ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION: A FAST-EMERGING DISRUPTIVE TOOL?

INTRODUCTION

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming multiple sectors, and international arbitration is no exception. From automating document review to predicting outcomes, AI is fast becoming a disruptive tool in the dispute resolution ecosystem. But while its benefits are evident, there remain legal, ethical, and procedural concerns that demand attention.

A key driver behind the adoption of AI in arbitration is efficiency. According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey, over 90% of arbitration practitioners anticipate using AI for legal research, document review, and case management within the next five years[1]. Tasks that once consumed hours of manual effort such as organizing complex evidence, drafting procedural orders, and analyzing case law are now being streamlined with AI-powered tools and platforms. Presently, not many scholarships and resources exist in this space as it is still an emerging trend that is yet to be fully embraced by parties, arbitral tribunals, arbitration practitioners and arbitration institutes or centres.

These technologies promise substantial time and cost savings, reducing the burden on tribunals, parties, and arbitral institutions. AI is also being explored for predictive analytics, allowing parties to forecast possible outcomes based on past arbitral awards and judicial decisions.

This article looks at the guidelines, benefits and dangers of the use of Artificial intelligence in arbitral proceedings.

EMERGING GUIDELINES ON USE OF AI

Several Arbitral institutes have begun addressing the emergence of Artificial Intelligence and the best way to integrate them into the arbitral process without overriding human cognitive and intuitive influence as well as applicable institutional rules and laws in the arbitral process for the purpose of upholding the accuracy and integrity of the process. Some of the guidelines issued towards addressing the AI challenges shall be discussed hereunder.

a.   The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) Guidelines 2025: This recommends that parties should agree on whether AI tools may be used. The aim of the CIARB guidelines 2025, as provided, is to complement and not override applicable laws or institutional rules. If not stipulated in the arbitration agreement, the guideline provides that the tribunal should decide, ensuring human arbitrators retain ultimate decision-making authority.[2] It goes further to provide that subject to any limitation or prohibition flowing from applicable laws, regulations or policies, institutional rules, or the arbitration agreement, the parties may by their agreement exercise their autonomy to agree whether and how AI may be used by parties in the arbitration. The parties may also propose specific AI Tools that may or may not be utilized or agree on any limits thereof. This is to help parties, counsel, and tribunals responsibly harness AI’s advantages while safeguarding procedural fairness, integrity, and award enforceability.

2. The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) is a non-profit organization that promotes use of ADR in resolving technology disputes, vets technology neutrals, and annually publishes its Tech List of the World’s Leading Technology Neutrals. In 2024, SVAMC issued the Guidelines on the use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration which   emphasizes transparency, ethical use, and disclosure obligations when AI tools are employed in proceedings. It is a well know rule that a lawyer has a duty of competence in representing a client.[3] The duty implies that a lawyer using AI software must understand and be competent with its use. If used as an organizational tool, the lawyer must be operationally competent with the software.[4] But what about querying an AI system as to a legal question, i.e., the application of the facts to law, or asking it to write a legal argument? The real question is; whose competence is involved? Is it the lawyer’s or the AI software’s? Ethically, it must be the lawyer exercising judgment and not simply relying on the AI software’s analysis.
3. Guidelines from bodies such as Global Arbitration News urge practitioners to safeguard confidentiality, disclose AI’s role in decision-making, and ensure arbitrators remain personally responsible for all findings.

These efforts reflect a growing consensus that AI can enhance arbitration but must operate under clear ethical and procedural safeguards for the benefit of all persons involved.

BENEFITS OF AI IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

Artificial Intelligence brings transformative advantages to international arbitration by streamlining complex processes. AI-powered tools can quickly analyze and review large volumes of documents, reducing the time and cost traditionally associated with arbitration proceedings. They enhance legal research efficiency, automate administrative tasks, and assist in case management. This is to enable arbitrators and counsel to focus on substantive issues rather than routine processes.

Predictive analytics powered by AI can also help parties assess potential case outcomes based on previous arbitral awards and judicial decisions, allowing for better-informed strategies and negotiations.

AI has the potential of streamlining the process of collecting evidence. In addition, it aids in the translation of documents used in the proceedings as well as statements made such as witness examinations and transcription of hearings. Such tools harmonize the interpretation of statements where several languages are used seeing that it is arbitration on the international scale involving different nationalities and regions.

Beyond the legal research and data analysis, AI provides possible case outcomes and predictions on the likely response to certain strategies and arguments.

