VALIDITY AND LEGAL POSITION OF ON-CHAIN DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE INDONESIAN ARBITRATION SYSTEM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH SINGAPORE LAW
DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.21235011Published:
2026-07-07Downloads
Abstract
The development of blockchain technology has given rise to on-chain dispute resolution (OCDR) as a dispute settlement mechanism that operates entirely through algorithms and anonymous jurors, without the involvement of any state judicial institution. This research aims to analyze the legal standing of OCDR within Indonesia's civil law system and examine its validity as a form of arbitration under Law Number 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, enriched through a comparative analysis with Singapore's legal framework. This research employs a normative juridical method enriched with comparative elements, utilizing the theory of Lex Cryptographia, the theory of state sovereignty and legal positivism, and Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive law theory as analytical tools. The findings indicate that OCDR constitutes a sui generis legal phenomenon operating as Lex Cryptographia, an independent normative order born from algorithmic consensus rather than sovereign state authority. This characteristic causes OCDR to encounter structural deadlock when tested against the legal positivism paradigm underlying Indonesia's Arbitration Law, particularly concerning the validity of arbitration agreements and arbitrator qualifications, both of which remain fundamentally human-centric. Comparison with Singapore reveals that even a more technology-accommodating legal framework experiences similar normative friction, albeit at a lower intensity. This research argues that Satjipto Rahardjo's progressive law approach which prioritizes the law's benefits to humanity over their textual compliance, provides a relevant philosophical framework to justify the acceptance of a hybrid arbitration model, as successfully demonstrated in the Kleros case in Mexico, as a pragmatic solution to the legal gap currently faced by Indonesia.
Keywords:
On-chain dispute resolution Arbitratio Lex Cryptographia Legal Positivism Progressive Law.References
Sumber Hukum
Republik Indonesia. (1981). Keputusan Presiden Nomor 34 Tahun 1981 tentang Mengesahkan Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Republik Indonesia. (1999). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa.
Republik Singapura. (1994). International Arbitration Act 1994.
Buku
Bhatt & Joshi Associates. (2024). Singapore International Arbitration Centre. AWS Publications.
De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2018). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hikmahanto Juwana. (2002). Perbandingan sistem hukum: Suatu pengantar. Dalam Bunga rampai hukum ekonomi dan hukum internasional (hlm. 78). Jakarta: Lentera Hati.
Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the world. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin.
Bab Buku
Saumier, G. (2012). ODR and the courts. Dalam M. Abdel Wahab, E. Katsh, & D. Rainey (Eds.), Online dispute resolution: Theory and practice (hlm. 189). The Hague, Netherlands: Eleven International Publishing.
Jurnal
Ast, F., George, W., Kamalova, J., Sharma, A., & Aouidef, Y. (2023). Decentralized justice: State of the art, recurring criticisms and next-generation research topics. Frontiers in Blockchain, 6, 1204090.
Bergolla, L., Seif, K., & Eken, C. (2022). Kleros: A socio-legal case study of decentralized justice blockchain arbitration. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 37(1), 55–58.
Chevalier, M. (2021). From smart contract litigation to blockchain arbitration, a new decentralized approach leading towards the blockchain arbitral order. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 12(4), 558–584.
Dimitropoulos, G. (2020). The law of blockchain. Washington Law Review, 95(3), 1117–1191.
Indonesian Journal of Law and Justice. (2025). Kekuatan hukum perjanjian elektronik dalam perspektif KUH Perdata dan UU ITE.
Lim, D., & Loi, S. (2021). Singapore as a hub for international commercial arbitration: Legal infrastructure and technological adaptation. Asian International Arbitration Journal, 17(1), 45–46.
Ramadhan, N. R., Alvito, H. R., Matondang, T. I., & Nugroho, A. A. (2024). Pengaturan umum mengenai investasi serta keuangan elektronik dalam hukum teknologi dan informasi. Socius: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial.
Rismawati, S. D. (2021). Tantangan regulasi aset kripto dan teknologi blockchain dalam sistem hukum Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 51(2), 389.
Sari, K. (2018). Penerapan konsep teori permainan (game theory) dalam pemilihan strategi kampanye politik: Studi kasus strategi pemenangan Pemilukada DKI Jakarta tahun 201. E-Jurnal Matematika.
Yamin, A. F. (2024). Strategi efektif penyelesaian sengketa bisnis dan implikasinya terhadap kelangsungan usaha di Indonesia: Analisis berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 1999 tentang Arbitrase dan Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Meraja Journal, 7(1), 36–47.
Yuliani, A. A. (2021). Analisis keabsahan online dispute resolution arbitrase dalam pelaksanaannya di Indonesia. Simbur Cahaya, 323–336.
Laporan / Report
Boston Consulting Group, & ADDX. (2022). Relevance of on-chain asset tokenization in crypto winter.
Google, Temasek, & Bain & Company. (2025). e-Conomy SEA 2025: Through the waves, towards a sea of opportunity. Singapore: Google Asia Pacific.
ICLG. (2025–2026). International arbitration laws and regulations report: Singapore.
Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2023). IM8e digital asset framework: Consultation paper.
Artikel Web
BP Lawyers. (2025, May 20). Prosedur mendaftarkan putusan arbitrase di pengadilan negeri.
Chambers and Partners. (2025). Blockchain 2025: Indonesia.
Clyde & Co. (2023). The landscape of arbitrators in Singapore.
Kennedys Law. (2026, January 16). Arbitration, crypto assets, and the courts: Adapting dispute resolution for a digital economy.
SIP Law Firm. (2025, May 20). Proses pengakuan putusan arbitrase di Indonesia.
Tandfonline. (2025). Institutional framework for NFT governance in Indonesia: A proposal for a specialized NFT authority.
Wu, Y. (n.d.). Algorithmic justice: A comparative study on the validity and enforceability of AI arbitration agreements and awards in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Situs Resmi
Kleros. (n.d.). The justice protocol: Kleros homepage. Retrieved May 23, 2026, from https://kleros.io/
SIAC. (2022). SIAC Rules 2016 and guidelines for arbitration involving blockchain and smart contracts.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Daffa Charisma Putra Ramadhon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloads
How to Cite
