Reconstruction of the Business Judgment Rule Doctrine in Indonesia: Legal Comparison with England, Canada, the United States, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research specifically analyzes the comparison of the substance of the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesia with that in other countries by comparing several countries, namely: England, Canada, the United States and Australia. The aim of this research is to reconstruct the future regulation of the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesia. This research is normative legal research that prioritizes conceptual, statutory, case, and comparative approaches. The research results show that the principles related to the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesia include the principle of good faith, the principle of prudence, the principle of expediency, and the principle of legal certainty. The characteristics of the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesia, as contained in statutory regulations and court decisions, actually emphasize the mechanisms that must be taken by directors before making a decision, namely the obligation to prioritize the willens aspect, namely knowing a decision to be taken, and the wettens aspect, namely wanting and understanding the potential consequences. by a decision to be taken. Reconstructing the business judgment rule doctrine in Indonesia by referring to practices in England, Canada, the United States, and Australia, the BJR regulations in Indonesia actually require reconstruction or updating in the future by formulating specific regulations regarding the BJR doctrine in Indonesia and providing space for judicial institutions to develop the application of the BJR doctrine according to developing cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".