Jurisprudential Trade-Offs in Muslim Consumer Protection: Reconciling State Coercion and Market Rationality in ASEAN

Abstract

While the global halal food market is expanding rapidly, existing legal frameworks often struggle to balance statutory requirements with operational realities and strict religious compliance. This study addresses the doctrinal friction between state regulatory coercion and field compliance capabilities by comparatively analyzing the legal architectures of halal consumer protection in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam. Employing a qualitative-normative legal approach, this research triangulates primary statutory instruments, including Law No. 33 of 2014 (Indonesia), the Trade Descriptions Order 1975 (Malaysia), and the Halal Meat Act (Brunei), with secondary empirical compliance data. The comparative analysis reveals profound jurisprudential trade-offs: Indonesia’s Coercive Positivist Approach provides comprehensive statutory coverage but triggers severe sociological friction among MSMEs; Malaysia’s Pragmatic-Lex Mercatoria Approach optimizes global market integration yet risks stratifying domestic consumer protection; and Brunei’s Theocratic-Constitutional Approach preserves absolute religious authenticity but remains legally hermetic internationally. As a theoretical novelty, this study conceptualizes the "Triadic Equilibrium of Halal Regulatory Governance," arguing that absolute legal certainty is an illusion without harmonizing Statutory Coercion, Market Rationality, and Epistemic Authenticity. To reconcile these paradigms, the study recommends establishing a “Halal Regulatory Sandbox” to shift MSMEs from punitive to restorative compliance, integrate blockchain for immutable post-market traceability, and move ASEAN regional harmonisation strategies from rigid uniformity towards Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) grounded in legal equivalence.

Access to Document

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Open Access Version Available

Fingerprint