Keywords
Artificial Intelligence
European Union Law
Indonesian Arbitration Law
Legal Reform
Technology Disputes
How to Cite
Share
- Abstract 65
- PDF (English) 10
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has generated new forms of technology disputes involving algorithmic opacity, data governance, liability allocation, and cross-border contractual relations. These disputes challenge conventional dispute resolution mechanisms and increase the relevance of arbitration as a flexible, confidential, and expert-oriented forum. This study examines the regulation of arbitration in AI technology disputes from the perspective of Indonesian and European Union law. Using normative legal research with statutory and comparative approaches, it analyses Indonesia’s Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution and compares it with the European Union’s AI and digital governance framework. The findings show that Indonesia’s arbitration framework remains general and insufficiently prepared for AI-related disputes due to the absence of AI-specific regulation, evidentiary imbalance, limited institutional readiness, and an underdeveloped public policy framework for algorithmic risks. By contrast, the European Union provides more developed substantive standards through the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, and related digital regulations, although it does not establish a specific arbitration regime for AI disputes. This study argues that Indonesia needs adaptive arbitration reform through AI-specific regulation, strengthened arbitral expertise, digital evidence mechanisms, and technology-sensitive arbitration clauses.
References
Bhatia, G. (2019). Legal research: Methods and techniques. Oxford University Press.
Born, G. B. (2021). International commercial arbitration (3rd ed.). Kluwer Law International.
Bryson, J. J., Diamantis, M. E., & Grant, T. D. (2017). Of, for, and by the people: The legal lacuna of synthetic persons. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9214-9
Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the “good society”: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
Chander, A. (2017). The racist algorithm? Michigan Law Review, 115(6), 1023–1045.
Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108–116.
European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM/2021/206 final).
European Union. (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 265, 1–66.
European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union legislative acts (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689.
Gaillard, E., & Savage, J. (Eds.). (1999). Fouchard Gaillard Goldman on international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep learning. MIT Press.
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2016). EU regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a right to explanation. In ICML Workshop on Human Interpretability in Machine Learning.
Hutchinson, T., & Duncan, N. (2012). Defining and describing what we do: Doctrinal legal research. Deakin Law Review, 17(1), 83–119.
Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.
International Chamber of Commerce. (2021). ICC arbitration rules. International Chamber of Commerce.
Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif. Bayumedia Publishing.
Lew, J. D. M., Mistelis, L. A., & Kröll, S. M. (2003). Comparative international commercial arbitration. Kluwer Law International.
Malgieri, G. (2022). AI regulation and risk-based approach in the EU. Computer Law & Security Review.
Mantelero, A. (2018). AI and big data: A blueprint for a human rights, social and ethical impact assessment. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4), 754–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.017
Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Penelitian hukum (Rev. ed.). Kencana.
Moses, M. L. (2021). The principles and practice of international commercial arbitration (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Nusantara, H. S., Umam, I. K., & Lubis, M. (2024). Jaminan informasi dan keamanan yang lebih baik: Studi kasus BPJS Kesehatan. Jurnal Nuansa Informatika, 18(2).
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Powles, J., & Hodson, H. (2017). Google DeepMind and healthcare in an age of algorithms. Health and Technology, 7(4), 351–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-017-0179-1
Queen Mary University of London, & White & Case. (2021). 2021 international arbitration survey: Adapting arbitration to a changing world. Queen Mary University of London.
Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2015). Law and practice of international commercial arbitration (6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2020). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach (4th ed.). Pearson.
Salim, H. S., & Nurbani, E. S. (2013). Penerapan teori hukum pada penelitian tesis dan disertasi. Rajawali Pers.
Schroeder, R. (2021). AI ethics: Too principled to fail? Communications of the ACM, 64(11), 34–37.
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2001). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. RajaGrafindo Persada.
Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0: Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Alfred A. Knopf.
Watson, A. (1993). Legal transplants: An approach to comparative law (2nd ed.). University of Georgia Press.
World Intellectual Property Organization. (2021). WIPO arbitration rules. World Intellectual Property Organization.
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed.). Clarendon Press.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Liem Gai Sin, Wika Yudha Shanty, Ariyanti Ariyanti