Russian Law Journal

LAW ENFORCEMENT ON HEALTHCARE FRAUD: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN INDONESIA AND EUROPE

2026-01-12T09:21:30+00:00

Healthcare fraud poses a serious challenge to the financial integrity and ethical foundations of national health systems. This study examines the legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms used to combat healthcare fraud in Indonesia and selected European countries—namely the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Using a normative and comparative legal research method, the study analyzes statutory provisions, institutional structures, and doctrinal development in each jurisdiction. Findings show that Indonesia's current approach is fragmented, relying on general criminal law and weak administrative regulations, without a clear legal definition of healthcare fraud. Institutional coordination is limited, enforcement data is not transparently reported, and courts have not developed jurisprudence tailored to the healthcare context. In contrast, the European countries studied have established specific legal definitions, dedicated enforcement bodies, and integrated systems that combine criminal, administrative, and civil measures. The study proposes a dual-path enforcement model for Indonesia, recommending legislative reform, procedural integration, specialized institutions, and enhanced judicial interpretation. This article addresses a clear research gap in Indonesian legal scholarship, where healthcare fraud has rarely been analyzed as a distinct legal category within health governance and criminal enforcement literature. By adopting lessons from the European experience, Indonesia can strengthen its legal response to healthcare fraud and protect the sustainability of its national health insurance system.

CRIMINALIZATION POLICY OF UNION BUSTING IN INDONESIA'S LABOR LAW: NORMATIVE GAPS, ENFORCEMENT FAILURES, AND COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR REFORM

2026-01-12T09:57:59+00:00

Union busting represents a serious threat to labor democracy and fundamental rights in Indonesia. Although Law No. 21 of 2000 prohibits employer interference in trade union activities and provides for criminal sanctions, its enforcement has remained largely ineffective. This study investigates the normative and institutional failures underlying this gap and argues for the urgent need to establish a coherent criminal policy on union suppression. Using a normative-juridical method combined with comparative analysis, the article finds that Indonesia's current legal framework suffers from vague offense definitions, lack of evidentiary support structures, and fragmented enforcement mechanisms. Drawing on models from South Korea, Canada, and South Africa, the study proposes a reform blueprint including revised legal definitions, rebuttable presumptions, dual-track enforcement via administrative and criminal pathways, and proportional corporate sanctions. Criminalization is justified not only as a last resort but as a necessary response to systemic impunity and democratic erosion. The findings offer actionable recommendations for legal reform, institutional design, and policy alignment with international labor standards.

HARMONIZATION OF ELECTORAL NORMS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM AND DEMOCRATIC STRENGTHENING: A RESPONSE TO THE EVOLVING GLOBAL ELECTORAL LANDSCAPE

2026-01-12T10:01:47+00:00

This article explores the challenges and prospects of harmonizing electoral norms across jurisdictions through the lens of constitutionalism and democratic resilience. Amidst rising global democratic backsliding, legal fragmentation, and transnational electoral threats—including disinformation, cross-border financing, and algorithmic manipulation—electoral systems are increasingly vulnerable. While international instruments such as the ICCPR and soft law frameworks provide normative guidance, their implementation remains inconsistent. This study adopts a normative-juridical and comparative constitutional methodology, drawing insights from Indonesia, Germany, South Africa, Kenya, India, and the European Union. The analysis is structured around three key questions: (1) how constitutional principles can underpin electoral harmonization, (2) the tensions between harmonization and state sovereignty, and (3) mechanisms for reconciling legal pluralism with global democratic standards. The article proposes a seven-pillar model of electoral norm convergence: constitutional entrenchment, institutional interoperability, codified soft law, judicial dialogue, overriding mandatory democratic principles, technological harmonization, and democratic pedagogy. It argues that harmonization must be pursued not through procedural uniformity but through constitutional alignment, respecting pluralistic expressions of democratic governance. The findings contribute both to democratic theory and to the development of normative frameworks for resilient, legitimate, and globally coherent electoral systems.

TRANSFER PRICING DISPUTES IN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF INDONESIA’S APA AND MAP FRAMEWORK POST-BEPS

2026-01-12T10:06:45+00:00

The intensification of cross-border economic activities among multinational corporations (MNCs) has significantly increased the complexity and frequency of transfer pricing disputes. In response, Indonesia has adopted a series of legal and administrative reforms to enhance the certainty, fairness, and transparency of its dispute-resolution mechanisms, particularly through the implementation of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) and the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP). These reforms align with the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan, especially Actions 8–10 on transfer pricing and Action 14 on improving dispute resolution. Despite such progress, Indonesia continues to face doctrinal ambiguities, institutional constraints, and compliance challenges that impede the effective operation of APA and MAP frameworks. This article conducts a legal analysis of Indonesia’s transfer pricing dispute-resolution regime in the post-BEPS era, evaluating its statutory design, administrative practice, and alignment with international standards. Using normative legal methodology complemented by comparative insights from OECD member jurisdictions, the study examines the substantive rules governing APAs and MAP, the procedural safeguards afforded to taxpayers, and the enforcement powers of the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT). The findings reveal structural issues, including limited taxpayer access, procedural delays, insufficient transparency, and discrepancies between domestic legal norms and treaty-based obligations. The article argues that Indonesia must strengthen legal certainty, institutional coordination, and adherence to international dispute-resolution commitments to achieve a more predictable and equitable taxation system. Building on comparative lessons, this study proposes a refined legal framework for APAs and MAP that enhances Indonesia’s compliance with global transfer pricing standards while promoting sustainable tax administration.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE ARAB LEGAL SYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS VALUES AND LEGAL NORMS

