scholarly journals PERKOSAAN SEBAGAI ALASAN PENCABUTAN KEKUASAAN WALI DALAM PERKAWINAN

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fakhruddin, Ramadhita
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Marital Law

<p> </p> <p>This research aims at describing the illigibility indicators of marital guardians based on Islamic marital law and common law perspective and its disenfranchisement due to rape and violence towards daughters. This research applies statute and comparative approach. The result reveals that there is a similarity between common law and Islamic marital law relating to religion and maturity backgrounds. Disenfranchisement can be implemented only for custody through court procedure. however, it is not related to guardian’s authority in marriage, to some extent islamic marital law gives chance to implement disenfranchisement due to rape and violence on those who are under guardians’ authority.</p> <p> </p> <p>Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan tinjauan fiqh munakahat dan hukum positif terhadap indikator kelayakan seorang wali dalam perkawinan, dan pencabutan hak kewalian dalam pernikahan karena melakukan perkosaan dan kekerasan pada anak perempuannya. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach) dan perbandingan (comparative approach). hasil penelitian menunjukkan adannya persamaan antara fiqh munakahat dan peraturan perundang-undangan dalam menentukan  kelayakan  wali  untuk  perkawinan  terkait  dengan  latar  belakang  agama dan aspek kedewasan. Pencabutan kekuasaan wali dalam konteks peraturan perundang- undangan hanya berkaitan dengan kuasa asuh orang tua melalui prosedur pengadilan dan tidak berlaku untuk kekuasaan wali dalam perkawinan, sedangkan fiqh munakahat memberikan peluang pencabutan kekuasaan wali dalam perkawinan jika wali melakukan kekerasan bahkan perkosaan terhadap orang yang berada di bawah perwaliannya.</p> <p> </p>

scholarly journals Public Property in Australia and Russia: The Concept and the Role of the Constitution

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-52
Author(s):  
Vladimir Nizov
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Law System ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Two Systems ◽  
The Russian Empire ◽  
Legal Understanding ◽  
Property Regimes

The modern democratic state embodies the concept of the state as a service. For this reason, the administration of public property is one of the major issues related to the efficiency of public authority. Common law countries and post-Soviet countries have completely different legal explanations and bases for public property. This article takes a comparative approach, showing similarities and differences in the public property regimes in these two systems.This article investigates why the two systems have different approaches to public property issues and how the differing experiences result in differing implementation. Australia and Russia have been chosen as examples of a common law system and the post-Soviet system, respectively. In addition to property regimes, this paper also discusses federalism issues.An analysis of these countries’ historical development permits a significant enhancement of the philosophical and legal understanding of property, especially public property. Protection of private property in Russia was very strong by 19th century standards. However, the Russian Empire fell behind in questions of public property compared to its protection of private property, and also compared to other systems outside of Russia. Some aspects of dealing with the most critical natural resources expand public property regulation issues into the constitutional sphere. Public property issues need constitutional justification in both Australia and Russia. However, Russia has constitutional provisions that provide the categories of property rights existing in its domestic law, while a great deal of effort was required in Australia to create the constitutional basis for water resources administration.

scholarly journals Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Hanna Kuczyńska
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
De Se

Este artigo pretende apresentar dois modelos de exclusão de provas indesejáveis que operam em ordenamentos continentais e de common law. São analisados os mecanismos de bloqueio de informações antes de se tornaram provas no processo penal, os quais podem ser definidos como instrumentos (soluções) adotadas em um determinado modelo de processo penal que permite a verificação e eventual exclusão de provas inadmissíveis pois definidas como indesejáveis à verificação dos fatos. Com base em uma “perspectiva de modelo”, será descrito o funcionamento desses mecanismos de exclusão (ou bloqueio) de provas indesejáveis nos Estados Unidos e na Inglaterra, na Alemanha, na França, na Polônia e na Itália. Também serão analisados o estágio da eliminação e o tipo de procedimento para aplicar o bloqueio. Analisar-se-á o modo em que a análise atomística e holística da prova atua e as suas consequências. A última parte do texto irá demonstrar como a existência de distintos motivos para a exclusão da prova na forma de ilegalidade, não fiabilidade e irrelevância, a depender da gravidade da violação da lei, podem resultar em diferentes consequências. Isso permitirá verificar se os modelos continentais ou de common law são coerentes e efetivos e se eles atendem ao objetivo almejado de eliminar provas indesejáveis. Nas conclusões, será demonstrado que o árbitro final sobre admissibilidade da prova em ambos os modelos é o julgador e como isso autoriza a ponderação dos interesses legalmente protegidos em cada caso. Assim, também se observará que no modelo continental de exclusão de provas indesejáveis não se pode afirmar que há um mecanismo integralmente desenvolvido para bloquear informações de se tornarem provas no processo penal.

