COMPARATIVE STUDY OF INDONESIAN AND UNITED KINGDOM LAWS ON THE NEGLIGENCE OF PET DOG OWNERS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33603/responsif.v16i2.10664Keywords:
Comparative Study, Pet Dogs, Section 1368, Section 1371, Jurisdiction of The Dangerous Dogs ActAbstract
This study aims to analyze and find out the differences and similarities between Articles 1368, 1371 of the Civil Code and the Jurisdiction of The Dangerous Dogs Act, as well as to find out the problems and also efforts to find out the problems. The research method used is comparative descriptive research and the type of research used is the Normative Juridical research type. The results of the study show that there are similarities between the rules related to pet dogs in Indonesia and the United Kingdom in the form of points in Articles 1365, 1368, 1368, 1371 and the Dangerous Dogs Act. These rules show the absolute responsibility that the dog owner or person responsible for the behavior of the pet dog has. When it comes to harm prevention, both emphasize the importance of animal surveillance can be dangerous to others
References
Nte, D., & Smith, A. (2022). The Role of The Prosecutor as Executor of Court Decision in Returning Confiscated Objects and State Spoils in Criminal Cases: Comparing Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Thailand. IJCLS (Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law Studies), 7(1).
Priyana, P., & Gunawan, T. J., (2024). Reformulation of Asset Recovery Strategy Resulting from Corruption Crimes as an Effort to Recover State Losses. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 12(2), 421-454.
Rahman, Z. A., (2015). R Status Barang Bukti Dalam Rumah Penyimpanan Benda Sitaan Negara. Universitas Airlangga, 2015.
Ross, L. (2023). The Foundations of Criminal Law Epistemology. Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 9:58. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.3583
Salasa, A. (2016). Penyitaan Sebagai Objek Pra Peradilan. Lex Privatum, 6(3), 82-89.
Sriwidodo, J. (2019). KAJIAN HUKUM PIDANA INDONESIA “Teori dan Praktek”. Penerbit Kepel Press.
Stoykova, R. (2023). The right to a fair trial as a conceptual framework for digital evidence rules in criminal investigations. Journal of Computer Law & Security Review, 49(2023), 1-26.
Sukardi, S., & Purnama, H. R. (2022). RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRINCIPLES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA. JILS (JOURNAL of INDONESIAN LEGAL STUDIES), 7(1), 156-190.
Susetyo, H. (2019). Human Rights Regime: Between Universality and Cultural Relativism, An Indonesian Experience. Indonesian Journal of International Law, 16(2), 191-209.
Zikry, I. (2023). Notes on the Law which Qualifies “Barang Bukti” as Legal Evidence. Institute for Criminal Justice Reform.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Brilian Albar Dwi Suparna, Novea Elysa Wardhani, Fransisco
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The Authors submitting a manuscript do so on the understanding that if accepted for publication, copyright of the article shall be assigned to Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati. Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati as publisher of the journal. Copyright encompasses rights to reproduce and deliver the article in all form and media, including reprints, photographs, microfilms, and any other similar reproductions, as well as translations.
Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF, Universitas Swadaya Gunung Jati and the Editors make every effort to ensure that no wrong or misleading data, opinions or statements be published in the journal. In any way, the contents of the articles and advertisements published in Jurnal HUKUM RESPONSIF the sole responsibility of their respective authors and advertisers.
