response, Evidence, and Read-out of Verdict still determines that trials are carried out in the presence of the parties.
E. Efforts to Implement Electronic Courts
The efforts to implement electronic courts might be categorized as either tactical or strategic. To realize this Electronic Court, it is necessary to leverage existing Supreme Court resources, such as Supreme Court Regulations, Supreme Court Circulars, Decisions of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Circular Letters of the Director General of the Military Court and State Administrative Court. In light of the fact that no State Administrative Court Law Procedural Law rules have been violated, this tactical endeavor to implement Partial Electronic Courts can be undertaken. In the process of implementing Electronic Courts, the Supreme Court will issue a number of its own policy products. This partially satisfies the obligation to uphold law and justice in a simple, quick, and inexpensive manner. In addition, the Supreme Court has the technological and human resources necessary to deploy Partial Electronic Courts.
The objective of this strategic initiative is to establish a Fully Electronic Court inside the State Administrative Court Environment. The President and the House of Representatives must collaborate on this strategic endeavor. This strategic endeavor is time-consuming since it involves institutions other than the Supreme Court. This strategic initiative must begin with reform studies of the State Administrative Court Procedure Law. This work might be coordinated with the reform of the State Administrative Court Law following the passage of Government Administration Law No. 30 of 2014.
IV. Conclusion
Information technology greatly supports the judiciary’s task of upholding law and justice through the implementation of Electronic Justice, which aligns with simple, fast, and low-cost justice principles. Procedural law is the main obstacle to implementing Electronic Justice in the State Administrative Court Environment. State Administrative Court Law's procedural provisions continue to govern the manual resolution of cases. As for the Administration of Cases in the State Administrative Court, some of them can and have been carried out electronically. Technological and human resource constraints on running Electronic Justice in the State Administrative Court Environment can be overcome by utilizing technology and human resources that currently exist in the State Administrative Court Environment. The State Administrative Court Environment can then conduct Partial Electronic Justice (including Registration, Payment, Summons, Replies, Duplicates, and Conclusions) electronically. To implement it, only a Supreme Court Regulation on the Application of Electronic Justice in the State Administrative Court Environment is required.
Regarding the implementation of Fully Electronic Justice (all phases of Procedural Law and Case Administration), amendments to the Procedural Law through the State Administrative Court Law must be made prior to implementation.
References
[1] L. T. A. L. Wardhani, M. D. H. Noho, And A. Natalis, “The Adoption Of Various Legal Systems In Indonesia: An Effort To Initiate The Prismatic Mixed Legal Systems,” Cogent Soc. Sci., Vol. 8, No. 1, Dec. 2022, Doi: 10.1080/23311886.2022.2104710.
[2] X. Nugraha, K. Murti, And S. Putri, “Third Parties’ Legal Protection Over Agreed Authorized Capital Amount By Founders In Limited Liability Companies,” Lentera Huk., Vol. 6, P. 173, 2019.
[3] A. Lundeto, I. Talibo, And S. Nento, “Challenges And Learning Strategies Of Islamic Education In Islamic Boarding Schools In The Industrial Revolution Era 4.0,” Al-Ishlah J.
Pendidik., Vol. 13, No. 3, Pp. 2231–2240, Dec. 2021, Doi: 10.35445/Alishlah.V13i3.1153.
[4] P. Norlander, N. Jukic, A. Varma, And S. Nestorov, “The Effects Of Technological Supervision On Gig Workers: Organizational Control And Motivation Of Uber, Taxi, And Limousine Drivers,” Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag., Vol. 32, No. 19, Pp. 4053–4077, Oct. 2021, Doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1867614.
[5] S. Susanto, “E-Court As The Prevention Efforts Against The Indonesia Judicial Corruption,”
Yust. J. Huk., Vol. 9, No. 1, Pp. 116–138, 2020.
[6] L. Berutu, E. Lisdiyono, S. Irianto, And C. A. N. Berutu, “E-Court System In Realizing Simple, Fast And Low-Cost Civil Justice: Learning From Indonesian Experience,” J. Posit.
Sch. Psychol., Vol. 6, No. 7, Pp. 2805–2819, 2022.
[7] A. Widlak And R. Peeters, “Administrative Errors And The Burden Of Correction And Consequence: How Information Technology Exacerbates The Consequences Of Bureaucratic Mistakes For Citizens,” Int. J. Electron. Gov., Vol. 12, No. 1, Pp. 40–56, 2020.
[8] H. Y. Prabowo, R. Hamdani, And Z. Mohd Sanusi, “The New Face Of People Power: An Exploratory Study On The Potential Of Social Media For Combating Corruption In Indonesia,” Australas. Accounting, Bus. Financ. J., Vol. 12, No. 3, 2018.
