Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0.983
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Masalah-Masalah Hukum Indonesia Law Review (ILREV) Pandecta : Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu Hukum (Research Law Journal) Journal of Private and Commercial Law BANI Arbitration and Law Journal
Roosdiono, Anangga W.
Unknown Affiliation
Economics, Econometrics & Finance Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 5 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 5 Documents
Search

 1 
THE NON-APPLICATIONS OF GOOD FAITH, TRUST, AND CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION: A STUDY OF THE ANNULMENT CASES IN INDONESIA Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit; Salsabila, Mayta Ciara
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 12, No. 2
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Arbitration is a dispute resolution method that is chosen by the parties for, mainly, avoiding weaknesses of resolving disputes through the general court. It has three principles, that strongly connect to one another, to hold: good faith, trust, and confidentiality. These principles determine whether a dispute resolution through arbitration will be successful. However, in many - if not all - cases, many disputing parties still do not maintain these principles. This reality can be observed in annulment cases. Although the annulment mechanism renders a protection to the parties from the errors made by intention, this mechanism opens an opportunity for these people just to pause the execution of the arbitral awards, makes their cases become open for the public, and even puts the final-and-binding status of the awards in question. On the other hand, there are still a few cases showing that such errors, made by the tribunals or the winning parties, occurred. From these cases, this paper is to question whether the existence of annulment is the key factor of the non-applications of these three principles or the tool to prevent the non-applications. First, a descriptive comprehension of these principles is elaborated. Afterwards, the annulment mechanism, provided by Article 70 of Law 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolutions, is comprehended to see its nature and practical implications. At the end, some annulment cases are dissected to answer the research question.
CHOICE OF PARADIGM IN ARBITRATION: ARBITRATOR’S AUTONOMY OR PARTIES’ AUTHORITY? Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit
Masalah-Masalah Hukum Vol 53, No 3 (2024): MASALAH-MASALAH HUKUM
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.14710/mmh.53.3.2024.293-303

Abstract

The choice of paradigm in dispute resolution through arbitration raises a fundamental question: should the arbitral tribunal render its decision based on the law or ex aequo et bono? Most legal scholars affirm that the disputing parties have the full authority to dictate the tribunal's choice of paradigm in resolving disputes. This perspective, in Indonesia, is justified by two grounds: the Elucidation of Article 56(1) of Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Law, and the party autonomy principle in arbitration. Against this mainstream view, this paper repositions the role of arbitrators, emphasizing that they should possess autonomy -rather than being dictated to-when choosing the paradigm dispute resolution. This paper concludes that the choice of paradigm should rest within the authority of arbitrators.
Questioning the Validity of the New York Convention 1958 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Indonesia Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit
Pandecta Research Law Journal Vol. 19 No. 2 (2024): December, 2024
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/pandecta.v19i2.4099

Abstract

This article questions the legal validity of the New York Convention of 1958 ("NYC 1958") on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. A critical review is conducted based on the principle of lex posterior derogat lex priori when the provisions of NYC 1958 are compared with Articles 65 to 69 concerning the enforcement of international arbitral awards in Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Law 30/1999), which emerged approximately 18 years after (posteriori to) the ratification of NYC 1958 through Presidential Decree No. 34 of 1981. There appears to be—from the perspective of legal scholars—a paradigmatic difference between the two, namely that NYC 1958 places greater value on foreign arbitral awards, while Law 30/1999 is less appreciative of them, leading to the presumption that Law 30/1999 nullifies the legal validity of NYC 1958. Can this perception be justified? The answer to this question shapes the judicial paradigm when faced with applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. This article, doctrinally, compares and links the paradigmatic nuances between NYC 1958 and Law 30/1999 with regard to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards by closely examining the textual provisions of each regulation.
UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution as Soft Law Instrument for Online Dispute Resolution: An Indonesia Perspective Budhijanto, Danrivanto; Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Maulana, Mursal
BANI Arbitration and Law Journal Vol. 2 No. 1 (2025): BANI Arbitration and Law Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1, October 2025
Publisher : Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.63400/balj.v2i1.25

Abstract

Artikel ini membahas Soft Law instrumen yang dirancang oleh UNCITRAL, UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution yang merupakan aturan hukum yang tidak mengikat, deskriptif dan prosedural yang mengatur mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa secara online (ODR). Dengan semakin semakin meningkatnya kegiatan e-commerce, ODR dapat dianggap sebagai mekanisme yang efektif dan efisien dalam menyelesaikan sengketa yang timbul dari transaksi lintas batas di seluruh penjuru dunia, termasuk di Indonesia. Untuk memastikan pelaksanaan ODR berjalan secara optimal, keberadaan kerangka hukum yang mengatur proses penyelesaian sengketa secara online sangat diperlukan. Sejauh ini, sebagian besar negara di dunia tidak memiliki aturan hukum substantif terkait ODR. Munculnya UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution dianggap sebagai opsi meskipun sifat instrumen ini hanyalah Soft Law semata. Meskipun tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum mengikat, para pihak yang bersengketa dapat secara konsensual memberikan persetujuan untuk menggunakan aturan ini sebagai rules of procedure.Artikel ini disusun menjadi empat bagian. Bagian pertama merupakan pengantar yang membahas secara ringkas eksistensi ODR dalam beberapa dekade terakhir sebagai konsekuensi dari meningkatnya aktivitas e-commerce. Bagian kedua membahas sejarah perkembangan ODR dan perkembangan terkini di beberapa jurisdiksi. Bagian ketiga membahas ruang lingkup UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution dan bagian terakhir sebagai kesimpulan mengusulkan agar instrumen Soft Law seperti UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution dapat berfungsi sebagai instrumen yang dapat digunakan sebagai alternatif sumber hukum ODR.
The Interconnection Between Arbitration and Commercial Courts: Scenarios, Issues, and A Proposal Roosdiono, Anangga W.; Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit; Salsabila, Mayta Ciara
Journal of Private and Commercial Law Vol. 9 No. 1 (2025): Journal of Private and Commercial Law
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jpcl.v9i1.7833

Abstract

There is a possibility that parties who have put an arbitration clause in their agreement may still bring bankruptcy or suspension of debt payment obligations before the Commercial Court (“Pengadilan Niaga”). In another scenario (Scenario 2), this situation can also—and often does—occur due to a third party, not bound by the arbitration clause, filing a bankruptcy petition against one of the parties. This article examines two key aspects when both forums are utilized: (1) the interrelation between these two forums in the context of the consequences of their respective decisions on each other; and (2) the conflicting principles, such as confidentiality and trust in arbitration versus public openness and distrust in Pengadilan Niaga. When one party ultimately submits a bankruptcy case to Pengadilan Niaga, the confidentiality of the dispute is compromised, and mutual trust is eroded. However, this reality is not strong enough to justify eliminating the potential overlap between arbitration and Pengadilan Niaga, given that scenarios where a third party files a bankruptcy petition can also occur. In such a scenario, the issue extends beyond the mere clash of principles. A proper framework to regulate the intersection between arbitration and Pengadilan Niaga needs to be formulated, taking into account the two scenarios that may arise.
Co-Authors Danrivanto Budhijanto Maulana, Mursal Salsabila, Mayta Ciara Taqwa, Muhamad Dzadit