Summary:
L’Institut agréé des arbitres a publié en 2025 le Guide Ciarb sur l’IA pour fournir des conseils sur l’utilisation de l’IA dans l’arbitrage. Cette initiative vise à équilibrer les avantages de l’IA avec la nécessité d’atténuer les risques pour l’intégrité du processus, les droits proceduraux et l’exécutabilité des règlements. Les sections clés incluent les avantages et les risques de l’IA, des recommandations générales, les pouvoirs des arbitres, et des modèles d’accords et d’ordonnances procédurales sur l’utilisation de l’IA. De futures mises à jour pourraient être apportées au guide en réponse aux avancées technologiques.
Original Link:
Generated Article:
The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) recently released its landmark guidance, the Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025), which reflects the increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into the legal and dispute resolution sectors. With the advancement of AI and its growing adoption in arbitration, this document provides concrete recommendations for navigating both the opportunities and challenges posed by AI systems. In doing so, the guideline aims to balance the efficiencies offered by AI with the imperative of safeguarding the integrity of arbitral proceedings.
From a legal standpoint, the Ciarb AI Guideline operates within existing regulatory frameworks, including jurisdiction-specific arbitration laws, such as the English Arbitration Act 1996 or the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which emphasize principles like procedural fairness and enforceability of arbitral awards. Crucially, the guideline clarifies that its provisions do not substitute or override applicable legal rules or institutional standards but rather complement them by addressing emerging issues specific to AI use. For example, AI tools that assist in evidence analysis or predictive case analytics could streamline proceedings but need oversight to ensure compliance with confidentiality and due process rights.
Ethically, the use of AI in arbitration presents unique dilemmas. Key among them is the risk of algorithmic bias, which could inadvertently disadvantage one party in violation of equitable treatment principles. This is particularly pertinent where AI tools make probabilistic determinations, as these algorithms often rely on data patterns that may reflect historical inequalities. By including guidance on mitigating these risks, the Ciarb AI Guideline promotes an ethically informed adoption of AI, encouraging arbitrators and parties to critically assess the reliability and transparency of any AI technology used in proceedings. Importantly, this aligns with global principles like the EU’s draft AI Act (expected to be enacted around 2025), which emphasizes accountability and risk management in AI deployment.
The implications for the arbitration industry are significant. By incorporating AI tools more fully, arbitration could become faster, less costly, and more accessible. For instance, generative AI can draft preliminary versions of procedural orders or enhance document review efficiency. However, the guidelines also anticipate situations where arbitrators may need to exercise oversight, such as determining whether reliance on an AI tool by one party constitutes an unfair advantage. Parts III and IV of the guideline explicitly define arbitrators’ responsibilities, underscoring their authority to control AI use while upholding the procedural integrity of the arbitration.
Concrete tools included in the guideline, such as Appendix A’s template agreement on AI use and Appendix B’s procedural order template, further equip practitioners with practical mechanisms to address the complexities of AI-driven arbitration. For example, parties may use these templates to require AI transparency, obligating disclosure of any AI-assisted decision-making processes involved in case preparation or advocacy.
Recognizing the rapid pace of technological development, the Ciarb AI Guideline embraces a dynamic approach, acknowledging that periodic revisions may be necessary. This mirrors broader trends in tech regulation, as seen in other areas like GDPR adaptations for emerging privacy challenges or the evolving ISO standards for AI risks. Overall, the guideline represents a proactive step toward ensuring arbitration evolves responsibly alongside technology, maintaining its core values of fairness, impartiality, and effectiveness while leveraging AI’s transformative potential.