The usage of AI in arbitration is currently being regulated, and the process is ongoing. The question is how to balance the benefits against the significant risks relating to confidentiality, data security, accuracy, and transparency.
The burden of choosing the practical rules and ensuring their applicability rests mainly with the parties. The most useful tool is therefore the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Guidelines, which address more practical aspects such as:
- When and where should the parties regulate AI usage? AI usage may be regulated by arbitration agreement. Arbitrators are encouraged to invite the parties to express their views on the subject at the first Case Management Conference.
- Powers of the arbitrators to regulate. Arbitrators may regulate the usage of AI by the parties to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. Non-compliance with the arbitrators’ instructions may lead to negative consequences, such as adverse inferences or cost reduction. Arbitrators may rule on the use or admissibility of AI-generated content.
- Disclosure. Arbitrators may require disclosure of the usage of AI tools by the parties and are advised to disclose their usage of AI tools to the parties and amongst the tribunal.
- Non-delegation rule. Legal analysis and factual assessment cannot be delegated to AI.
In our firm, TEGOS, we use legal AI created specifically for our needs, and it has become an essential part of our everyday working process. However, the use of AI by arbitrators raises many questions. For example:
- Arbitrators´ fees: Section 6.3 of the CIArb Guidelines provides for the right of the arbitral tribunal to resolve issues related to artificial intelligence upon submission of documents and evidence, and to take into account, amongst other things, the cost and time savings of the parties. However, there is no suggestion in any guide to provide for the right of the parties to claim a reduction in arbitration costs when arbitrators use AI in the performance of their functions.
- Arbitrators’ liability: Section 8.4 of the CIArb Guidelines stipulates that regardless of the use of AI, the arbitrator must bear full responsibility for the decision made. However, most institutional rules contain an exclusion or limitation of the liability of arbitrators. Hence, accountability must be ensured through the available grounds of challenge.
- Annulment of the award: A separate question is to what extent and in what manner the use of AI could result in the annulment of the award on the basis of public policy, and whether the use of AI by the arbitrators without the knowledge of the parties could constitute a violation of the parties’ right to be heard.
Guidelines:
- Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) issued a “Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration” https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf
- Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) “Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration” https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf
- Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) “Guide to the use of artificial intelligence in cases administered under the SCC rules” https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/scc_guide_to_the_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_cases_administered_under_the_scc_rules-1.pdf
- China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) (the English version is not available).
