Often, retributive approaches in Indonesia's criminal justice system have failed to address minor offenses fairly and efficiently. The study intends to assess the feasibility of restorative justice (RJ) in practice while also addressing the social and institutional challenges that come with handling minor cases in urban and semi-urban areas. Using qualitative methods within a descriptive-evaluative approach, it analyzes 10 real cases from East Jakarta and Depok involving 25 informants from five major stakeholder groups. Findings indicate that almost 80% of the cases were appropriately disposed of through community mediation, the results of which were satisfying to victims, fastened processes, and no harm caused to the offenders. On the contrary, there were some challenges, such as limited knowledge among law enforcement officers, a lack of training, and victims' disbelief in those solutions. It recommends success indicators defined from the culture of field practices and introduces a modeled policy for RJ in the Indonesian context. What makes this research novel is the cross-actor approach and theoretical integration that truly minimizes the gap between law-related formal regulations and restorer justice in practice.

Transnational crime has become an increasingly complex challenge due to globalization and technological advancements, requiring effective legal frameworks to address cross-border offenses. Indonesia's criminal law system faces significant weaknesses compared to the European Union (EU), particularly in extradition mechanisms, international cooperation, and regulatory harmonization. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of Indonesia's criminal law in combating transnational crime by comparing it with the legal framework of the EU. A comparative legal study approach was used, incorporating qualitative analysis of legal regulations, case studies, and interviews with legal practitioners and law enforcement officers. The study examined key aspects such as extradition policies, law enforcement capacity, and cross-border collaboration. The findings indicate that Indonesia’s extradition success rate remains at 45%, significantly lower than the EU's 85%, which benefits from the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Furthermore, the average case resolution time in Indonesia is approximately 24 months, whereas in the EU, it is around 6 months due to more streamlined procedures. The research also highlights the need for Indonesia to strengthen its law enforcement agencies, as the limited use of digital forensic tools and artificial intelligence-based crime detection hinders investigative efficiency. This study contributes to the discourse on transnational crime by emphasizing the necessity for Indonesia to implement legal reforms that align with global standards, enhance technological adoption in law enforcement, and establish more robust international partnerships. Strengthening these areas will improve Indonesia’s ability to effectively address transnational crime and enhance its integration into the global legal framework.

Land disputes within indigenous law communities remain a complex and evolving issue in Indonesia. Although customary law is recognized within the national legal framework, its implementation continues to face various challenges, including limited formal recognition and overlapping agrarian regulations. This study aims to analyze the effectiveness of customary law in resolving land disputes, compare it with national litigation mechanisms, and identify factors influencing its application. Employing both empirical and normative legal approaches, this research utilizes in-depth interviews, observations, and legal document analysis. The study sample includes customary leaders, agrarian officials, law enforcement officers, and disputing community members. Findings indicate that 75% of the 100 land dispute cases examined were successfully resolved through customary mechanisms, whereas only 30% of cases reached resolution through national litigation. Additionally, the average time required for dispute resolution under customary law was approximately four months, significantly shorter than the three to five years typically needed for litigation. Key factors supporting the effectiveness of customary law include the flexibility of deliberative mechanisms, high community compliance, and a restorative justice approach. However, the implementation of customary law still faces challenges regarding legal legitimacy, external interventions, and the lack of regulatory support to accommodate indigenous dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, more inclusive policies are needed to integrate customary law into the national legal system, creating a more effective and equitable dispute resolution framework