Adaptive Arbitration Framework for Cross-Border ESG Dispute Resolution
Abstract
The resolution of cross-border disputes involving Environmental, Social, and This study examines the effectiveness of arbitration as an adaptive mechanism for resolving cross-border disputes involving Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues. The increasing integration of sustainability standards, human rights principles, and corporate governance obligations into international trade and investment relationships has generated complex disputes that require flexible yet legally certain resolution mechanisms. This research aims to analyze how arbitration accommodates ESG-related conflicts and to assess the contribution of technological innovation in strengthening procedural efficiency and transparency. The study employed a qualitative normative approach using descriptive-analytical methods based on secondary data, including arbitral awards, bilateral and multilateral treaty frameworks, institutional reports, and recent scholarly literature. The findings demonstrate that arbitration provides procedural flexibility, neutrality, enforceability, and expert-based adjudication capable of addressing technical ESG dimensions. Furthermore, the incorporation of digital technologies such as Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), blockchain-based evidence management, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted document analysis enhances efficiency, transparency, and cross-border accessibility. However, challenges remain regarding enforcement inconsistencies, public policy limitations, and harmonization gaps among national legal systems. This research contributes by proposing an adaptive arbitration framework that integrates ethical standards, technological innovation, and ESG-sensitive interpretative approaches to ensure sustainability-oriented dispute resolution in the global legal order.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Journals:
Agustinus, P., Rondo, M., & Firmansyah, H. (2023). Pengaruh Peran Amicus Curiae Terhadap Proses Peradilan dan Kepastian Hukum. UNES Law Review, 6(2), 4463–4468.
Arsal, F. R. (2024). The Role of International Arbitration Institutions in Resolving Business Disputes Between Countries. Indonesian Journal of Law and Justice, 1(4), 11. https://doi.org/10.47134/ijlj.v1i4.2137
Bell, G. F. (2022). Conflicts of Laws and Jurisdictions in Indonesia- Related Arbitrations Seated in Singapore – Perspectives From the Tribunal. Indonesia Law Review, 12(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v12n1.3
Bianti, G. (2023). Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Putusan Arbitrase Internasional Yang Berpotensi Menghambat Kegiatan Investasi Asing Di Indonesia. Crepido, 5(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.14710/crepido.5.1.64-78
Blackaby, N., Partasides, C., Redfern, A., & Hunter, M. (2015). Redfern and Hunter - Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration. 1051. https://doi.org/https://law.fudan.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/77/16/8ff0afe240e99a627fc2b2dfcac5/b4b6dd2d-19a1-4fc2-8690-3857d32b5cd7.pdf
Bouvard, V. (2021). The Arbitrator’s Duty of Disclosure: Case Law from the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal. Kluwer Arbitration Blog.
Campbell, M. (2021). How to determine the law governing an arbitration agreement: Direction from the uk supreme court. International Arbitration Law Review, 24(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/264242371/Campbell_Int_ALR_accepted_22.01.21.pdf
Chaisse, J. (2024). Arbitration in cross-border data protection disputes. January, 1–18.
Damrosch, L. F., & Sacerdoti, G. (2010). Bilateral treaties and multilateral instruments on investment protection. Recueil Des Cours, Collected Courses, Volume 269 (2007), 251–460.
Delhi, N. E. W. (2023). MediationAct2023. Dl.
Desmedt, A. (2024). AI in International Arbitration: What Is the Big Deal? The American Review of International Arbitration. https://doi.org/https://aria.law.columbia.edu/ai-in-international-arbitration-what-is-the-big-deal/
Dupont, C., Schultz, T., & Yackee, J. (2019). Investment Arbitration and Political Systems Theory. University of Wisconcin, 1484(Wiley 1965), 1–25. https://doi.org/Dupont, Cedric G. and Schultz, Thomas and Yackee, Jason W., Investment Arbitration and Political Systems Theory (March 12, 2019). in Thomas Schultz and Federico Ortino (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration, OUP 2019, Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1484, King’s College London Law School Research Paper Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3351343 or https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3351343
Egger, K., Erickson, D., Cook, M. F., & Mills, C. K. (2024). Editors.
