Reconstructing Prosecutorial Epistemology for Substantive Justice in Contract Law: A Comparative Philosophical and International Legal Analysis of Indonesia and Kazakhstan

Yuvita Tri Mardiana; Fendi Setyawan; Muhammad Arief Amrullah; Ayu Herlin Norma Yunita; Dametken Medikhanovna Turekulova

doi:10.47268/pela.v4i3.22780

Yuvita Tri Mardiana Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia
Fendi Setyawan Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia
Muhammad Arief Amrullah Faculty of Law, Universitas Jember, Jember, Indonesia
Ayu Herlin Norma Yunita Faculty of Law, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Banyuwangi, Banyuwangi, Indonesia
Dametken Medikhanovna Turekulova Kazakh University of Economics, Finance and International Trade, Astana, Kazakhstan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/pela.v4i3.22780

Keywords: Contract Law, Substantive Justice, Prosecutorial Discretion, Good Faith

Abstract

Introduction: Contemporary contract law in Indonesia and Kazakhstan faces persistent tension between private autonomy and substantive justice. Both jurisdictions enshrine the principle of good faith, yet lack clear doctrinal guidance for its application, resulting in inconsistencies in interpretation and enforcement within their respective civil law systems.

Purposes of the Research: This study aims to examine how prosecutors within these jurisdictions construct legal knowledge and exercise discretion when intervening in contract-related disputes, and to evaluate whether such prosecutorial practices advance or hinder the realization of substantive justice in contractual enforcement.

Methods of the Research: This research employs a normative–juridical method complemented by comparative and philosophical approaches. It analyses statutory provisions, judicial reasoning, and international soft-law instruments—particularly the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts—to explore how discretion and evidentiary reasoning shape enforcement.

Results Main Findings of the Research: The findings reveal that Indonesian prosecutors, inheriting a Roman-Dutch legacy, invoke good faith inconsistently due to evidentiary ambiguity and weak pre-contractual standards, while Kazakh prosecutors emphasize formal legality that sidelines moral reasoning. This research contributes to comparative legal philosophy by proposing three reconstructive pillars for prosecutorial reasoning—doctrinal clarity, evidentiary proportionality, and principled discretion—to align substantive justice with fairness-oriented norms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abiad, H. Al, and A. Masadeh. “Law Comparison as a Research Method in Legal Studies, and Its Importance in Promoting Uniformity in Legal Systems.” In In K. Al Marri, F. A. Mir, S. A. David, & M. AlEmran (Eds.), Proceedings of the BUiD Doctoral Research Conference 2023 (LNCE Vol. 473, Pp. 446–454), 446–54. Springer, 2024. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56121-4_42.

Albar, A, W Aditya, and R Hartini. “Public Procurement Laws and Regulations – Indonesia.” In ICLG, 2025.

Daugirdas, D. “Putting Freedom of Contract in Its Place.” Journal of Legal Analysis 16, no. 1 (2024): 94–119. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae004.

Dworkin, R. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press, 1986.

Evans, H. N, and M Hazim. “Epistemic Injustice at the ICC? An Empirical Analysis of the Use of Third-Party Evidence in the Afghanistan Situation.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 22, no. 1 (2024): 59–79. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqad053.

Garg, P. Comparative Contract Law and Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press, 2023.

Hidayat, Y, A Machmud, S Zulhuda, and S Suartini. “Legal Aspects and Government Policy in Increasing the Role of MSMEs in the Halal Ecosystem.” F1000Research 13 (2025): 722. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.148322.4.

Majeed, N., Hilal, A., and A. Nawaz Khan. “Doctrinal Research in Law: Meaning, Scope and Methodology.” Bulletin of Business and Economics 12, no. 4 (2023): 559–63. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.61506/01.00167.

McKay, C. “Remote Criminal Justice and Vulnerable Individuals.” Tilburg Law Review 28, no. 1 (2024): 47–64. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.386.

Noor, A. “Socio-Legal Research: Integration of Normative and Empirical Juridical Research in Legal Research.” Jurnal Ilmiah Dunia Hukum 7, no. 2 (2023): 94–100. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.56444/jidh.v7i2.3154.

Nugrahenti, M. C., and A. Hernawan. “Good Faith Principle in Indonesian Contract Law: How to Set the Definition and Its Benchmarks.” Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 8, no. 10 (2024): 7358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i10.7358.

Peng, G. Good Faith in Long-Term Relational Supply Contracts in the Context of Hardship: A Comparative Perspective. Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5513-5.

Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1999.

Sabirov, K. K., Konussova, V. T., and M. A. Alenov. “Between Freedom of Contract and the Principle of Good Faith: An inside View on the Reform of Private Law of Kazakhstan.” JANUS.NET e-Journal of International Relations 10, no. 2 (2019): 35–56. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.10.2.10.

Sage, N. “On Justice in Transactions.” The Modern Law Review 84, no. 6 (2021): 1217–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12627.

Theil, S. “Carefully Tailored: Doctrinal Methods and Empirical Contributions.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2025. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf029.

Törnqvist, N., and Å. Wettergren. “Epistemic Emotions in Prosecutorial Decision-Making.” Journal of Law and Society 50, no. 2 (2023): 208–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12421.

Torres, J. R. P. “Navigating Legal Knowledge: A Comparative Analysis of Quantitative, Qualitative, Applied, and Descriptive Research Methodologies in Law.” SSRN, 2025. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5258015.

Wulakada, A. G. H. “Philosophical Approach in Legal Research.” Journal of Public Representative and Society Provision 5, no. 3 (2025). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55885/jprsp.v5i3.606.