Introduction
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in international commercial arbitration offers significant advantages, such as increased efficiency and reduced costs, but also presents notable risks, including potential biases and confidentiality concerns. This necessitates careful consideration by parties and arbitrators to ensure that AI’s benefits are maximized while its risks are mitigated.
Description
The deployment of AI in international commercial arbitration presents both significant benefits and notable risks that must be carefully considered by parties and arbitrators. The growing acceptance and reliance on AI within the arbitration community is driven by key factors such as time savings, cost reduction [7], and the minimization of human error. AI systems [1] [4], particularly generative AI like large language models [4], enhance efficiency [1] [2] [3] [4], accuracy [2] [4] [7], and fairness by assisting in various tasks such as selecting arbitrators [4], conducting legal research [2] [4], drafting submissions [4] [6], translating documents [2] [4], managing cases [4], and estimating costs [4]. These advancements can improve the processing of information, streamline evidence collection [2], and aid in document drafting. However, arbitrators are cautioned against cognitive inertia [1], which may lead to an over-reliance on AI outputs without critical evaluation [1]. It is essential that they maintain independent judgment and accountability, ensuring that their decisions and the reasoning behind them are not unduly influenced by AI-generated suggestions.
While there is general approval for AI’s use in administrative and procedural tasks [7], there is strong resistance to its application in areas requiring discretion and judgment [7]. The potential for biases in algorithms and data selection can challenge the impartiality of arbitrators. Issues of algorithmic bias become particularly significant when AI tools are employed, as the selection of datasets and the configuration of algorithms can affect the objectivity of the information provided [3]. Additional risks include affirmational authority bias [1], where arbitrators may uncritically accept AI outputs [1], potentially distorting their decision-making [1]. The level of risk to impartiality and independence varies based on the application of AI [1], with lower risks associated with tasks like document searches compared to AI involvement in deciding disputed issues [1].
Confidentiality remains a significant concern when utilizing third-party AI tools [6], as inadequate data security can compromise sensitive information [6]. Many users express a lack of familiarity with AI [7], which hinders its adoption [7], emphasizing the need for training and guidelines as the technology evolves [7]. Recent incidents have highlighted the risks associated with AI-generated documents [4], where inaccuracies and misrepresentations of the law have occurred [4]. Participants must evaluate the privacy protections offered by these tools and consider confidentiality agreements to mitigate risks [6]. The evolving landscape necessitates a new breed of legal professionals adept at navigating technological advancements while safeguarding confidentiality [4]. Additionally, the environmental impact of AI tools [1] [3], which often require substantial energy resources [1], should be taken into account. With the rise of electronic submissions [6], cybersecurity becomes increasingly important, necessitating vigilance against potential threats [6]. Historical cyberattacks on arbitration institutions underscore the urgency of implementing comprehensive cybersecurity protocols [4].
The integration of AI also raises fundamental arbitration principles [2], including due process issues that may arise from unequal access to technology and the influence of AI on decision-making [6]. The “black box” nature of AI tools requires arbitrators to approach their outputs with caution, maintaining a critical perspective and independently verifying any AI-generated information. To address these challenges [2], it is essential for arbitrators and parties to understand the technology [2], its functions [2], and the data involved in AI tools [2], weighing the associated benefits against the risks [2].
Disclosure of AI tool usage in arbitration is governed by guidelines emphasizing transparency [5], fairness [4] [5] [7], and procedural integrity [5]. Arbitrators have the authority to impose continuous disclosure obligations on parties [5], including experts and witnesses [5], particularly when AI use impacts evidence or arbitration outcomes [5]. This proactive approach to disclosure aims to establish a high standard for ethical AI use in arbitration, fostering confidence in the integrity of the process and the validity of awards [5]. However, practical challenges remain regarding the timing and form of disclosure [5], as well as the specific information that should accompany disclosures.
Importantly [1], arbitrators are prohibited from delegating their decision-making authority to AI [1]. While AI can support the arbitration process [6], it should not replace the decision-making role of arbitrators [6], who must retain full responsibility for the outcomes of their awards. Despite these guidelines [2], there is a concern about whether arbitrators are adequately equipped to evaluate AI tools [2], given the rapid development of such technologies [2]. Many may lack the necessary skills and experience to assess the quality [2], security [2] [4] [6] [7], and potential biases of AI [2], complicating their ability to make informed rulings on AI usage in arbitration [2]. A multilayered strategy [4], incorporating robust confidentiality clauses and procedural orders [4], is essential to mitigate risks associated with AI in arbitration [4]. In summary, while AI presents substantial benefits for international arbitration [4], addressing confidentiality risks is imperative [4]. Proactive measures [4], including detailed confidentiality provisions and procedural safeguards [4], are necessary to protect sensitive information in the context of AI utilization [4].
Conclusion
The integration of AI in international commercial arbitration has profound implications for the field. While it offers substantial benefits in terms of efficiency and cost-effectiveness, it also poses significant challenges, particularly concerning impartiality, confidentiality [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], and the need for arbitrators to maintain independent judgment [1]. As AI technology continues to evolve, it is crucial for the arbitration community to develop comprehensive guidelines and training programs to ensure that AI is used ethically and effectively, safeguarding the integrity of the arbitration process.
References
[1] https://completeaitraining.com/news/ai-in-arbitration-striking-the-balance-between-efficiency/
[2] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/using-ai-in-international-arbitration-4848641/
[3] https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/arbitrators-who-use-ai-warned-against-cognitive-inertia
[4] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44163-025-00316-7
[5] https://dailyjus.com/news/2025/06/navigating-ai-disclosure-in-arbitration-practical-steps-for-transparency
[6] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dce562c7-b020-4e88-823f-dec2534033fe
[7] https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/2025-international-arbitration-survey-arbitration-and-ai
