Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Since the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, over 165 countries have incorporated human rights standards into their legal systems: the resulting jurisprudence from diverse cultural traditions creates new dimensions to concepts first articulated in 1948. In this revised second edition, Nihal Jayawickrama draws on extensive sources to encapsulate the judicial interpretation of human rights law in one comprehensive volume. Jayawickrama covers the case law of the superior courts of 103 countries in America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific, as well as jurisprudence of human rights monitoring bodies. He analyses the judicial application of human rights law to demonstrate empirically the universality of contemporary human rights norms. This definitive volume is essential for legal practitioners, and government and non-governmental officials, as well as academics and students of both constitutional law and the international law of human rights."

"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."

"This article compares Indonesia legal system and Malaysian legal system. The government legalized Islamic law in national legislations, which are in effect for Muslim people. To facilitate dispute settlement, there is a religious court to solve Islamic dispute based on Islamic law. The existence of Islamic law in Indonesia and Malaysia has similarity and differentiation. The similarties among others are: the Muslim-majority in both countries pushes the government to put Islamic law into force, Islamic law must be written into constitution or legislation. It is needed to have legal basis when performing Islamic law, the existence of religious court is very important in dispute settlement related to Islamic law. The influence of western legal system is very strong in national legal system. Nevertheless, the western legal system differs substantially from Islamic legal system, and Islamic law was implemented limitedly based upon western legislation. It was limited to family law. While the differentiations are: the way of implementation of western legal system into national legal system and the form of legislation. Indonesia has one legislation, which is in effect to all of Indonesia people. On the contrary, Malaysia has many enactments, which are different from one to another in each negeri."

"This unique publication offers a complete history of Roman law, from its early beginnings through to its resurgence in Europe where it was widely applied until the eighteenth century. Besides a detailed overview of the sources of Roman law, the book also includes sections on private and criminal law and procedure, with special attention given to those aspects of Roman law that have particular importance to today's lawyer. The last three chapters of the book offer an overview of the history of Roman law from the early Middle Ages to modern times and illustrate the way in which Roman law furnished the basis of contemporary civil law systems. In this part, special attention is given to the factors that warranted the revival and subsequent reception of Roman law as the ‘common law’ of Continental Europe. Combining the perspectives of legal history with those of social and political history, the book can be profitably read by students and scholars, as well as by general readers with an interest in ancient and early European legal history.The civil law tradition is the oldest legal tradition in the world today, embracing many legal systems currently in force in Continental Europe, Latin America and other parts of the world. Despite the considerable differences in the substantive laws of civil law countries, a fundamental unity exists between them. The most obvious element of unity is the fact that the civil law systems are all derived from the same sources and their legal institutions are classified in accordance with a commonly accepted scheme existing prior to their own development, which they adopted and adapted at some stage in their history. Roman law is both in point of time and range of influence the first catalyst in the evolution of the civil law tradition."