CHALLENGES AND RISKS OF AI IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

Despite these benefits, the integration of AI into international arbitration presents significant challenges and risks. Concerns over data privacy, cybersecurity, and the protection of confidential information are heightened when sensitive arbitration data is processed by AI systems.

Algorithmic bias and the lack of transparency in AI decision-making otherwise known as the “black box” problem, raise serious questions about fairness, impartiality, competence and due process. Additionally, there is currently no comprehensive or binding international legal or ethical framework governing the use of AI in arbitration, leaving uncertainties regarding accountability and liability if AI tools influence arbitral decisions or procedural steps. The existing guidelines are merely suggestive and cannot necessarily be enforced if and when the need arises. These gaps highlight the need for caution, oversight, and the development of robust regulations before AI can be fully embraced in the field.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND DATA SECURITY CONCERNS

Arbitration often involves sensitive commercial information, trade secrets, and proprietary data. The integration of AI tools, particularly those hosted on third-party servers, heightens the risk of data leaks and unauthorized access. AI tools rely on third-party platforms, therefore raising concerns. Increased reliance on digital systems and AI exposes the proceedings to phishing, hacking and other possible cyber threats.   

Notably, there have been instances where confidential materials uploaded to AI systems later resurfaced publicly, a risk incompatible with the private nature of arbitration. Seeing that a lawyer’s ethical obligation of confidentiality is to protect a client’s privileged information[5], institutions now advise redacting sensitive information and using secure, enterprise-level AI platforms rather than public tools.

For example, public AI platforms may inadvertently store or reuse confidential data, creating significant privacy and data protection concerns. The problem intensifies where sensitive commercial disputes are involved, as arbitration is traditionally prized for its confidentiality as earlier highlighted.

THE ACCURACY AND FAIRNESS DILEMMA

Furthermore, concerns over accuracy and fairness persist. Many practitioners remain cautious about allowing AI to draft legal reasoning or influence arbitral awards. The risks of algorithmic bias and overreliance on AI systems raise questions about due process and the integrity of arbitral proceedings.

WILL AI REPLACE HUMAN ARBITRATORS?

While AI can assist with research, drafting, and procedural tasks, arbitrators retain the core responsibility of evaluating evidence and rendering decisions.

Courts in England and Wales, for instance, have already issued guidance clarifying that judicial reasoning cannot be delegated to AI systems. The Framework Convention on AI similarly provides principles that insist on reliability, transparency and oversight as well as accountability and responsibility. The convention provides also for procedural rights and safeguards such as provision of notice that one is interacting with an artificial intelligence system and not with a human being and the right to challenge AI–influenced outcomes. This ensures that human oversight remains central.

NIGERIA AND THE AI REGULATORY GAP

In jurisdictions like Nigeria, the conversation around AI in arbitration is only beginning. Current laws do not address AI use in legal proceedings, creating uncertainty for legal representatives, arbitral tribunal and institutions. Party autonomy under arbitration agreements remains the primary regulatory tool, supplemented by international institutional guidelines. However, as AI adoption grows, local legislations and professional rules will need to evolve to address emerging risks and gaps.

THE ROAD AHEAD

AI is poised to become an indispensable tool in international arbitration, driving greater speed, efficiency, and analytical precision in some cases in case management, evidence review, and decision support. However, its integration must be approached with caution to preserve the legitimacy and credibility of arbitration proceedings.

To achieve this balance, several measures are essential. Clear ethical guidelines must govern the use of AI in handling evidence, drafting procedural documents, and assisting in decision-making, ensuring fairness and impartiality remain paramount across all boards.

Also, robust cybersecurity protocols and strict confidentiality safeguards should be implemented to protect sensitive arbitration materials from misuse or unauthorized access. In compliance with the CIARB Guidelines, parties must be informed when AI tools are deployed, the extent of their use, and the safeguards in place to prevent bias or over-reliance on algorithmic outputs. Consequently, Arbitration institutions and legislators should update procedural rules and regulations to reflect emerging technological realities, including enforceability considerations and ethical oversight.

Ultimately, AI should augment rather than replace human judgment in arbitration. The future lies in leveraging technological innovation while upholding the due process rights, impartiality, and procedural fairness that form the bedrock of international arbitration.

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The views expressed herein are those of the author and are not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Readers are advised to seek appropriate legal counsel before taking or refraining from taking any action based on the information contained in this article.