The development of digital financial services has encouraged the massive growth of electronic wallet users in Indonesia, but at the same time opens up serious vulnerabilities in the form of leakage of users' personal data. This study examines the civil liability of business entities operating electronic wallets for the leakage of users' personal data based on Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection (PDP Law) and its enforcement mechanisms. The research uses normative juridical methods with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the study show that electronic wallet operators as data controllers can be held to civil liability based on fault (Article 1365 of the Civil Code jo. Article 50 of the PDP Law) as well as strict liability in the context of fundamental information asymmetry between operators and users. The PDP Law requires the implementation of adequate technical and organizational safety standards; Failure to comply with them is the basis for a valid civil lawsuit. The conclusion of the study emphasizes that the gap between das sollen and das sein in personal data protection requires the strengthening of derivative regulations, reverse proof mechanisms, and independent supervisory institutions that are immediately operational

Failures and serious incidents at dams often lead to demands for improved public safety measures to reduce the hazards posed by the storage of large volumes of water. However, relatively little attention has been given to the issue of liability for the damage resulting from a sudden uncontrolled release of reservoir water. The Rylands v. Fletcher litigation, which arose not from the failure of a dam but from leakage at Ainsworth Mill Lodge flooding a coal mine, aimed to provide some clarity as to whether or not the liability of the reservoir owner depends on proof of negligence; this paper examines the influence of the major dam disasters at Bilberry and Dale Dyke on the verdict of strict liability. While it is claimed that strict liability based on Rylands v. Fletcher has found wide application in many other fields, it would seem that it has had relatively little use in reservoir failures.

The case Gómez v. United Airlines Inc. et al. stands as a significant precedent in Argentine Air Transport Law, addressing the validity of an erroneous electronic offer and its effects on the formation of the international air carriage contract. The analysis explores the tension between the special aeronautical regime -based on the carrier’s strict liability and the uniformity principle of the Montreal Convention- and the supplementary application of the Consumer Protection Act. From a strictly transport-law perspective, the commentary argues that the digitalization of contracting does not alter the legal nature of the relationship nor exempt the carrier from its technical diligence duty and from preserving the passenger’s legitimate trust, both essential elements for ensuring legal certainty and operational predictability within the international air transport system.

This study examines the legal responsibility of marketplace platforms for consumer losses arising from electronic transactions within the framework of Indonesian positive law. Employing a normative juridical method with statutory and conceptual approaches, the analysis focuses on the coherence, adequacy, and adaptability of legal norms governing digital commerce, particularly under consumer protection, trade, and electronic transaction regimes. The findings reveal that existing regulations, including consumer protection law, electronic information and transaction law, and trade law, have not yet fully accommodated the complex, multi-party nature of marketplace ecosystems, resulting in normative gaps and fragmented liability structures. Furthermore, the current liability framework tends to emphasize fault-based principles, which are insufficient in addressing systemic risks and technological asymmetries inherent in digital platforms. This study proposes a reconstructed model of marketplace liability grounded in hybrid principles, integrating strict liability, shared responsibility, and risk-based regulatory mechanisms to ensure more effective consumer protection. The proposed model contributes to the development of a responsive and adaptive legal framework capable of addressing emerging challenges in digital transactions while strengthening legal certainty and fairness in marketplace governance.