Addressing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Resources in Malaysia: A Procedural Justice Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-66
Author(s):  
Izawati Wook
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Justice ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Reform ◽  
The Other ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Potential Solution ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
The Ideal

The concept of procedural justice has been promoted as a potential solution in the contest for resources involving indigenous peoples and others. It seeks the formulation of processes that are fair and just both to indigenous peoples and to the other parties affected. Using a comparative approach, this paper analyses processes and mechanisms adopted in some selected common law jurisdictions against the ideal of procedural justice. It seeks to consider mechanisms which conform to the principle of procedural justice to address the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights to land and resources in Malaysia. The principle is relevant in Malaysian common law which also subjects matters affecting fundamental liberties to procedural justice. Comparative perspectives provide models for practical applications of indigenous peoples’ rights. They assist policy analysis through learning from the successes and failures of other jurisdictions in improving legal reform.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis Konsep Omnibus Law dalam Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan di Indonesia

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Nyoman Nidia Sari Hayati ◽  
Sri Warjiyati ◽  
Muwahid
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach

ABSTRAK Indonesia sebagai negara yang menganut sistem hukum civil law memiliki banyak sekali peraturan perundang-undangan mulai pusat sampai daerah. Dampaknya banyak terjadi tumpang tindih peraturan perundang-undangan baik secara vertikal maupun horizontal. Untuk menata peraturan perundang-undangan yang tumpang tindih diperlukan adanya harmonisasi. Konsep omnibus law telah berhasil diterapkan di beberapa negara yang kebanyakan menganut sistem common law, namun Indonesia yang menganut sistem hukum civil law masih baru mengenal istilah ini. Dengan demikian permasalahan yang dibahas dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimna konsep omnibus law dalam membangun harmonisasi perundangan dan apa saja hambatan yang dialami apabila konsep ini diterapkan di Indonesia.Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approach), pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach), dan pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach). Kemudian dilakukan analisis terhadap semua bahan dengan metode deskriptif. Hasil dari penilitian ini menunjukkan bahwa harmonisasi perundang-undangan sangat penting dilakukan untuk pembangunan hukum dan demi terciptanya kepastian hukum di Indonesia. Namun untuk membuat Undang-Undang dengan konsep omnibus law memerlukan kajian mendalam dan melibatkan banyak pihak demi transparansi pembentukannya dupaya tidak menimbulkan permasalahan- permasalahan dan merugikan publik.  Kata kunci: Omnibus Law, Harmonisasi Peraturan Perundang-undangan.  

scholarly journals Plea Bargaining dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana di Beberapa Negara

Wajah Hukum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Nella Octaviany Siregar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Basic Concept ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
The Common

Plea Bargaining System is widely interpreted as a statement of guilt of a suspect or defendant. Plea Bargaining practised in many countries that have embraced the Common Law legal system. Plea Bargaining that was developed in the common law "legal system" has inspired the emergence of "mediation" in the practice of the judiciary based on the criminal law in the Netherlands and France, known as "transactie". Plea Bargaining is categorized as a settling outside the hearing and their users is also based on specific reasons. Even in the renewal of law criminal justice events in Indonesia, has also picked up the basic concept of plea bargaining that was adopted in the RUU KUHAP with the concept of "Jalur Khusus". That with the presence of the concept of "Jalur Khusus", is also a concern when viewed can enactment back recognition of guilt of the defendant as the basis of the judge's verdict is dropping. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze the plea bargaining in some countries. The type of research used is the juridical normative research, using a conceptual approach, comparative approach, historical approach.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HAK PATEN (Studi Komparatif Lingkup Perlindungan di Berbagai Negara)

