Umi Hidayati

Responsibility of Children's Toys Businessmen against the Hazards of Toys Posed

Introduction

Responsibility of children's toys businessmen against the hazards of toys posed. Investigates children's toy hazards, legal protection for users, and businessmen's responsibility in Semarang. Finds inadequate protection and limited, unilateral accountability.

Abstract

The aims of this research is to find out and describe the diversity of children’s toys in Semarang City, find out and describe protection in law to children as end user, as well as to find out and describe responsibility of children’s toys businessmen against the hazards of toys posed. The type of this research is qualitative research by using juridical-sociological approachment. The technique of collecting data which was used were literature research, observation, interview, and documentation research. The result of this research show that in Semarang City is not yet known diversity of children’s toys for certain, protection in law for children as end user is not maximal yet, and the responsibility of the businessmen has not been fully implemented or are still limited and conducted unilaterally by the businessmen.

Review

This research addresses a highly pertinent and critical issue concerning the safety and protection of children, specifically focusing on the hazards posed by toys and the corresponding responsibilities of businesses. By employing a qualitative, juridical-sociological approach within the context of Semarang City, the study aims to comprehensively explore the landscape of children's toys, the existing legal protections for child end-users, and the practical implementation of responsibility by toy businessmen. This multi-faceted scope promises valuable insights into a matter of significant public health and consumer protection interest. The findings presented in the abstract reveal a concerning reality. The research highlights an identified ambiguity regarding the diversity of children's toys in Semarang City, suggesting potential market opacity or lack of regulatory clarity. More significantly, it concludes that legal protection for children as end-users is not yet maximal, and critically, the responsibility of businessmen in addressing toy hazards is not fully implemented, often being limited and conducted unilaterally. These are impactful observations that underscore a considerable gap in consumer safety and corporate accountability, providing a strong basis for policy intervention and advocacy. While the abstract provides compelling initial findings, it also suggests areas for deeper exploration. For instance, a clearer articulation of what constitutes "not maximal yet" legal protection or specific examples of how businessmen's responsibility is "limited and conducted unilaterally" would further enrich the implications of the study. Despite these potential areas for detail, the research provides a vital snapshot of the current state of affairs, offering a strong foundation for stakeholders to advocate for more robust legal frameworks, enhanced enforcement mechanisms, and greater corporate accountability, ultimately contributing to a safer environment for children.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.