The rapid growth of online alcohol sales, delivery services, and digital marketing has increased alcohol availability and heightened public health concerns, particularly among adolescents. However, regulatory responses remain inconsistent and vary significantly across regions. This scoping review synthesizes global regulatory approaches to online alcohol access, encompassing both established Western models and emerging Asian frameworks, and identifies key cross-national patterns and policy gaps. This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. Searches of four electronic databases were complemented by a supplementary gray literature search targeting specific Asian jurisdictions to minimize geographic bias. The identified sources included policies and peer-reviewed studies on online alcohol sales, delivery practices, age-verification procedures, and digital marketing regulations. Data were systematically organized by regulatory domain and analyzed using a comparative socio-political framework (liberalism vs. paternalism) to interpret cross-national differences. The analysis of 34 documents across five regulatory domains revealed a distinct global divide. Western nations predominantly rely on co-regulatory models that frequently suffer from significant enforcement gaps, whereas Asian jurisdictions employ strict structural barriers. These include mandatory digital real-name authentication, "Smart Order" systems, and joint platform liability, designed to effectively restrict underage access where Western self-regulation has historically failed. To address global enforcement gaps, future policies must evolve from "soft" co-regulation to "hard" technical mandates. Integrating Asian-style digital identity systems with strict platform liability offers a viable pathway to effectively restrict underage access and reduce alcohol-related harm.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of customs offenses in Albania, with a particular focus on their classification, prosecution, and sanctioning in light of harmonization with European Union customs legislation. Tracing the historical evolution of customs offenses from the Statute of Shkodra to the 2014 Customs Code, the study identifies the gradual shift from a purely national regulatory framework toward alignment with EU standards, including the Union Customs Code (UCC) and relevant directives. The article explores the distinction between administrative customs offenses and smuggling, emphasizing the role of guilt, financial thresholds, and the social danger of the offense as critical classification criteria. It further analyses the principles of legality, culpability, and proportionality in the application of sanctions, including the debate surrounding strict liability in customs matters. The dual nature of customs sanctions, both punitive and reparative, is examined through national jurisprudence and comparative EU case law. In light of the increasing complexity of customs violations and Albania’s EU integration objectives, the article calls for a substantive revision of Title X of the Customs Code to ensure legal certainty, consistency, and procedural safeguards. Particular attention is given to the principle of ne bis in idem, the necessity of individualized penalties, and the shortcomings in current legislative provisions. The article concludes by recommending reforms that balance effective enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights, aligning Albania’s customs legal framework with evolving European legal standards.

The paper provides the author’s analysis and assessment of the legal nature of monetary compensation for the delayed payment of wages and other payments due to an employee as a wage guarantee and as a means of ensuring the employer’s performance of its obligation. The author critically evaluates the legislator’s position regarding the application to this institution of the legal construct of the employer’s strict (nofault) liability. Particular attention is paid to the intersectoral links between the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and the Labor Code of the Russian Federation from the perspective of the terminological ambiguity of labor law terms and concepts (compensation, compensatory payments) used in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation for the purposes of taxing the monetary compensation in question. The paper also defines the areas of legal uncertainty. The problems are examined through the lens of subsidiary intersectoral regulation on the basis of a generalization of judicial practice and the official positions of the Ministry of Finance of Russia and the Federal Tax Service. The paper concludes that monetary compensation for delayed payment of wages does not constitute income (in the sense of an economic benefit) and should not be qualified as an object of personal income taxation. As a solution the author proposes to overcome and eliminate legal uncertainty and to optimize intersectoral links by introducing amendments to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 164, 129, and 130) with regard to the definition of compensation and compensatory payments and wage guarantees, as well as to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (paragraph 1 of Article 217; paragraph 1 of Article 422) concerning the procedure for exemption from personal income tax and insurance contributions of compensation for delayed payment of wages and other payments.

