The Use of Artificial Intelligence by Arbitrators and Duty to Disclose
Introduction
Arbitrators increasingly use AI tools for legal research, drafting assistance, summarizing records and citation-checking. The pressing question is no longer whether this is permissible, but how far it may go before it compromises the arbitrator’s personal mandate, and whether the arbitrator must disclose it to the parties. Over the past two years, several arbitral institutions have issued soft-law guidance on this question, and a Canadian court has now annulled an award for exactly the failure these guidelines warn against. This newsletter article examines that landscape.
Institutional Approaches
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb)
CIArb’s Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration dated March 2025 and updated on September 2025[1] states, in Part IV, that arbitrators must not transfer decision-making powers to AI, must independently verify AI-sourced information, and remain personally responsible for every aspect of an award. Unless the parties agree otherwise, arbitrators should consult the parties before using an AI tool and should abandon it if the parties object; co-arbitrators must also consult each other. Disclosure is tied to impact on the evidence or outcome, and the annexed template Procedural Order imposes mandatory disclosure, with an opportunity for parties to comment, for any “High-Risk AI Use”.
Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC)
SVAMC’s Guidelines dated 30 April 2024[2] treat disclosure as a case-by-case matter rather than a general obligation as provided under Guideline 3, but require it, together with the tool’s name, version and the complete prompt and output, where appropriate. For arbitrators specifically, Guideline 6 prohibits delegating any part of the personal mandate, particularly decision-making, and Guideline 7 requires disclosure before an arbitrator relies on AI-generated information outside the record.
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC)
The SCC’s non-binding Guide dated 16 October 2024[3] encourages, rather than mandates, disclosure of AI used in researching, interpreting or applying the law to facts, on the basis that transparency safeguards the parties’ right to be heard. It states that AI tools may support arbitral decision-making, but tribunals cannot delegate the decision, or the reasoning leading to it, to anyone or anything.
American Arbitration Association (AAA-ICDR)
The AAA-ICDR’s Guidance dated March 2025[4] invokes Canon V of its Code of Ethics to require arbitrators to retain complete control over decision-making and requires disclosure of generative AI use only where it materially impacts the process or the reasoning underlying the decision. Outputs must be cross-referenced against primary sources, and confidential case information must not be entered into tools lacking data protection guarantees.
Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) and International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
VIAC’s non-binding Note dated April 2025[5] does not mandate disclosure; it leaves the question to discussion between arbitrators and parties at the case management conference. The ICC has issued no guideline but has established a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution to provide guidance on using AI while safeguarding the fundamental principles of international dispute resolution[6]. It’s also been stated that Article 46 of the 2026 ICC Rules, which requires the Court and tribunal to make every effort to ensure an enforceable award, already governs undisclosed and unverified AI use without any rule amendment being necessary[7].
The Quebec Decision: ARIHQ v. Santé Québec
On 22 April 2026, the Quebec Superior Court (2026 QCCS 1360, Sheehan J.)[8] set aside an arbitral award after the applicants discovered that authorities cited in support of the arbitrator’s central reasoning were hallucinated. The Court found these fabricated references lay at the very heart of the arbitrator’s reasoning and were the only authority relied upon.
The Court held that parties who select a specific arbitrator are entitled to expect that arbitrator, not an algorithm, to render the decision; that written reasons discipline the decision-making process; and that sharing case details with an external AI tool can itself breach the duty to preserve the secrecy of deliberations. The Court clarified that arbitrators may still consult researchers, clerks, or translation and citation aids, provided responsibility for drafting remains with the decision-maker.
The Court identified five AI-specific risks for adjudicative decision-makers: hallucinated references, the absence of human discretion, perpetuation of training-data bias, risks to deliberative confidentiality, and erosion of public confidence; and held, citing the Canadian Judicial Council’s 2024 Guidelines, that no decision-maker, including an arbitrator, may delegate decision-making authority to AI. The Court did not lay down an absolute rule: the analysis is contextual, weighing the nature and seriousness of the breach and its actual impact on the award.
Conclusion
One of the proposals in practice is to have a standard clause for Procedural Order No. 1 in which the tribunal identifies its contemplated AI uses, confirms that decision-making will never be delegated to AI, and sets out safeguards for any permitted ancillary use, on the basis that such a clause manages expectations, protects tribunals against later delegation allegations, and promotes transparency over a practice that is, in any event, already occurring. A function-based test is also emerging: purely mechanical uses, such as retrieval or citation-verification, require no disclosure; generative-assistive uses, such as drafting summaries for the tribunal’s independent evaluation, call for disclosure and verification; and decisional uses, such as weighing evidence or generating the reasoning itself, are absolutely non-delegable.
