Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Paradigmatic transition is the idea that ours is a time of transition between the paradigm of modernity, which seems to have exhausted its regenerating capacities, and another, emergent time, of which so far we have seen only signs. Modernity as an ambitious and revolutionary sociocultural paradigm based on a dynamic tension between social regulation and social emancipation, the prevalent dynamic in the sixteenth century, has by the twenty-first century tilted in favour of regulation, to the determent of emancipation. The collapse of emancipation into regulation, and hence the impossibility of thinking about social emancipation consistently, symbolizes the exhaustion of the paradigm of modernity. At the same time, it signals the emergence of a new paradigm or new paradigms. This updated 2020 edition is written for students taking law and globalization courses, and political science, philosophy and sociology students doing optional subjects."

"Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis peraturan hukum perdata terkait proses penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik antara Indonesia dan Malaysia. Indonesia menganut sistem hukum civil law yang dipengaruhi oleh hukum Belanda. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan Penulis dalam melakukan penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yang sifatnya doctrinal. Penelitian ini melihat pada peraturan yang terdapat dalam hukum Indonesia dan peraturan hukum yang ada di negara Malaysia khususnya pada kasus pencemaran nama baik. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, Perbandingan penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik dalam hukum perdata antara negara Indonesia dan Malaysia terdapat perbedaan substansi dan kuantifikasi gugatan. Substansi penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik di Indonesia dan Malaysia mencerminkan perbedaan mendasar dalam sistem hukum kedua negara. Indonesia, yang menganut civil law, mengatur pencemaran nama baik melalui Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata dengan fokus pada pembuktian perbuatan melawan hukum (PMH), adanya kerugian, serta hubungan kausal antara tindakan tergugat dan kerugian yang dialami penggugat. Sedangkan Malaysia, dengan sistem common law, menggunakan Defamation Act 1957, yang menuntut pembuktian bahwa pernyataan tergugat bersifat fitnah, telah dipublikasikan kepada pihak ketiga, dan berdampak signifikan pada reputasi penggugat. Malaysia juga memisahkan kasus fitnah menjadi libel (tertulis) dan slander (lisan), dengan opsi pembelaan seperti justifikasi, komentar wajar, dan hak istimewa terbatas. Kuantifikasi gugatan, Indonesia dan Malaysia memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda terhadap kompensasi kerugian. Di Indonesia, kerugian yang dapat digugat meliputi kerugian materiil, seperti hilangnya pendapatan, dan kerugian immateriil, seperti kerusakan reputasi atau penderitaan emosional, dengan jumlah kompensasi yang ditentukan berdasarkan diskresi hakim. Sebaliknya, Malaysia menggunakan pendekatan yang lebih terstruktur, mencakup general damages (kerugian umum yang tidak memerlukan bukti spesifik), special damages (kerugian finansial konkret yang membutuhkan bukti), dan punitive damages (hukuman untuk memberi efek jera pada tergugat). Pendekatan kuantifikasi di Malaysia mencerminkan prinsip retributif dan deterensi, sementara di Indonesia lebih berfokus pada keadilan restoratif untuk memulihkan kerugian penggugat tanpa menekankan aspek penghukuman.

---

This study aims to analyze civil law regulations related to the resolution process of defamation lawsuits between Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia adheres to a civil law system influenced by Dutch law. The type of research used in this study is doctrinal legal research. This research examines the regulations in Indonesian law and the legal regulations in Malaysia, specifically concerning defamation cases. Based on the research findings, the comparison of defamation lawsuit resolutions in civil law between Indonesia and Malaysia shows differences in substance and quantification of claims.The substance of defamation lawsuit resolutions in Indonesia and Malaysia reflects fundamental differences in the legal systems of the two countries. Indonesia, which adheres to civil law, regulates defamation through Article 1365 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata), focusing on proving unlawful acts, damages, and the causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff's losses. Meanwhile, Malaysia, with its common law system, applies the Defamation Act 1957, which requires proof that the defendant's statement was defamatory, published to a third party, and significantly affected the plaintiff's reputation. Malaysia also distinguishes defamation cases into libel (written) and slander (oral), with defense options such as justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.In terms of quantification of claims, Indonesia and Malaysia take different approaches to compensating damages. In Indonesia, damages that can be claimed include material losses, such as loss of income, and immaterial losses, such as reputational harm or emotional distress, with the compensation amount determined at the judge's discretion. Conversely, Malaysia uses a more structured approach, encompassing general damages (general losses that do not require specific evidence), special damages (specific financial losses requiring evidence), and punitive damages (punishment to deter the defendant).Malaysia’s quantification approach reflects the principles of retribution and deterrence, while Indonesia focuses more on restorative justice to recover the plaintiff's losses without emphasizing punitive aspects."

