Modern technology and digitalization have not merely reshaped the landscape of industrial design protection and the enhancement of justice under Annex IV of the Bangui Agreement; they have redefined the very conditions under which design rights can be asserted, challenged, and judicially enforced. As modern creative arts have migrated into virtual spaces, so has infringement become instantaneous and borderless, and as evidence increasingly takes digital form, the Justiciability of industrial design rights stands at a crossroads. This raises questions about the validity of design registrations, cross-border enforcement, and the evidentiary standards for proving infringement, which are central to determining whether a design dispute is suitable for judicial resolution. In response to these concerns, this paper examines the effectiveness of Annex IV in providing justiciable grounds for design owners to bring claims before adjudication bodies. Employing a doctrinal research method, it concludes that the Justiciability of industrial design rights is significantly challenged by technological advancements. This is because it is difficult to identify online infringers, secure digital evidence, and expedite action in cross-border online marketplaces, which allow counterfeiters to reach consumers quickly. It recommends, inter alia, recalibrating Annex IV to include modalities for digital filing, adopting a new substantive approach to examining designs during registration, strengthening inter-agency cooperation, training judicial personnel in forensic evidence, and ensuring legislative alignment with other regional and international standards.

Globalisation has significantly transformed the concepts of law and justice by increasing international interconnectedness and influencing domestic legal systems through global institutions, human rights norms, and transnational governance. This paper examines the impact of globalisation on legal systems, justice delivery, legal pluralism, human rights, and international governance. It analyses major theories of justice proposed by John Rawls, Robert Nozick, and Amartya Sen, while also highlighting the Indian concept of Dharma as a foundation of ethical justice. The study discusses how globalisation creates opportunities for international cooperation and human rights protection, while also generating challenges such as inequality, corporate dominance, and unequal access to justice. The paper concludes that achieving justice in a globalised world requires stronger international accountability, inclusive legal reforms, and protection of human dignity across borders.

This study examines the legal deadlock in the enforcement of civil monetary judgments in Indonesia, particularly arising from the inability of successful litigants to identify the assets of judgment debtors during the execution stage. This condition not only disadvantages the prevailing party but also undermines the authority and credibility of judicial institutions. The central issue addressed in this research lies in the inadequacy of Indonesian Civil Procedure Law, which fails to provide effective legal mechanisms to compel judgment debtors to disclose their assets during enforcement proceedings. Such regulatory gaps are frequently exploited by debtors through the concealment or transfer of assets to evade execution. This study aims to analyze the structural and substantive weaknesses within the existing framework governing the execution of civil monetary judgments and to propose an asset disclosure mechanism as an alternative institutional solution to achieve equitable enforcement. Employing normative legal research with a statutory approach, this article proposes a paradigm shift in civil execution through the adoption of a sworn asset disclosure mechanism. The findings are expected to contribute to the reform of Indonesian Civil Procedure Law in order to strengthen legal certainty, judicial effectiveness, and access to justice for litigants.