Common ground emerges across CIArb, SVAMC, SCC and AAA-ICDR instruments: an arbitrator’s decision-making function cannot be delegated to AI, AI-sourced information must be independently verified, and the arbitrator remains personally responsible for the award. The instruments diverge on disclosure, ranging from CIArb’s impact-based and High-Risk-Use obligations, through SVAMC’s and the AAA-ICDR’s materiality thresholds, to the SCC’s and VIAC’s purely encouraged or discretionary approaches. The ARIHQ decision supplies the cautionary counterpoint: it is the first instance of an award being annulled because AI use, through pervasive fabricated citations, amounted in substance to a delegation of the decision-making function. Taken together, the guidelines and this first wave of case law point to a converging practical standard: arbitrators may use AI as a supportive tool, but must verify its output, preserve the confidentiality of deliberations, retain personal ownership of the reasoning and decision, and assess, case by case, whether the nature and materiality of that use calls for disclosure to the parties.
- Chartered Institute Of Arbitrators (CIArb), Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration, September 2025 (Updated Version), https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf
- Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC), Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, First Edition, 2024, https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf
- SCC Arbitration Institute (SCC), Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cases Administered under the SCC Rules, 2024, https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/scc_guide_to_the_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_cases_administered_under_the_scc_rules-1.pdf
- American Arbitration Association – International Centre For Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR), Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools, March 2025, https://jusmundi.com/en/document/pdf/rule/en-aaa-icdr-american-arbitration-association-international-centre-for-dispute-resolution-guidance-on-arbitrators-use-of-ai-tools-march-2025-aaa-icdr-guidance-on-arbitrators-use-of-ai-tools-march-2025-saturday-1st-march-2025
- Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC), VIAC Note on Artificial Intelligence, 2025, https://www.viac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/VIAC-Note-on-AI-1.pdf
- International Chamber Of Commerce (ICC), “ICC Dispute Resolution Services in 2025: A Year in Review”, 16.12.2025, https://iccwbo.org/news-publications/news/icc-dispute-resolution-services-in-2025-a-year-in-review/
- Appleton, Barry, “The New ICC Rules Are Not Silent About Their Own AI Silence: They Already Govern AI”, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 10.09.2026, https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/arbitration-blog/the-new-icc-rules-are-not-silent-about-their-own-ai-silence-they-already-govern-ai/
- Superior Court of Québec, Association des ressources intermédiaires d’hébergement du Québec (ARIHQ) c. Santé Québec – Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l’Île-de-Montréal, 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026), https://websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2026qccs1360.pdf
All rights of this article are reserved. This article may not be used, reproduced, copied, published, distributed, or otherwise disseminated without quotation or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm's written consent. Any content created without citing the resource or Erdem & Erdem Law Firm’s written consent is regularly tracked, and legal action will be taken in case of violation.
Other Contents
When we discuss reform in international arbitration, we often focus on individual rule changes: a new deadline, a broader expedited procedure, or an additional disclosure obligation. But the developments of 2026 suggest something more significant…
In its decision dated 29 April 2025 and numbered E. 2024/1700, K. 2025/1758 (the Decision), the 6th Civil Chamber of the Turkish Court of Cassation (the Court of Cassation) made significant findings concerning the setting aside of an arbitral award rendered…
Arbitration is a system that enables parties, within the framework of freedom of contract, to partially depart from state court proceedings and resolve their disputes through a private adjudicatory mechanism. Under Turkish law, the legal remedy available against arbitral…
On 29 January 2026, the International Chamber of Commerce’s (“ICC”) has published a report on expedited procedure provisions (“Report”). The Report is prepared by a Task Force established within the ICC’s Commission on Arbitration and ADR. The Report compiles…
Emergency arbitration addresses the need for interim protection before the arbitral tribunal is constituted in institutional arbitrations. Arbitral institutions establish short timeframes to ensure parties can obtain interim relief quickly. For example, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) requires that the emergency...
International arbitration remains the preferred mechanism for resolving complex cross-border disputes. Yet despite its advantages—neutrality, enforceability, flexibility—arbitration is frequently criticized for being too slow, too expensive, and too procedurally heavy. Often, parties proceed through hearings and...
For arbitral awards rendered in international commercial arbitration to produce legal effects in foreign jurisdictions, they must be subjected to proceedings for “recognition” and “enforcement.” This process is governed by the New York Convention as well as by the provisions of the Law on Private International Law...
Arbitrability, the determination of whether a specific subject matter can be resolved through arbitration, constitutes a fundamental aspect of arbitration within the scope of international commercial dispute resolution. This concept draws a delicate balance between party autonomy—a fundamental principle of arbitration...