FIAT JUSTISIA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 697
Author(s):  
Sutarman Yodo
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Patent Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
Law System ◽  
United State ◽  
The Difference

AbstractThe differences of the legal system that patent scope protection in various countries, not only importing for new investment but determine the process of transfers of the technology of a state. Widespread protection cause transfers of technology become not easy eventhought less protection cause patent owner quit being lost. Both difference intention results in the need of comparative study on protection scope of the patent in countries. There are two problems should be explored, first what is the difference and similarity scope patent protection in the state's regulation and the second how legal system influenced to the differ occurrence? These problems used research methods that are statute approach and comparative approach, case approach, and conceptual approach. Result research found patent protection in Europe countries, United State, Japan, and Indonesia had similarity in protection requirement regulated such novelty, inventive step, and industrial applied. However, United State protection base on first to invent meanwhile other state based on first to file. Then scope of patent protection there has Germany applied the widest protection, then United State, and Japan, then Netherland. Mean England as the limited protection country. The difference patent protection is influenced by the legal system such common law that more referred to the precedent than civil law system with its codification. Germany is the only one country applied rigid codification on patent protection. Means, Indonesia formulated the of patent protection that is still limited related to the limited cases resolved in court. Keywords: Patent Right, Scope Protection, Comparative Law.AbstrakPerbedaan sistem hukum perlindungan lingkup paten di berbagai negara, tidak hanya mengimpor investasi baru namun juga menentukan proses transfer teknologi suatu negara. Perlindungan yang meluas menyebabkan transfer teknologi menjadi tidak mudah walaupun kurangnya perlindungan karena pemilik paten mengalami kerugian. Kedua perbedaan niat tersebut menghasilkan perlunya studi komparatif tentang cakupan perlindungan paten di negara-negara. Ada dua masalah yang harus dijajaki, pertama apa perbedaan dan kesamaan cakupan perlindungan paten dalam peraturan negara dan yang kedua bagaimana sistem hukum mempengaruhi kejadian yang berbeda? Masalah ini akan menggunakan metode penelitian pendekatan statuta menyeluruh dan pendekatan komparatif, pendekatan kasus, dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menemukan perlindungan paten di negara-negara Eropa, Amerika Serikat, Jepang, dan Indonesia memiliki kesamaan dalam persyaratan proteksi yang mengatur hal baru, langkah inventif, dan penerapan industri. Namun, perlindungan di Amerika Serikat pada awalnya untuk menciptakan sementara basis negara lain berdasarkan berkas pertama. Kemudian ruang lingkup proteksi paten di sana telah ada Jerman menerapkan proteksi terluas, kemudian Amerika Serikat, dan Jepang, lalu Belanda. Berarti Inggris sebagai negara perlindungan terbatas. Perbedaan proteksi paten dipengaruhi oleh sistem hukum common law yang lebih mengacu pada precedent daripada civil law dengan kodifikasinya. Jerman adalah satu-satunya negara yang menerapkan kodifikasi yang kaku terhadap perlindungan paten. Berarti, Indonesia merumuskan cakupan proteksi paten yang masih terbatas yang terkait dengan terbatasnya kasus yang diselesaikan di pengadilan. Kata kunci: Hak Paten, Perlindungan Ruang Lingkup, Hukum Komparatif

Evaluation of governance challenges associated with the exercise of fiduciary duties by the board members of the state-owned entities

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-17
Author(s):  
Tshegofatso Kgarabjang
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Executive Directors ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Fiduciary Duties ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
International Instruments

There are fundamental challenges encountered by the non-executive directors (board members) of state-owned entities in a course of exercise of fiduciary duties. These challenges are, inter alia, conflict of interests, failure to uphold the fundamental principles of corporate governance, lack of necessary skill and competencies, and this impact on the ultimate performance of the company. The article seeks to evaluate the potential challenges encountered by board members of state-owned entities in the course of exercise of their fiduciary duties. The results indicate that failure to comply with fiduciary duties may have drastic effects on a state as a shareholder and may lead to a decline in corporate governance of state-entity. The article will make a brief reference to fiduciary duties in terms of common law, the Companies Act, PFMA and King IV, secondly examine potential challenges and thirdly conduct a comparative approach with the international instruments with the aim of making recommendations/best practices. The article makes reference to various case laws dealing with fiduciary duties, journal articles, internet sources and textbooks, common law and legislations.