The emergence of Artificial Intelligence has come up with serious controversies concerning whether autonomous technological systems are legally considered or not. Other academics and policy makers have suggested that AI systems should be given the legal status of persons as a way of countering the problem of accountability when autonomous systems malfunction and harm people. This debate entered mainstream legal discourse with a proposal of the European Parliament of 2017 suggesting the idea of electronic personhood. Nevertheless, the concept is still debatable in the field of jurisprudence and regulatory theory. This paper suggests that Artificial Intelligence should not be given legal personhood due to its imprudence as well as unfairness.Historically, legal personhood is a legal fiction designed to accomplish certain social goals like commercial facilitation, religious interests conservation, or environmental resource protection. Corporations, idols and rivers have been given legal identity due to the fact that they safeguard identifiable human or ecological interests. Artificial Intelligence, in its turn, does not have any consciousness, moral agency, and intrinsic interests. It is incapable of having intentions, moral responsibility, and independent rights to be accorded legal status. This paper explores the notion of legal personhood, jurisprudential conditions of identifying non-human beings as legal persons, and the analogy of symbolic personhood in law. The paper will also examine the dangers of AI personhood such as corporate liability caps, lack of responsibility and moral hazards in technology advancement. The paper suggests that the harms caused by AI systems are better regulated by the existing legal doctrines of strict liability, corporate accountability, product liability, and transparency through algorithmic means. Finally, it is concluded in the paper that the legal personhood of AI would be counterproductive to core foundations of justice by placing the burden off on the human agents who create, implement, and make money on AI technologies. An anthropocentric regulatory system is the most consistent and reasonable model of the regulation of artificial intelligence. Keywords: Accountability, Artificial Intelligence, Legal Fictions, Legal Personhood, Responsibility.

The 1975 Civil Code of Algeria governs tort liability through Articles 124–140, establishing a fault–based regime (responsabilité pour faute) supplemented by strict liability for damage caused by “things” (responsabilité du fait des choses, Article 138). However, this framework predates artificial intelligence (AI) systems that exhibit autonomous decision–making, algorithmic opacity, and unpredictable outcomes. As Algeria advances its National AI Strategy (2020–2030) and deploys AI across healthcare, finance, and public administration, victims of algorithmic harm confront evidentiary barriers proving faute (fault) and lien de causalité (causation) given the “black box problem.” This article examines whether the Algerian Civil Code adequately addresses AI related damage or requires legislative reform. It evaluates three doctrinal pathways: (1) extending Article 138 strict liability to autonomous algorithmic systems, (2) adopting presumption of causality for high–risk AI (modeled on EU AI Act Article 6), and (3) introducing mandatory liability insurance for AI providers (EU AI Act Article 28). A comparative doctrinal analysis of the Civil Code Articles 124, 138–140 is done in this article against the European Union’s AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) and AI Liability Directive (Proposal COM/2022/496), and then triangulated with South African delictual liability frameworks and Maliki jurisprudence principles (qawa’id fiqhiyya: la darar wa la dirar). Article 138 “things” (choses) liability does not accommodate AI systems hybrid software–hardware nature, algorithmic autonomy ruptures traditional causation chains, and Algeria lacks statutory AI insurance mandates. This creates compensation adequacy gaps. This article proposes three Civil Code amendments: (1) Article 138 expansion by defining AI systems as choses dangereuses (dangerous things) triggering strict liability, (2) new Article 124–ter introducing rebuttable presumption of causality for high–risk AI (healthcare diagnostics, credit scoring, administrative decision–making), and (3) Insurance Law No. 95–07 amendment mandating minimum coverage thresholds for AI providers. Algerian AI Council should convene a Civil Code Reform Working Group (2025–2026) to draft implementing decrees, drawing on EU AI Act operational experience and African Union Digital Transformation Strategy regional harmonization efforts.

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has generated complex challenges for criminal law, particularly regarding the attribution of legal liability when AI systems cause harm or facilitate criminal acts. Traditional criminal law doctrine is grounded in the principles of actus reus and mens rea, presupposing human agency and moral culpability. However, AI systems operate autonomously and lack consciousness, raising fundamental questions about responsibility and accountability. This study examines the concept of criminal liability for AI through a comparative analysis between Indonesia and the European Union. While the European Union has adopted a comprehensive regulatory framework through the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and complementary liability instruments, Indonesia currently relies on general criminal law provisions and sectoral regulations without specific AI governance mechanisms. Using normative and comparative legal methods, this research analyzes doctrinal limitations, regulatory approaches, and emerging liability models, including human-centered liability, strict liability, and electronic personhood. The findings indicate that neither jurisdiction recognizes AI as a criminal subject; however, the European Union applies a risk-based regulatory model that enhances accountability for providers and deployers of high-risk AI systems. This article argues that Indonesia should adopt a hybrid framework combining human-centered criminal liability with risk-based regulatory obligations to address accountability gaps while maintaining doctrinal coherence in criminal law.