The recognition, enforcement, and annulment of foreign court and arbitral awards in Türkiye are processes in which public policy emerges as one of the most critical criteria for review, both in theory and in practice. The Court of Cassation decisions determine the direction of case law regarding the scope and...
As is well known, the action for annulment of objection is a special type of lawsuit regulated under Article 67 of the Turkish Execution and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“EBL”). The primary objective of this action is to nullify a debtor’s objection to execution proceedings. Despite its procedural function of facilitating...
On 16 December 2024, the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) released its third batch of challenge decisions covering the period from 22 July 2017 to 31 December 2022. The LCIA has also issued a detailed commentary that identifies key legal themes and analytical trends, offering practitioners...
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its report on the dispute resolution statistics for 2023 (“Report”) , shedding light on the evolving landscape of international arbitration...
Syndicated loans undoubtedly hold a significant position among global financing models. In 2023 alone, 3,655 syndicated loans were provided to companies in the US, with their total value reaching USD 2.4 trillion...
Preliminary attachment refers to the temporary seizure of a debtor's assets to secure a creditor's claim. While it serves as a vital instrument for safeguarding the rights of creditors, it is subject to specific and stringent conditions under Turkish law to prevent any potential misuse...
One of the most important reasons for parties to choose arbitration is the opportunity to freely choose their arbitrators. This freedom granted to the parties also distinguishes arbitration from proceedings before state courts, where the parties are deprived of the power to determine the judges who will conduct the...
The 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ruled on October 12, 2022, that national courts have jurisdiction over objections to provisional measures in international arbitration disputes...
The declaration of intent to resolve disputes through arbitration is the fundamental constituent element of an arbitration agreement. To speak of a valid arbitration agreement, the parties' intention to arbitrate must emerge in a way that leaves no room for dispute...
In the wake of the evolving dynamics of commercial transactions, the Netherlands Arbitration Institute Foundation (NAI) announced new arbitration rules . 2024 NAI Arbitration Rules are in force as of 1 March 2024 and will be applicable on proceedings filed on or after this date...
With the global shift to online activities, domain names play a crucial role in identifying businesses. It is more common than ever for a domain name to be registered that is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark...
The ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR (“Commission”) published a new guide and report with the aim to increase awareness on alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) mechanisms to prevent disputes and strengthen the relationship between all stakeholders.The Guide on Effective Conflict Management...
Mergers and Acquisitions (“M&A”) are restructuring of companies or assets through various types of financial transactions, such as mergers, acquisitions, purchase of assets, or management acquisitions. This Newsletter article covers M&A disputes being solved before arbitral tribunals.
In the context of arbitration practice, the principle of revision au fond means that the courts can not examine the merits of a dispute when reviewing an arbitral award. This principle is most commonly encountered in set aside and enforcement proceedings. An arbitral award is evidence of the parties’ willingness...
Under Turkish law, parties may agree on the settlement of disputes that have arisen or may arise, regarding the rights that they can freely dispose of, by arbitration. However, disputes which are not subject to the will of parties, such as the disputes relating to in rem rights of immovables, bankruptcy law...
On 4 September 2020, a research project “Does a Right to a Physical Hearing Exist in International Arbitration?” was launched by an International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) taskforce. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many arbitration hearings were held online. Many institutional rules...
Dubai International Arbitration Center amended its Arbitration Rules on 25 February 2022. The 2022 Arbitration Rules were published on 2 March 2022 and came into effect on 21 March 2022. The Rules will be applied to arbitrations that are filed after 21 March 2022; unless parties agree otherwise...
In the aftermath of the Achmea decision, controversies on intra-EU arbitrations continue. Most recently, the Paris Court of Appeal has annulled two arbitral awards rendered against Poland. Meanwhile, the Higher Regional Court of Berlin has refused to declare that an Irish investor’s ICSID claim...
Under Turkish law, the legal remedy that can be applied against arbitral awards is an annulment action. Law on International Arbitration No. 4686 (“IAL”) finds its application area in arbitration proceedings where Turkey is the place of arbitration...
It is well known that following a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, problems arose related to arbitration of intra-EU disputes, and particularly arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty...
Arbitration in corporate law contains controversial elements in many respects, especially the issue of arbitrability. Even in legal systems where these disputes are considered to be arbitrable, uncertainties remain on whether an arbitration clause can be included in the articles of...
Arbitration has benifited from a great increase in the use of technology which has directly effected the conduct of proceedings. More particularly, with digitalization, the way that we conduct arbitration proceedings has been changed to reflect the current needs of parties, with an aim of increasing time...