AI Innovation In Arbitration: Jurisdictional Based Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a futuristic thought for integration into the Arbitration process - it is instead now reshaping how the dispute resolution process has become faster, cheaper and globally accessible. In the next 5 years, AI utilization is set to grow exponentially by 91%, revolutionizing how legal teams' breakthroughs in automating document review, transcription, smarter analytics and language translation.¹ However, rapid technological progress also poses a greater risk, including privacy and confidentiality concerns, exposing institutions to challenges in its successful implementation.

As AI technologies are being rapidly integrated into the legal processes, it has become critical to adopt robust frameworks to regulate its use. This research paper focuses on the integration of technology into dispute resolution, while exploring the transformative impact of AI, its potential benefits and future implications, while drawing insights from the regulatory approaches globally in reshaping arbitration procedures.

TRANSFORMING THE DECISION-MAKING LANDSCAPE

Conventional forms of ADR including mediation and conciliation have consistently served as effective tool in providing procedural flexibility as an alternative to courtroom system. While traditional ADR mechanisms remain valuable, Natural Language Processing (NLP) models combined with machine learning and deep learning, are increasingly employed to analyse large volumes of documents in much lesser time.

1. Case Management Systems: Developed platforms aid in management of case files and timelines, in addition to fostering smooth collaboration between parties across jurisdictions. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has launched a cloud-based case management platform for supporting e-filing and billing, encrypted document storage, and real-time case management to improve efficiency and transparency for parties.²
2. Digital Infrastructure Development: The rise of virtual hearings has eliminated geographical constraints, substantially curbing costs and time-related inefficiencies. Such video conferencing platforms employ end-to-end encryption systems for ensuring confidentiality, ensuring seamless cross-border communications.
3. Cloud based Solutions: With technology adoption becoming more feasible, cloud-based applications have risen to become important tools for storing important data, thereby making it easily accessible to cross functional teams. The applications provide encryption for sensitive data to ensure privacy and protection from cyber risks.
4. Cybersecurity measures: Sensitive information is stored over such cloud-based platforms which increases the exposure of data to cybersecurity threats. For this reason, while choosing an AI platform it is essential to ensure adequate SOC 2 Type 2³ compliance is adopted by the platforms.

APPLICATIONS OF AI IN ARBITRATION

1. Automating Document Analysis and E-Discovery: One of the challenges faced during long arbitration cases is the large volume of documents pending review. Here, tools like Relativity leverages AI to solve legal data challenges across litigation, investigations, data response breach and beyond. Similarly, ClauseBuilder AI by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) transforms dispute resolution by building customisable arbitration and mediation clauses to govern commercial agreements⁴.
2. Predictive Analysis and Pattern Recognition: Since the stakes are very high in arbitration, there is a huge amount of costs involved. Generative AI model analyse precedents for predicting outcomes, economic considerations involved, thereby assisting parties to make an informed decision. Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd.⁵ was the first case that allowed predictive coding software to be used. In this case, the claimant had over 3 million documents to disclose that were relevant to this case. The software was a step up from linear review which involved simply reviewing the document without analysing and presenting the most important documents at the top. It enhanced human decision-making by integrating computer-assisted pattern recognition. The judgment highlights how predictive programs increase decision-making efficiency and mitigate the futility of manually going through large amounts of paperwork.
3. Real-Time Support: AI tools can also be integrated into video conferencing platforms to assist in real time support by capturing and summarizing meetings. The Supreme Court of India developed Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) which is a machine-assisted translation tool trained by AI to translate legal documents and judicial records into India's regional languages⁶.

RISKS AND CHALLENGES

1. Algorithmic bias: In the present time, data serves as gold as AI models are largely trained on historical datasets. Repetitive or poor-quality data sets creates bias into the model which thereby affects AI output. Further, biased training data can result in narrow outputs, thereby, reducing model accuracy and efficacy. Thus, it becomes essential to monitor the datasets on which AI models are trained to bring neutrality.
2. Cybersecurity and Privacy concerns: The integration of third-party AI tools in arbitrations raises a considerable challenge surrounding confidentiality - a non-negotiable principle when handling sensitive information in ADR. Another concern is the use of such data by the platforms internally in training the machine learning models which could lead to data leaks. Binding confidentiality agreements along with scrutinizing the platform's security helps in ensuring such secure data handling.
3. Delegation of judicial awards: While AI use increases rapidly, Arbitrators must act independently and not abdicate their duty to reason independently. In a recent case of the U.S. federal court, LaPaglia v. Valve Corp⁷, this issue was raised where the petitioner had sought to vacate an arbitral award. The basis of the issue was that the arbitrator purportedly utilized AI to such a degree that he effectively delegated his adjudicative responsibilities. While the resolution of this case remains indeterminate, it serves as an exemplary foundation for scrutinizing the boundaries of AI application in arbitration, along with the corresponding legal and ethical obligations that arise.

JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH

1. United States: Market-Driven Innovation

In the US, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is the world's largest private global provider of ADR services⁸. With ClauseBuilder AI by AAA, AI chatbot can be now employed for drafting arbitration clauses for contracts⁹. However, there still doesn't exist any specific framework to regulate the fair use of AI in arbitration.

Key Developments:

• Data-driven transformation: AI tools can be leveraged for case management, analysing documents and projecting case outcomes.
• Enhanced research capabilities: CoCounsel by Thomson Reuters harnesses advanced AI capabilities to assist arbitrators in legal research and document summarization¹⁰.
• Administrative efficiency: AI supports ADR providers in expediting logistical tasks including scheduling, client communication, and billing.