This article reviews the legal and policy framework governing the relationship between economic growth and sustainable development in Indonesia through a qualitative literature review method. Rapid economic growth is often seen as conflicting with environmental conservation efforts, but the concept of decoupling indicates that separation between economic growth and environmental pressures can be achieved through appropriate regulation. Indonesia, as the ninth largest carbon emitter in the world, has ratified the Paris Agreement and set emission reduction targets based on the constitutional foundation in Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which requires a sustainable economy with an environmental perspective. This article analyzes the evolution of the legal basis for sustainable development, environmental economic instruments such as carbon taxes and carbon trading (IDXCarbon), sustainable finance taxonomy, as well as legal approaches in the blue and circular economy. The findings indicate that although the legal framework has developed significantly—such as Presidential Regulation No. 98 of 2021 on the Carbon Economic Value—its implementation faces obstacles from regulatory fragmentation, the absence of standardized Measurement, Reporting, and Verification infrastructure, and weak environmental law enforcement. This article recommends the enactment of an umbrella law on climate change, the optimization of administrative sanctions based on strict liability, a revision of the Limited Liability Company Law to integrate climate risks as the responsibility of the board of directors, and the harmonization of inter-agency regulations to achieve sustainable quality growth

In accordance with Government Regulation Number 22 of 2021, which replaced Government Regulation Number 101 of 2014, this study examines the legal basis and environmental implications of removing Fly Ash Bottom Ash (FABA) from the hazardous waste category. The research applies a normative legal method using statutory and conceptual approaches, supported by the analysis of relevant primary and secondary legal materials. The findings indicate that the government justifies the reclassification based on the relatively stable characteristics of FABA generated from high-temperature combustion processes, considerations of industrial cost efficiency, and its potential utilization within a circular economy framework. Nevertheless, the policy raises significant environmental concerns, particularly regarding the risk of heavy metal contamination affecting soil, water, and air. It also prompts debate over the potential weakening of strict liability and precautionary principles as stipulated in Law Number 32 of 2009. The study concludes that clearer technical standards, strengthened derivative regulations, and transparent monitoring mechanisms are essential to safeguard environmental protection and ensure long-term sustainability.

Today a growing chorus of voices in the tort-law literature sings a siren song. AI harms must be redressed through across-the-board strict liability, they croon—the same standard we apply to dynamite users, lion tamers, and faulty-chainsaw makers. Their rationale is understandable: at first blush, many AI harms appear impervious to other traditional theories of tort. In what sense might a self-driving car be negligent? Or how might one prove that an AI’s neural network—a “black box” filled with billions or trillions of inscrutable numbers—is defective under a products-liability theory? But tempting though strict liability may be, categorically applying it to AI harms would be a mistake, for at least three reasons. First, just like human activities, AI activities are not monolithic. An AI-enabled treadmill does not pose the same risk as an AI demolitions robot. Second, our default tort rules will work far better than the chorus suggests. Negligence and products liability are high flexibility, high context doctrines that have a long history of redressing harms caused by novel activities and technologies. Plus, they aren’t our only tools. Where an AI activity presents the potential for catastrophic harm, tailored, domain-specific legislation will be the right tool for the job. And where AI activities cause non-tortious harms, data-driven insurance markets (old and new) will be well suited to fill most compensatory voids. Third, even if something like categorical strict liability just for AI harms were desirable, no current theory of tort law could justify the bifurcated tort system that kind of rule would create.

