The purposes of this study are to analyze and find the weaknesses of the Law on Narcotics Abuser in Indonesia Currently and How is the Reconstruction of the Law on Narcotics Abuser based on Benefit Value in a research that uses an Normative-juridical approach where The data collection method used is sourced from secondary data and primary data which was carried out using qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study show that the Weaknesses of the law on narcotics abuser are in the list of the grade of the narcotics contained in the narcotics law that are not up to date as some of the narcotics in the list have been removed in various countries such as Cannabis. This problem not only causes Cannabis Abuser Prisoned although their position should be as “victim” but also one of the factors that causes Overcrowding in Prison in Indonesia. The reconstruction as intended by the author are not in the form of substantial law reconstruction but rather a structural law reconstruction where the Narcotics Law Article 8 (2) which states that In limited quantities, Narcotics Category I can be used for scientific development purposes knowledge and technology and for diagnostic reagents, as well as laboratory reagents after obtaining Minister's approval on the recommendation of the Head of the Agency Food and Drug Supervisor need to be upheld higher and if necessary to add an extra paragraph in the law to appoint the ministry of health together with National Narcotics Bodies to create a Joint Research Bodies that are obliged to conduct research related to the use of narcotics. By using this approach, not only the law’s narcotics list of grade can be justified and are up to date, the overcrowding problem in the prison can be minimized.

This study aims to criticize the legal construction of multi-stakeholder unions which are not in line with the principles of Pancasila justice. From this critical study, new theories/ideas were generated regarding the system and arrangement of multi-stakeholder unions that are just Pancasila through the reconstruction of Ministerial Regulation no. 08 of 2021 concerning Unions with a Multi-Stakeholder Model using a constructivism paradigm with a normative juridical approach. This type of research is descriptive qualitative. This study uses 4 problem approaches, namely the statute approach, the historical case approach, the comparative approach to law, and the conceptual approach. The legal materials used in this research are primary legal materials and secondary legal materials with data collection methods through library research. Data analysis in this study used qualitative analysis. The results show that the legal construction of multi-stakeholder unions in Indonesia is not in line with the values and principles of Pancasila justice as There is a principle discrepancy between the substance or legal norms of the Regulation of the Minister of Union and Small and Micro Enterprises (PERMENKUKM) no. 08/2021 with the principle of kinship in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, there is also conflicting legal substances or norms between the lower regulation (PERMENKUKM No. 08/2021) and the higher regulation (Law No. 25/1992 and the Job Creation Law). Then, The existence of material content or legal norms PERMENKUKM No. 08/2021 which exceeds the material limit of a ministerial regulation regulated in Law No. 12/2011 and Law no. 15/2019. Based on this, it is necessary to reconstruct a number of norms in Ministerial Regulation no. 08 of 2021 concerning Unions with a Multi-Stakeholder Model, reconstruction of legal structures or institutions is needed in the form of increasing the ability and understanding of the Ministry of Unions and Small and Medium Enterprises towards Unions and reconstruction of legal culture in the community and union managers.

The purpose of this study is to examine the weaknesses that arise as a result of IPR as joint property that is not regulated in the legislation regarding IPR and develop IPR as joint property and how to distribute it in case of divorce based on justice value. The method used in this research is socio-legal (Socio-legal Research) which uses primary data and secondary data. Meanwhile, the technique of collecting data is through library research and field studies, and Analytical descriptive data analysis. The results of this study indicate that the IPR legislation in Indonesia does not regulate IPR as joint property because it is heavily influenced by the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement, none of which mentions IPR as joint property. As a result, it creates weaknesses, including the positive law of IPR that is unable to answer and provide solutions to the problems of joint property that arise in Indonesian society, making it difficult for law enforcers to make decisions on issues of joint property in the form of IPR, the disparity in decisions by one law enforcer with others, and community rights related to IPR as joint property are not fully obtained by the community. This research also proposes legal reconstruction in the form of a new legal norm/rule, that the economic value derived from all types of IPR including Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications, Trade Secrets, Industrial Designs, Plant Variety Protection, and Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits registered during marriage to become a joint property of husband and wife as long as it is not stipulated otherwise in the marriage agreement and the distribution after the breakup of marriage each gets half as long as husband and wife carry out their responsibilities, obligations, and duties properly in the household, if husband and wife are not / less able to carry out their responsibilities, obligations, and duties well in the household, then the distribution is in accordance with the size of their contribution in the household and the process of creating/discovering IPR. The results of the distribution of joint assets either in a decision or an agreement in front of an authorized official must be recorded at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights because the transfer of IPR Economic Rights will only result in legal consequences for third parties after being registered at the Directorate General of Intellectual Property Rights.

The invasion of developing countries by hazardous e-waste traders in quests for sites to dispose of their consignments of waste is not a recent phenomenon. These activities have continued regardless and in defiance of the Basel Convention as the main global instrument regulating the Transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. This article therefore provides a concise overview of the effectiveness of the Basel Convention in the fight against the Transboundary movement of e-waste from developed Countries to third world countries. Adopting an analytical research method, it is uncovered that even though the Basel Convention is instrumental in the regulation of Transboundary movements of e-waste to developing countries, its effectiveness is marred by inherent loopholes in the convention, namely: the verification problem in the PIC procedure and the recycling and reuse loopholes amongst others. It is argued that in order to halt the movement of e-waste to developing countries, the recycling and reuse loopholes must be mended. The PIC procedure in the Convention must also be manned with monitoring structures.

This research takes the formulation of the problem of why is the regulation of the implementation of Credit Union activities not based on the value of justice and how is the reconstruction of regulations for implementing Credit Union activities in Indonesia based on the value of justice. This research uses normative legal research methods and empirical legal research where the research specification used in this research is descriptive-analytical. The Primary data sources are based on data or facts and legal cases obtained directly through research in the field and Secondary data is done through literature study. The result of the research shows that the regulation on the implementation of Credit Union activities in Indonesia has not been based on the value of justice, because Credit Unions, which in their implementation are based on the Model Law for Credit Unions, are still analogous to the Savings and Loans Cooperative which in its implementation is based on Government Regulation Number 9 of 1995 concerning Implementation Savings and Loans Business Activities by Cooperatives. There are differences in the recruitment of members, forms of education, and indicators of loan requirements and institutional health, it is necessary to reconstruct the regulations for implementing Credit Union activities in Indonesia based on the value of justice. Reconstruction of Law Number 25 of 1992 concerning Cooperatives can be done by adding new paragraphs in Article 44, namely; (4) The implementation of savings and loan business activities by the Credit Union is regulated based on the Model Law for Credit Union.