2. United Kingdom: Balanced Regulatory Framework

UK has crafted a sophisticated strategy that harmonizes technological advancements with the principles of procedural fairness. Although there is no explicit legislation either endorsing or forbidding the utilization of AI by arbitrators, the region's commitment to equity, neutrality, and procedural propriety establishes distinct parameters for the integration of AI.

Key Principles:

• Administrative use permitted: Arbitrators may use AI tools for administrative tasks with party agreement to facilitate efficient proceedings.
• Limited decision-making role: The decision making by Arbitrators should not be devoid of their own judgement and oversight while using AI for drafting awards.
• Transparency requirements: Arbitrators must clearly define the scope of AI use in procedural orders and ensure deployment is transparent, supervised, and party-approved.
• Human accountability: Human oversight serves as statutory requirements for human judgment, signifying arbitrators must exercise significant caution.

3. Singapore: Thought Innovation Leadership

SIAC has been at the forefront in using AI tools in case strategizing, preparation to final adjudication, emphasising that AI tools are to support rather than to replace human lawyers. SIAC Gateway introduces a centralised online environment that integrates electronic filing, in-system document storage and exchange, and comprehensive case management¹¹

Key Initiatives:

• Enhanced legal research capabilities: The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) and the Singapore Academy of Law (SAL) launched an AI-powered search engine, LawNet AI enabled by the latest release of GPT-Legal Q&A model, aimed at simplifying the legal research process and enabling the legal fraternity in Singapore to obtain immediate contract-law related research when preparing for court cases¹².
• Court guidance on AI use: Singapore Court Registrar Circulars remind users to regularly check generative AI tool appropriateness and ensure all submitted information is suitable, accurate, and independently verified.
• Judicial exploration: In collaboration with Harvey AI, the Singapore Judiciary has developed a generative AI tool that summarises case documents for Tribunal Magistrates and individuals representing themselves in the Small Claims Tribunal¹³.

INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

1. CIArb Guidelines

The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) published detailed guidelines in March 2025 that establishes globally accepted best practices for the use of AI in arbitration. The guidelines deal with three main stakeholder groups: all participants, parties and their representatives, and arbitrators.

General recommendations:

• Enquiry: For clarity and transparency purposes, arbitrators and parties are advised to make reasonable enquiry regarding use of AI tool in the particular arbitration case.
• Potential Risk: Parties are encouraged to understand the proposed risks in respect to any use of AI in document preparation and any other adverse implications to weigh risks against benefits.
• Regulations: Arbitrators must be aware of any new regulations, rules or guidelines that could impact AI usage in evidencing and arbitration outcomes.
• Express prohibition: Unless there has been an express prohibition in writing by the tribunal or the parties, use of AI would not diminish the accountability and transparency that would have otherwise been applied if AI tool had not been used.¹⁴

2. SVAMC Guidelines

The Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) published in April 2024, guidelines on use of AI in arbitration. These guidelines establish a principled framework addressing both current and future AI applications.

Guideline recommendations:

• Due Diligence: When using AI tools, the parties and their representatives shall adhere to any professional or ethical standards that apply to them in context of arbitration.
• Integrity: AI usage by parties would not violate the sanctity and integrity of the arbitration proceedings to falsify or compromise the authenticity of evidence.¹⁵

CONCLUSION

AI has significant potential to transform dispute resolution. Although data reliability limits the accuracy of predictive analysis, it can help parties and counsel evaluate risks and arguments prior to arbitration. With online dispute resolution platforms available beyond arbitration, dispute containment and resolution are possible, and assistive technologies can be used to facilitate contract review, transcription, and translation, among other procedures.

It is unlikely that artificial intelligence will replace human arbitrators, despite its advantages. Rather, it is a supportive tool aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness, although there are some technical challenges and limitations.

Footnotes

1. The White Case. (2025, June 02). Arbitration and AI.

2. Opus 2. (2024, August 27). SIAC launches online case management platform, powered by Opus 2.

3. System and Organization Controls 2 Type 2 report by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).

4. American Arbitration Association. (2024, December 3). Introducing ClauseBuilder AI (Beta) and API Innovations: Streamlining Arbitration and Mediation Clause-drafting with Generative AI.

5. 2016 EWHC 256.

6. Ministry of Law and Justice. (2023, August 10). Action Plan For Simple, Accessible, Affordable And Speedy Justice.

7. 3:25-cv-00833-RBM-DDL.

8. American Arbitration Association. (2024, November 18). Driving Innovation in ADR: How the AAA is Revolutionizing Dispute Resolution with AI.

9. American Arbitration Association. (2024, December 3). Introducing ClauseBuilder AI (Beta) and API Innovations: Streamlining Arbitration and Mediation Clause-drafting with Generative AI.

10. Thomson Reuters. (2025, August 5). Thomson Reuters Launches CoCounsel Legal: Transforming Legal Work with Agentic AI and Deep Research.

11. Opus 2. (2024, August 27). SIAC launches online case management platform, powered by Opus 2.

12. Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2025, September 11). Smart AI Tools will Transform How Singapore Firms Handle Legal Research and Company Paperwork.

13. Singapore Courts. (2025, September 10). Media Release: New Generative AI-powered Case Summarisation Tool to Help Small Claims Tribunals Users.

14. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. (2025, March). Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration.

15. Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (2024, April). Guidelines On The Use Of Artificial Intelligence In Arbitration.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.