scholarly journals Director's Duty to Act for a Proper Purpose in the Context of Distribution under the Companies Act 71 of 2008

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-45
Author(s):  
Simphiwe Bidie
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Common ◽  
Selection Of

This paper seeks to critically analyse the requirements of the duty imposed on directors to act for a proper purpose as provided in section 76(3)(a) of the 2008 Act (Companies Act 71 of 2008) whenever they distribute company money and/or property. This analysis is conducted with the obligations imposed under sections 4 and 46 of the 2008 Act in mind. The purpose is not to question the inclusion of this duty in the 2008 Act. It is simply to question whether the common law interpretation of the duty still suffices in the face of section 76(3) of the 2008 Act, which seems to suggest that a different standard of judgment must be used. The argument that is made here is that the use of common law principles in interpreting proper purpose is well and good when the actions of directors are challenged based on the common law, but, where this duty has been incorporated into statutory law the interpretation of the duty in the context of the wording of the statute should be paramount. In addition, when interpreting any provision of the Act, consideration of the objects of the statute becomes inevitable. The interpretation of the duty cannot, in the face of the changes brought about by the statute, remain stagnant as a result of reliance on common law standards of judgment. The wording of the provision in question and the purpose of the statute cannot and must not be ignored; they must be given effect. A comparative approach will be adopted, using legislation and case law from Australia and Canada. The selection of these particular jurisdictions is based solely on the fact that like South Africa, their legal heritage is based on English common law, and a comparison of the three jurisdictions therefore makes sense.  

scholarly journals PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN MUTLAK (STRICT LIABILITY) DALAM HUKUM PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ratna Artha Windari
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Law System ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
Civil Law System

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui konsep pertanggungjawaban mutlak (strict liability) dalam sistem common law dan civil law, serta bentuk pertanggungjawaban mutlak (strict liability) dalam hukum perlindungan konsumen di Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach) dan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan (statute approach). Pengumpulan data dilakukan melalui studi pustaka dan studi dokumen. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa dalam common law system, strict liability merupakan transformasi dari pertanggungjawaban atas dasar perjanjian (contractual liability), yang sama sekali tidak mensyaratkan adanya unsur kesalahan, sedangkan konsep pertanggungjawaban dalam civil law system keberadaan unsur kesalahan masih terkandung didalamnya, akan tetapi dilakukan pengalihan beban pembuktian unsur kesalahan tersebut dari penggugat kepada tergugat (shifting the burden of proof). Bentuk pertanggungjawaban dalam hukum perlindungan konsumen di Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen menganut strict liability sebagai derivasi dari pertanggungjawaban berdasarkan perbuatan melawan hukum (tortious liability), dimana terjadi pengalihan beban pembuktian kesalahan dari konsumen kepada pelaku usaha. Kata Kunci: Strict liability, perlindungan konsumen.

Disgorgement, Compensation and Restitution: A Comparative Approach

Global Jurist ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilaria Amelia Caggiano
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
Theoretical Foundations

AbstractThe article aims at defining the scope of disgorgement in Italian law, which draws on common law experience, and asks whether the Italian legal system can provide similar recourses. English and US law have conceived “disgorgement damages” as a distinctive concept. I verify whether a rule of disgorgement of profits is principled in the Italian legal system as a generally available private law remedy or is just applicable in certain specific cases. I propose 3 hypothetical cases to measure the attitude of different legal systems. The theoretical foundations of disgorgement as a private remedy are located in different branches of private law (compensation, restitution, property law). English and U.S. law place disgorgement in the more general framework of the law of unjust enrichment and restitution. However, disgorgement can be attracted to other branches of law, as I demonstrate with reference to the Italian legal system. By highlighting the functions that disgorgement may perform in each case proposed, I conclude whether disgorgement is applicable by Italian judges, in addition to the express provisions laid down by legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document