Post-Disaster Economic Vulnerabilities and Consumer Protection

Legal Comparisons between Indonesia and Oman

Abstract

Natural disasters not only cause physical destruction but also generate severe economic disruptions, particularly in the form of market failure that places consumers in the most vulnerable position. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of consumer protection legal frameworks in Indonesia and Oman and to formulate a reconstructed legal model that is responsive to disaster conditions. The research employs a normative legal method using comparative and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that Indonesia’s civil law–based system tends to be constrained by procedural formalism and institutional fragmentation between disaster management authorities and consumer protection bodies, resulting in structural weaknesses in post-disaster consumer protection. In contrast, Oman demonstrates a more integrative model through the synchronization of positive law and Sharia-based principles, particularly the doctrine of Hisbah, although further strengthening of procedural accountability in law enforcement remains necessary. The proposed legal reconstruction is articulated through the expansion of the concept of economic security as a consumer right, the hybridization of summary proceedings as an emergency procedural mechanism, institutional transformation through an Emergency Legal Trigger, and a doctrinal shift toward the application of reverse burden of proof. The study concludes that effective post-disaster consumer protection requires a paradigm shift from fault-based liability toward objective liability grounded in risk distribution theory and distributive justice. As a recommendation, both Indonesia and Oman should undertake legislative reforms by adopting automatic emergency trigger clauses within consumer protection regulations to ensure rapid legal response and substantive legal certainty during periods of crisis.