<p>As Muslim majority country, Indonesia experiences the mushrooming of banks based on Islamic values (called shariah banking). The existence of sharia banking is followed by legal policies intended to support the progress of the business sector, including regulations regarding the Sharia Advisory Board, but the question is whether the policy is effective in the development of sharia banking in Indonesia. Adherent to that context, this study aims to examine the issues faced by the Sharia Supervisory Board in Indonesia. This article argues that there are at least fifth substantial problems related to the policies of the Sharia Supervisory Board in Indonesia, namely: (1) not all Shariah Supervisory Boards in Islamic business units have supported by a strong legal basis on which their operations are inducted to; (2) members of the Shariah Supervisory Board are appointed mostly based on their charisma and popularity in society, not of their knowledge and experience in related field; (3)ideally Shariah Supervisory Board must have recognized the banking system before becoming Shariah Supervisory Board, but the basic knowledge is not easy to understand when entering on technical issues; (4) many Shariah Supervisory Boards are not focused on shariah banks supervision duty because of their multi profession; (5) lack of advice related to product innovation and social needs issues</p>
The government has issued various policies to overcome overcapacity in prisons, but the important question that needs to be asked is whether these policies have restored the rights of victims of criminal acts of Information and Electronic Transactions. The method used in this study is a normative legal research method that examines secondary data. Data collection is carried out in the form of laws and regulations, reference books, and previous studies. The results of the research show that there is a need for the urgency of the application of restorative justice in criminal acts of Information and Electronic Transactions in Indonesia and what are the obstacles to the application of restorative justice in handling cases of criminal acts of Information and Electronic Transactions.
Sanitation is a basic human right which shows that someone is dignified and deserves to be respected as a human being. The international community has recognized the importance of this right. However, this right has not been explicitly recognized. This is because the legal status of the right to sanitation is unclear. The right to sanitation is derived from the "right to health" and "right to a decent standard of living". The results concluded that the fact that Indonesia is the 4th country with the largest population in the world puts Indonesia in the top 10 of the category of "country with the longest queue order of toilets" and "the country with the number of defecating in open area". International law which is often criticized for its weak enforcement in reality has been able to respond to the issue of the right to sanitation in Indonesia, mainly through 3 main mechanisms, namely reporting, country missions, and cooperation with civil Societies and NGOS. However, there are still some challenges from the three international human rights law capacities. By improving this capacity, his expectation of Goal 6 on sanitation rights can be realized by 2030.
<div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="left"><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top"><p class="AbstractText">The process of resolving administrative violations in the appointment of non-definitive regional heads that have not been regulated can threaten democratic values. Likewise, there has not been a judicial institution that has been given special authority to try it. This study aims to provide a regulatory model or settlement of administrative violations in the appointment of non-definitive regional heads in the welfare state. This study is a normative legal research that uses legal theory to settle administrative violations, legal protection, the welfare state, and Pancasila democracy. The study results show that the judicial mechanism for appointing non-definitive regional heads has a specificity that cannot be resolved through general State Administrative dispute resolution. In the USA, election disputes were resolved through the courts, whereas, in Australia, the Electoral Management Bodies determine the mayoral elections dispute. A design that can be chosen for the judicial process for appointing a non-definitive regional head is proposed, namely by granting authority to <em>Bawaslu</em> to resolve administrative violations through the Special Court mechanism. The granting of judicial authority can fulfill the basic principles of fast, open, and constitutional non-definitive regional head appointment dispute resolution.</p></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.