Ezeh, M., Ogbu, A., Ikevuje, A. H., & George, E. (2024). Stakeholder engagement and influence: Strategies for successful energy projects. International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research, 6, 2375–2395. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijmer.v6i7.1330
Fakhriah, E., & Afriana, A. (2023). Cross border of Jurisdiction between Arbitration and District Court in Business Dispute Settlement under the Indonesian Legal System. Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 17, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v17no3.3175
Faure, M., & Ma, W. (2019). Investor-state arbitration: An economic and empirical perspective. In China, the EU and International Investment Law: Reforming Investor-State Dispute Settlement (Issue 2020). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429322334-10
Fischer, M., Foord, D., Frecè, J., Hillebrand, K., Kissling-Naef, I., Meili, R., Brechbuehler Peskova, M., Risi, D., Schmidpeter, R., & Stucki, T. (2023). Sustainable Business: Managing the Challenges of the 21st Century. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25397-3
Franck, S., & Wylie, L. (2015). Predicting Outcomes in Investment Treaty Arbitration. Duke Law Jurnal, 65, 459–526.
Freehills, H. S. (2022). Abitration 2022. Tom Barnes.
Freshfields. (2023). International arbitration in 2023.
Hamanaka, S. (2014). Trans-Pacific Partnership versus Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership: Control of Membership and Agenda Setting. ADB Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration, 146, 20.
Hamzah, A. (2022). Client Update : Indonesia Arb-Med-Arb : An Effort to Enhance Amicable Dispute Resolution Client Update : Indonesia Use of Arb – Med – Arb in Indonesia. Rajah Tan Asia Lawyers Who Know Asia, September, 1–6.
Haridi, S. (2024). Innovation in arbitration: The technological revolution in dispute resolution. Internasional Bar Association.
Kluwer, W., & Page, H. R. (2024). Expert solutions (59%. 1–34.
LCIA Annual Casework, R. (2024). Annual Report on 2023, LCIA Court and African Users’ Council updates, EDI initiative, LCIA Director General news. LCIA Arbitration and ADR Worldwide. https://doi.org/https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-news-annual-report-on-2023-lcia-court-and-african-users-c.aspx
Nedeva, S., Aakaansha, A., Wang, C., & Glynou, M. (2022). Bias of arbitrators: a critical analysis on the law post-Halliburton v. Chubb and a comparative approach. 2(1), 31–92. https://doi.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9147-998X
Rini Eka Agustina. (2024). Efektifitas Arbitrase sebagai Penyelesaian Perselisihan. Ethics and Law Journal: Business and Notary, 2(1), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.61292/eljbn.130
Rodliyah. (2023). Jurnal Risalah Kenotariatan. Jurnal Risalah Kenotariatan, 4(1), 271–293.
Rogers, C. A. (2009). The Ethics Of International Arbitrators. 8(1), 1–23.
Rogers, J., Jones-Fenleigh, H., & Sanitt, A. (2018). International arbitration report. Norton Rose - International Arbitration Report, 10, 17–19.
Schultz, T. (2022). Editorial Series on Unusual Sources of Inspiration for International Dispute Settlement. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 13(3), 341–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac019
Sharan, S. (2024). Injustice Unveiled: - Analyzing The Implications of Ineffective Arbitration Prosedures in A Globalized World. White Black Legal International Law Journal, 2(16), 1–28. https://doi.org/https://www.doi-ds.org/doilink/01.2024-75992614/INJUSTICE UNVEILED: - ANALYZING THE IMPLICATIONS O
Solhchi, M., & Baghbanno, F. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Its Role in the Development of the Future of Arbitration. International Journal of Law in Changing World, 2(2), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i2.56
Stephanie, P. (2023). Arbitrator Responsibility. Jus Mundi.
Stipanowich, T. J. (2021). Arbitration, Mediation and Mixed Modes: Seeking Workable Solutions and Common Ground on Med-Arb, Arb-Med and Settlement-Oriented Activities by Arbitrators. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 26, 265–369. https://doi.org/https://journals.law.harvard.edu/hnlr/wp-content/uploads/sites/91/26-HNLR-265-Stipanowich.pdf
Taqwa, M. D., Laksmi Prabhaswari, A., & Putri Subiyanto, M. J. (2024). Inconsistency in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Non-Compliance or Normative Factors? Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum, 8(2 SE-Articles), 175–258.
Yuying, Z. (2024). Sustainable Arbitration Along the Belt and Road Initiative: The Green Model Clause. Journal of International Arbitration, 41(2), 179–206. https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2024009
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30659/akta.v13i1.51338
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 JURNAL AKTA
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Jurnal Akta has been indexed by:
Editorial Office: Jurnal Akta Room 2nd Floor Imam As Syafei Building Faculty of Law Universitas Islam Sultan Agung. Jln. Kaligawe KM. 4, Semarang City, Central Java, Indonesia. Phone +62 24 6583584 Fax +62 24 6582455
Email: jurnalakta@unissula.ac.id