[9] J. M. Baldwin, J. M. Eassey, And E. J. Brooke, “Court Operations During The Covid-19 Pandemic,” Am. J. Crim. Justice, Vol. 45, No. 4, Pp. 743–758, Aug. 2020, Doi:
10.1007/S12103-020-09553-1.
[10] M. B. Kurniawan, “Implementation Of Electronic Trial (E-Litigation) On The Civil Cases In Indonesia Court As A Legal Renewal Of Civil Procedural Law,” J. Huk. Dan Peradil., Vol.
9, No. 1, P. 43, Apr. 2020, Doi: 10.25216/Jhp.9.1.2020.43-70.
[11] G. Soriano Barabino, “Cultural, Textual And Linguistic Aspects Of Legal Translation: A Model Of Text Analysis For Training Legal Translators,” Int. J. Leg. Discourse, Vol. 5, No.
2, Pp. 285–300, Nov. 2020, Doi: 10.1515/Ijld-2020-2037.
[12] M. Rona, R. Safa’at, A. Madjid, And M. Fadli, “Restorative Justice In The Settlement Of Traffic Accident Causing Death Toll According To The Perspective Of Customary Judiciary In Sanggau District, West Kalimantan,” Yust. J. Huk., Vol. 9, No. 1, Pp. 139–151, 2020.
[13] A. Sadat, “Discretion And Accountability Of Local Government In Administering Governance,” J. Gov., Vol. 5, No. 2, Pp. 237–248, 2020.
[14] R. Salet And J. Terpstra, “Conflicting Institutional Logics In The Control Of Crime And Disorder: The Double Strategy Of Administrative And Criminal Law,” Criminol. Crim.
Justice, P. 174889582211120, Jul. 2022, Doi: 10.1177/17488958221112061.
[15] M. Peno, “The Character Of The Principles Of Criminal Law And Criminal Responsibility:
Between The Philosophy Of Law And Semiotic,” Liverp. Law Rev., Vol. 40, No. 2, Pp. 79–
93, Jul. 2019, Doi: 10.1007/S10991-019-09226-Y.
[16] M. Finnemore And D. B. Hollis, “Beyond Naming And Shaming: Accusations And International Law In Cybersecurity,” Eur. J. Int. Law, Vol. 31, No. 3, Pp. 969–1003, Dec.
2020, Doi: 10.1093/Ejil/Chaa056.
[17] D. N. R. A. Putra, K. A. Sudiarawan, And A. Mahartha, “Interest Dispute Settlement Related To Workers’ Health Care Security In Indonesia,” Udayana J. Law Cult., Vol. 4, No. 1, Pp.
62–80, 2020.
[18] T. Möllers, “Concepts Of Justice And National Context Outlining Legal Comparisons Between The Federal Republic Of Germany, The United States Of America, And The People’s Republic Of China,” Potchefstroom Electron. Law J., Vol. 25, Oct. 2022, Doi:
10.17159/1727-3781/2022/V25i0a13471.
[19] C. Inês, P. L. Guilherme, M.-G. Esther, G. Swantje, H. Stephen, And H. Lars, “Regulatory Challenges And Opportunities For Collective Renewable Energy Prosumers In The Eu,”
Energy Policy, Vol. 138, P. 111212, Mar. 2020, Doi: 10.1016/J.Enpol.2019.111212.
[20] S. Eliakis, D. Kotsopoulos, A. Karagiannaki, And K. Pramatari, “Survival And Growth In Innovative Technology Entrepreneurship: A Mixed-Methods Investigation,” Adm. Sci., Vol.
10, No. 3, P. 39, Jul. 2020, Doi: 10.3390/Admsci10030039.
[21] M. Zamboni, “The Positioning Of The Supreme Courts In Sweden – A Democratic Oddity?,”
Eur. Const. Law Rev., Vol. 15, No. 4, Pp. 668–690, Dec. 2019, Doi:
10.1017/S1574019619000361.
[22] N. Nurhadi, “The Dualism Of The Supreme Court’s Decisions On The Position Of Non- Marital Child,” J. Huk. Dan Peradil., Vol. 8, No. 2, P. 228, Jul. 2019, Doi:
10.25216/Jhp.8.2.2019.228-254.
[23] V. Thakur, M. N. Doja, Y. K. Dwivedi, T. Ahmad, And G. Khadanga, “Land Records On Blockchain For Implementation Of Land Titling In India,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., Vol. 52, P.
101940, Jun. 2020, Doi: 10.1016/J.Ijinfomgt.2019.04.013.
[24] H. M. Putra And H. Ahyani, “Internalization In Islamic Law Progressive In Criminal Law Changes In Indonesia,” J. Ilm. Al-Syir’ah, Vol. 20, No. 1, P. 68, Jun. 2022, Doi:
10.30984/Jis.V20i1.1861.