"Tulisan ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis peraturan hukum perdata terkait proses penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik antara Indonesia dan Malaysia. Indonesia menganut sistem hukum civil law yang dipengaruhi oleh hukum Belanda. Jenis penelitian yang digunakan Penulis dalam melakukan penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum yang sifatnya doctrinal. Penelitian ini melihat pada peraturan yang terdapat dalam hukum Indonesia dan peraturan hukum yang ada di negara Malaysia khususnya pada kasus pencemaran nama baik. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, Perbandingan penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik dalam hukum perdata antara negara Indonesia dan Malaysia terdapat perbedaan substansi dan kuantifikasi gugatan. Substansi penyelesaian gugatan pencemaran nama baik di Indonesia dan Malaysia mencerminkan perbedaan mendasar dalam sistem hukum kedua negara. Indonesia, yang menganut civil law, mengatur pencemaran nama baik melalui Pasal 1365 KUHPerdata dengan fokus pada pembuktian perbuatan melawan hukum (PMH), adanya kerugian, serta hubungan kausal antara tindakan tergugat dan kerugian yang dialami penggugat. Sedangkan Malaysia, dengan sistem common law, menggunakan Defamation Act 1957, yang menuntut pembuktian bahwa pernyataan tergugat bersifat fitnah, telah dipublikasikan kepada pihak ketiga, dan berdampak signifikan pada reputasi penggugat. Malaysia juga memisahkan kasus fitnah menjadi libel (tertulis) dan slander (lisan), dengan opsi pembelaan seperti justifikasi, komentar wajar, dan hak istimewa terbatas. Kuantifikasi gugatan, Indonesia dan Malaysia memiliki pendekatan yang berbeda terhadap kompensasi kerugian. Di Indonesia, kerugian yang dapat digugat meliputi kerugian materiil, seperti hilangnya pendapatan, dan kerugian immateriil, seperti kerusakan reputasi atau penderitaan emosional, dengan jumlah kompensasi yang ditentukan berdasarkan diskresi hakim. Sebaliknya, Malaysia menggunakan pendekatan yang lebih terstruktur, mencakup general damages (kerugian umum yang tidak memerlukan bukti spesifik), special damages (kerugian finansial konkret yang membutuhkan bukti), dan punitive damages (hukuman untuk memberi efek jera pada tergugat). Pendekatan kuantifikasi di Malaysia mencerminkan prinsip retributif dan deterensi, sementara di Indonesia lebih berfokus pada keadilan restoratif untuk memulihkan kerugian penggugat tanpa menekankan aspek penghukuman.

---

This study aims to analyze civil law regulations related to the resolution process of defamation lawsuits between Indonesia and Malaysia. Indonesia adheres to a civil law system influenced by Dutch law. The type of research used in this study is doctrinal legal research. This research examines the regulations in Indonesian law and the legal regulations in Malaysia, specifically concerning defamation cases. Based on the research findings, the comparison of defamation lawsuit resolutions in civil law between Indonesia and Malaysia shows differences in substance and quantification of claims.The substance of defamation lawsuit resolutions in Indonesia and Malaysia reflects fundamental differences in the legal systems of the two countries. Indonesia, which adheres to civil law, regulates defamation through Article 1365 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata), focusing on proving unlawful acts, damages, and the causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff's losses. Meanwhile, Malaysia, with its common law system, applies the Defamation Act 1957, which requires proof that the defendant's statement was defamatory, published to a third party, and significantly affected the plaintiff's reputation. Malaysia also distinguishes defamation cases into libel (written) and slander (oral), with defense options such as justification, fair comment, and qualified privilege.In terms of quantification of claims, Indonesia and Malaysia take different approaches to compensating damages. In Indonesia, damages that can be claimed include material losses, such as loss of income, and immaterial losses, such as reputational harm or emotional distress, with the compensation amount determined at the judge's discretion. Conversely, Malaysia uses a more structured approach, encompassing general damages (general losses that do not require specific evidence), special damages (specific financial losses requiring evidence), and punitive damages (punishment to deter the defendant).Malaysia’s quantification approach reflects the principles of retribution and deterrence, while Indonesia focuses more on restorative justice to recover the plaintiff's losses without emphasizing punitive aspects."