2026-01-20T07:20:20+00:00

This paper introduces the concept of moral responsibility and explores the justifiability of the moral practices associated with holding people responsible for their behavior. Among the most important and familiar of these practices are moral praise and moral blame. This paper also investigates the concept of moral responsibility and its significance for international law. Moral responsibility, understood as the attribution of praise or blame for actions or omissions, provides a philosophical foundation for the development and legitimacy of international legal norms. The study first reviews definitional approaches linguistically and legally of responsibility in general, Then the research classifies the types of responsibilities as moral responsibility and legal responsibility, and after that we explain the types of legal responsibility.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF MORAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE ARAB LEGAL SYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RELIGIOUS VALUES AND LEGAL NORMS

2026-01-31T08:18:53+00:00

INTEGRATING GEOAI-BASED MARINE CONSERVATION WITH FIQH AND USUL AL-FIQH: A REVIEW

2026-02-14T06:00:55+00:00

Marine ecosystems are increasingly threatened by climate change, unsustainable fishing, coastal development, and pollution, necessitating more sophisticated and value-driven approaches to conservation. Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI), which integrates GIS, remote sensing, and artificial intelligence, has emerged as a powerful tool for marine environmental governance through its capabilities in spatial analysis, environmental monitoring, predictive modelling, and decision support. At the same time, the Islamic disciplines of Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh offer a comprehensive ethical and legal framework grounded in principles such as khilāfah (stewardship), mīzān (balance), maqāṣid al-sharīʿah (higher objectives of Islamic law), maṣlaḥah (public interest), and sadd al-dharī‘ah (blocking the means to harm). This paper conceptually explores the integration of GeoAI with Islamic jurisprudential principles to develop a holistic framework for marine conservation. It first outlines key GeoAI applications and then examines how Fiqh and Usul al-Fiqh can guide the ethical use of these technologies, particularly through maqasid-oriented governance and preventive approaches informed by sadd al-dharī‘ah. The study concludes that GeoAI can serve as an effective instrument to operationalise Islamic environmental ethics by providing empirical evidence for ethically grounded policy decisions. The proposed integration strengthens both scientific robustness and moral legitimacy in marine governance, especially in Muslim-majority contexts, and highlights future directions for institutional frameworks, capacity-building, and interdisciplinary collaboration

POSTPONEMENT OF THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN TURKISH LAW AND CONDITIONAL SENTENCING IN RUSSIAN LAW

2026-02-14T06:03:00+00:00

This study examines the institution of the Postponement of the Pronouncement of Judgment (PPJ) in Turkish criminal procedure law, with particular emphasis on the recent annulment decision of the Constitutional Court and the subsequent legislative amendments by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. PPJ is a procedural mechanism that allows for the deferral of a criminal sentence’s pronouncement under certain conditions, enabling its eventual annulment upon successful completion of a probationary period. The institution has sparked significant debate, especially concerning victims' rights and the broader perception of impunity within the criminal justice system.

In its decision dated 1 June 2023 (E. 2022/120, K. 2023/107), the Constitutional Court held that the application of PPJ often occurred without a thorough evaluation of evidence or adequate victim participation, thereby undermining the principle of effective adjudication and failing to ensure sufficient redress for victims. While acknowledging the legislature’s discretion in shaping criminal policy, the Court emphasized that such discretion must remain within the constitutional framework. The Court concluded that the application of PPJ, in its then-existing form, disrupted the fair balance between public interests and individual rights, particularly by adversely affecting the right to property and the state’s positive obligations under Article 17 of the Constitution. Following the annulment, the legislature re-enacted Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2024 with certain modifications.

The study further elaborates on the procedural requirements for the application of PPJ, including the necessity of full restitution of harm caused to victims, the defendant’s lack of prior intentional criminal convictions, and the court’s assessment of the defendant’s likelihood of recidivism. The article also analyses the procedural consequences of the commission of new offenses or breaches of obligations during the probationary period.

Finally, the paper presents a comparative analysis of the Turkish PPJ system and the conditional conviction (suspended sentence) model under Article 73 of the Russian Federation Criminal Code. Both systems share similarities in their rehabilitative objectives and requirements for compliance with probationary obligations. However, they diverge significantly regarding the formal nature of the conviction and the applicable sentencing thresholds.