In Indonesia, currently many people still use fossil fuels as the main energy source, but with the use of fossil fuels, greater carbon dioxide emissions will be released into the atmosphere, ultimately causing climate change (global warming). To overcome this problem, Indonesia is now starting to adopt techniques that have been used by several countries, namely carbon capture. Carbon Capture and Storage or commonly called CCS or some call it CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage) is one solution to climate change which continues to worsen over time. Indonesia itself is currently preparing 15 projects that will develop and use CO2 capture technology. The research method in the research carried out is using a normative juridical approach. The normative juridical approach is carried out by examining legal principles, legal provisions, legislation and legal mechanisms. Based on the normative type of legal research, several normative approaches are also used, namely the Conceptual Approach and the Statutory Approach. ESDM Ministerial Regulation No. 2 of 2023 does not directly provide benefits to society. This regulation focuses on regulations and incentives for business actors in the upstream oil and gas sector to implement Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. In Presidential Regulation no. 14/2024 states that holding CCS can be based on three things Carrying out CCS or CCUS implementation in Indonesia begins after obtaining a storage permit for CCS implementation schemes based on permits, whereas for CCS implementation schemes based on cooperation contracts begins when the contractor obtains approval for the proposed field development plan or changes. There are a few things that Indonesia should do such as making a new regulation about funding, insentive and public participation.

This study focuses on the KPK as an independent anti-corruption agency in Indonesia; the current situation is becoming more difficult due to the various types of KPK authorities that existed prior to the passage of Law No. 19 of 2019, which was later changed and exacerbated by the KPK's position under the executive clump. This research will answer the following questions: (1) What is the KPK's position as an independent organization (2) How is the legal analysis of anti-corruption institutions based on Law No. 19 of 2019 and the UN Convention Against Corruption A sociolegal approach is used in this study. The findings revealed that, first, the KPK is not independent because it is part of the executive clump. Second, in terms of wiretapping authority, permission from the supervisory board is required. Third, KPK personnel are classified as members of the State Civil Apparatus (ASN). Fourth, there is a potential conflict of interest. Therefore, Law no. 19 of 2019 should be revised.

Indonesia and Malaysia have different judicial systems, given that they differ in applying the legal system. However, Indonesia and Malaysia have implemented digitalization in the judicial process from the earliest to the final stages. The use of technology is an effort to reform and digitize to achieve modern justice that is fast and efficient while still upholding legal norms. The objectives of this research are: (1) To find out what forms of technology utilization are in the judicial system in Indonesia and Malaysia and (2) To find out how the law views and regulates this based on applicable Legislation. The writing that was written using the normative juridical method based on a literature study found that the use of technology is desired by the law as evidenced by Legislation governing digitization. The two countries' regulations still require much improvement and evaluation, both substantively and in implementation, to achieve the main objectives.

One provision in the juvenile justice system is that juvenile justice proceedings must involve Community Guidance Officers from correctional institutions (BAPAS) who conduct social investigations on the child, which serve as considerations in the juvenile justice process. However, the presence of Community Guidance Officers has received inadequate attention so far, as if the main actors in handling troubled children are only the Police, Prosecutors, Judges, and LPKA officers. The research method used is empirical juridical research, conducted through field research and literature review. The role of Community Guidance Officers in the Legal Jurisdiction of Bengkulu Province as the Vanguard of the Juvenile Justice System is to provide assistance and recommendations for handling children by conducting social investigations from pre-adjudication, adjudication, to post-adjudication. The obstacles faced by Community Guidance Officers in Bengkulu Province include lack of competence and uniformity in law enforcement officials' perception regarding the best interests of the child, incomplete implementation of recommendations due to lack of facilities for child placement, and societal stigma against the child. Additionally, there are technical obstacles such as distance between BAPAS Bengkulu and the child's residence area. Efforts to optimize the role of Community Guidance Officers in Bengkulu Province involve aligning law enforcement officials' perception regarding the best interests of the child, raising awareness among communities and relevant institutions to accept these children, establishing BAPAS posts, and optimizing the role of local governments to synergize government programs in combating juvenile crime.

The culmination of a civil case in court is marked by the crucial step of decision implementation, commonly known as execution. Execution can only proceed when the decision attains permanent legal force ('inkracht van gewijsde'). While the losing party may voluntarily execute the decision, failure to fulfill stipulated obligations empowers the winning party, the plaintiff, to seek forced execution. Despite the irrevocable legal status of a decision, as signified by its permanent legal force, Indonesian civil procedural law affords opportunities for litigants and third parties to reassess such decisions. This reassessment is facilitated through challenges or rebuttals, as outlined in Article 195 paragraph (6) HIR, Article 206 paragraph (6) Rbg, Article 378 RV, Article 279 RV, and is guided by the Ius Curia Novit principle, as affirmed in Article 10 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Power Justice. Utilizing a normative juridical approach, this study relies on secondary data to explore the nuances of execution and post-decision challenges, drawing on primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials.

Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 on the Creative Economy outlines the implementation of the Intellectual Property-Based Financing Scheme, wherein both banks and non-banking financial institutions leverage Intellectual Property as collateral. This includes fiduciary guarantees over Intellectual Property, contracts within Creative Economy activities, and/or claims within Creative Economy activities. Notably, Patents, a subset of Intellectual Property, can serve as collateral per Article 108 paragraph (1) of Law Number 13 of 2016 concerning Patents, allowing "patent rights to be used as objects of fiduciary guarantee." The provision of funding through financial institutions, be they banks or non-banking entities, closely aligns with the collateralization aspect, involving the duties and responsibilities of Notaries. This raises inquiries into the Role of Notaries in Intellectual Property-Based Financing and the Collateralization of Patents as governed by Government Regulation Number 24 of 2022 on the Creative Economy. Employing a juridical-normative approach and incorporating interviews with relevant stakeholders involved in fiduciary guarantee deed preparation, this research aims to discern the roles and responsibilities of Notaries in drafting fiduciary guarantee deeds incorporating patents as collateral objects. Furthermore, the study seeks to establish the Mechanism for Determining the Economic Value of a Patent as agreed upon in the Fiduciary Guarantee Deed.

The increasingly massive use of the internet is now affecting the economic world which is characterized by the birth of E-Commerce. E-Commerce mechanism that does not brings together sellers and buyers directly, this raises a variety of problems on the subjective and objective terms of the sale and purchase agreement. Smart Contracts are actually different from conventional contracts written on paper. They are also different from electronic contracts. A clause in the agreement, which takes the form of programming code, requires blockchain as a distributed storage technology, which sets them apart. In addition, Smart Contracts serve to execute contracts automatically. Therefore, the article aims to analyze the advantages of Smart Contracts compared to conventional contracts and how the validity of using smart contracts in Indonesian law, and why business transactions in Indonesia should start using smart contracts. The result obtained is that the use of Smart Contracts are completely automated and rely on software logic, making them transparent and visible to all parties involved. The use of Smart Contract in buying and selling transactions is considered very important considering the advantages in terms of security, verification, changes in the contents of the agreement, and evidentiary power. As for Indonesian law, the use of Smart Contracts is permissible as long as it does not violate the validity of the agreement as stated in the Civil Code. The use of Smart Contracts offer several advantages over traditional contracts, including trasparency, autonomy, speed, accuracy, security, and savings.

Civil law regulates the means of evidence as outlined in Article 1866 of the Civil Code/Article 164 HIR/Article 284 RBg which consists of written evidence, witness evidence, allegations, confessions and oaths. The existence of an Affidavit certainly makes it easier to resolve a Civil Case, especially in cases regarding Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations. The existence of an Affidavit is one aspect that confirms that the process of proving a legal problem in Indonesia is undergoing adjustments in line with the very rapid development of law in this Era of Globalization. The application of Affidavits in Bankruptcy and PKPU legal processes is important in their development. This research uses Normative Legal Research using the method of the Statute Approach. Article 299 of Law Number 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations explains that the procedural law that applies in resolving Bankruptcy cases and Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations is Civil Procedure Law. Written evidence is significant in the Bankruptcy Law and PKPU process, although the process still prioritizes simple evidence. Affidavit is a written statement by someone who is considered an expert containing an explanation of a particular event object, which is then signed and submitted as written evidence in the trial. In Indonesia, an Affidavit cannot be classified as an Authentic Deed and does not have perfect evidentiary properties, but an Affidavit can be used as ordinary documentary evidence to support other evidence and help judges decide Bankruptcy & PKPU cases efficiently in order to support a simple evidentiary process and considering the short examination time.

In the context of Indonesia as a State of Law, the imperative role of the rule of law cannot be overstated in realizing the state's objectives. The formulation of Legislative Regulations, essential for upholding the rule of law, necessitates meticulous consideration of three fundamental principles: benefit, justice, and legal clarity. To ensure the effectiveness of these regulations in aligning with the direction and goals of national legal development, the process adheres to key principles, encompassing the clarity of objectives, appropriate institutional involvement, congruence among types, hierarchy, and material content, practicability, clarity of formulation, and transparency. This procedural framework is consistently implemented in a sustainable, coordinated, and integrated manner. The legal landscape in Indonesia underwent significant transformations with the enactment of Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, introducing the omnibus law technique. However, the subsequent Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 provisionally deemed this law unconstitutional. Responding to this decision, Law Number 12 of 2011 underwent a substantial amendment through Law Number 13 of 2022, specifically addressing the omnibus approach and enhancing meaningful public participation in statutory rule creation. This legal revision significantly influences the development of legal instruments at the regional level. Consequently, an examination of the implementation of regional legal product formation becomes imperative post the amendment of Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislative Regulations.