The development of information technology offers significant benefits but also creates serious risks, particularly concerning security and personal data protection. Cybercrime has therefore become a crucial legal issue, as it may involve not only individuals but also corporations as subjects of criminal law. This study examines: (1) the application of corporate criminal liability in cybercrime under positive law, and (2) whether judicial considerations in Decision Number 142/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Pgp reflect justice and legal protection for personal data subjects. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory and case approaches. The findings show that corporations are recognized as criminal law subjects that can be held liable for cybercrimes, including personal data misuse, through sanctions such as fines and other punitive measures. Criminal liability may be imposed based on direct liability, strict liability, or vicarious liability. In the examined case, the court applied the Personal Data Protection Law as lex specialis and imposed imprisonment and fines after considering aggravating and mitigating factors. This decision affirms that both individuals and corporations are subject to criminal liability and highlights the importance of law enforcement in protecting personal data and combating cybercrime.

Abstract In G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others. v. Italy (2018), a Grand Chamber majority of the European Court of Human Rights firmly established that the grounds for punishment and the wording of ECHR Article 7 stipulate a ‘mental link’ for punishment to be imposed. The statement has been reaffirmed in later case law, but its meaning is unclear. Various interpretations abound in practice and in academic writing, including that the requirement makes new inroads into States’ autonomy in the field of substantive criminal law. The nexus between ECHR Article 7 and Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights means that the discussion also is relevant for EU law. The authors analyse the concept considering ECHR Article 7’s text, object and purpose, the Strasbourg Court’s overall methodology, and the complex of Italian cases from which ‘mental link’ sprang as well as case law subsequently making use of it. The authors argue that the requirement means that a person subject to criminal prosecution must have procedural opportunity to free themselves from punishment in cases of avoidable and excusable error of law. Alternative readings, including that it negates strict liability or requires mental capacity as a condition for punishment, are discarded. The ‘mental link’ case law therefore seems not to suggest that EU law, through the CFR, imposes new constraints on Member States’ freedom to define what constitutes criminal behaviour within their jurisdictions. It rather highlights one of several aspects of the principle of guilt, a cornerstone of the European legal tradition.

The growing number of alleged medical malpractice cases in Indonesia, particularly physicians’ misdiagnosis resulting in patient death, underscores the need for stronger legal certainty and accountability in healthcare services. Physicians are professionally obligated to conduct diagnosis and medical treatment in accordance with professional standards, service standards, and standard operating procedures; however, negligence may occur and lead to severe harm. This study aims to analyze the legal provisions governing physicians’ liability for misdiagnosis causing patient death and to examine the forms of legal responsibility that may be imposed. The research applies a normative juridical method using a case approach and literature review, relying on primary legal materials such as the Indonesian Civil Code, the Criminal Code, the Medical Practice Law, the Hospital Law, and Law Number 17 of 2023 on Health, supported by secondary and tertiary sources. The findings indicate that physicians may be held liable under civil, criminal, and administrative law if the essential elements of medical negligence are proven, namely duty of care, breach of duty, harm (including death), and a causal relationship between the misdiagnosis and the fatal outcome. Moreover, liability may extend to hospitals under the doctrines of vicarious liability, hospital liability, and strict liability. This study implies the importance of strengthening professional competence, reinforcing disciplinary mechanisms, and ensuring balanced legal protection for both patients and healthcare professionals within Indonesia’s health law framework.

The rapid digitalization of the financial services sector has improved efficiency, but it has also increased the risk of personal data breaches, which may result in financial losses, including the emergence of fake debtors. This study aims to analyze the scope of corporate legal liability as a Personal Data Controller in cases of personal data breaches and to identify obstacles in supervising personal data protection. This research employs a normative juridical method using secondary legal materials, supported by empirical data obtained through interviews. Data were analyzed using qualitative normative analysis. The findings indicate that corporate entities remain legally liable under Articles 67 and 70 of Law Number 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection, even when violations are committed by internal personnel. Such liability is based on the principles of vicarious liability and strict liability, requiring corporations to ensure data security through effective supervision and risk management systems. However, the implementation of personal data protection faces significant challenges, including weak compliance culture, low employee awareness, limited technological monitoring, and inconsistent internal policies. Therefore, strengthening data governance through technological enhancement, mandatory employee training, and consistent regulatory supervision is essential to ensure legal certainty and the protection of consumer privacy rights in the financial services sector.

This study analyzes the crucial role of the error element (mens rea) as a pillar of fair criminal accountability in the context of Money Laundering Crimes (TPPU) in Indonesia. Through an analysis of court decisions and a normative legal approach, this study aims to understand how men's reinterpretation of the norm contributes to the substantive justice of TPPU criminalization. The results show that the application of mens rea remains a problem in the case of TPPU, marked by inconsistent evidence, expansion of responsibility without strong evidence of intent, and the influence of the doctrine of strict liability. Therefore, this study concludes that strengthening understanding and proofmens reais key to preventing excessive criminalization and ensuring proportionate sanctions. Strategic recommendations include harmonizing regulations and increasing the capacity of law enforcement officials.

This study analyzes the development of corporate criminal liability in Jordan, Australia, and Indonesia through a comparative doctrinal approach, focusing on the shift from the traditional identification doctrine toward models that attribute criminal fault to corporate culture. The research applies a normative legal method combined with comparative legal analysis, examining the Jordanian Penal Code, the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and the Australian Law Reform Commission Report No. 136 (2020), Law No. 1 of 2023 on the New Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), and Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023, alongside scholarly literature on identification doctrine, vicarious liability, strict liability, and corporate culture theory. The findings show that Jordan retains a classical identification-based model, holding corporations liable only when fault can be linked to individuals acting as the “directing mind and will.” Australia has adopted the most advanced framework through Section 12.3 of the Criminal Code, which attributes fault based on corporate culture and is strengthened by proposals for system-of-conduct offences. Indonesia occupies a transitional position: although the Law No. 1 of 2023 formally recognizes corporations as criminal subjects, its fault-attribution structure remains hybrid, and organizational fault is only expressly acknowledged sectorally through Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2023. The study concludes that effective corporate criminal liability depends on a legal system’s capacity to conceptualize fault as systemic failure rather than individual wrongdoing.

The development of e-commerce in Indonesia and Thailand presents new challenges in consumer protection that require in-depth comparative studies. Consumers are in a relatively weak position due to limited access to inspecting goods directly, information asymmetry, and the potential risk of fraud and non-conformity of goods. This study analyzes two main research questions: first, how e-commerce transactions are regulated in Indonesia and Thailand; and second, how legal protection for consumers in e-commerce transactions compares in both countries. The research method uses a normative juridical approach with a statute approach and a comparative approach, with a descriptive analytical nature. Data are sourced from primary legal materials in the form of Indonesian and Thai laws and regulations, as well as secondary legal materials in the form of journals and scientific books, which are analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show fundamental differences between the two countries. Indonesia has a fragmented regulatory system in various regulations, including Law No. 8 of 1999, the ITE Law, and Government Regulation No. 80 of 2019, which creates overlapping authority, applies a limited reverse burden of proof principle that still burdens consumers, and has a dispute resolution system through the BPSK (Regional Consumer Protection Agency) that is time-consuming and has a low level of compliance. In contrast, Thailand implements integrated regulations with the Consumer Protection Act as umbrella legislation, a strict liability principle that benefits consumers by only proving product defects, losses, and causal relationships, and an efficient dispute resolution system through the OCPB and Online Dispute Resolution with a high level of compliance. The existence of the OCPB as a specialized institution with administrative, mediation, and supervisory authority is a strength of the Thai system. The study recommends that Indonesia adopt an integrated approach, strengthen institutions, and develop a technology-based system to improve the effectiveness of e-commerce consumer protection within the context of ASEAN harmonization.