Modern judicial systems rely on principles of stability, procedural transparency, and equality before the law. Although these principles are designed to ensure substantive justice, they also tend to implement rigid processes that hinder adaptability to a changing world. In an era when the pace of technological development necessitates weekly adjustments, judicial systems and their public institutions find themselves lagging behind. Delays, cumbersome proceedings, and procedural abuses stem not only from negligence but also from a constellation of inherent human factors.
In contrast, arbitration, particularly international arbitration, is founded on principles of flexibility and consent, providing parties the freedom to customize rules and thereby enabling them to swiftly implement new technological tools. This capability, coupled with the growing trend toward digitization of proceedings, makes arbitration a suitable platform and perhaps even the ideal forum for testing the integration of artificial intelligence as an organic component of fair and efficient proceedings adapted to the digital age.
Artificial Intelligence as a Substitute for Human Judgment?
Artificial intelligence has evolved far beyond textual modeling and information searches. Natural language processing (NLP), machine learning, and statistical analysis systems are evolving toward capabilities of mimicking jurists’ thinking and analytical processes, though they have not yet matured enough to replace human judgment. For example, they can now help lawyers analyze large volumes of evidence, detect patterns, or propose alternative scenarios. However, these technological tools still raise material questions regarding transparency, liability, and bias that could lead to erroneous outcomes in proceedings.
When national judicial systems act to validate various AI technologies, they must initiate structural changes, including enacting primary legislation, ensuring coordination between branches of government, and providing continuous institutional training. In contrast, international arbitration can test AI technologies without having to enact legislation, since this forum merely requires consent and a flexible set of rules governing the use of these technologies. The parties can jointly determine how to integrate AI into proceedings in real time: which processes will and will not utilize AI as a tool and which oversight mechanisms they will implement, depending on their specific needs.
International arbitration can essentially serve as a kind of normative laboratory: a flexible judicial forum that experiments with new rules and practices before applying them on a larger scale. We can already see AI being used in critical stages: from streamlining the document discovery process and performing simulations of witness interrogations, to conducting real-time analyses of parties’ negotiating patterns. Multimodal models, which combine text, voice, video, and structured data, can also be expected to expand the boundaries of what is possible in judicial proceedings.
AI Balancing the Scales of Power – Advantage or Threat to Equality?
AI technologies not only improve the efficiency of judicial proceedings in quantitative terms but also have the power to affect the quality of judicial outcomes and procedural justice. AI-based tools can help achieve a balance of power between parties by eliminating the advantage afforded to resource-intensive litigants, enabling less privileged litigants to prepare their cases professionally, efficiently, and economically, as well as helping to detect frivolous lawsuits and tactical delays. Nevertheless, precisely because of this potential, AI technologies must be used with appropriate caution to avoid focusing on “improving efficiency” while losing sight of potential pitfalls, such as biased models that could actually create inequality and miscarriages of justice.
What can we expect? Imagine a plausible future scenario that is perhaps more probable than it seems. The year is 2032. An international arbitration is underway between a Singapore-based computer chip manufacturer and a German technology company, fully supported by an integrative AI system, after the parties agreed in advance on how the system will be used.
At the beginning of the proceeding, an autonomous interview module conducts interactive conversations with representatives of each party, detects internal contradictions, and summarizes the principal allegations and arguments. The data are stored in an encrypted system, and the arbitrators receive analytical extracts that also reference specific documents. During the document discovery stage, an AI engine scans and categorizes thousands of files, identifies anomalies, and establishes circumstantial and causal connections. In preparation for the hearing, a customized AI simulator prepares witnesses for cross-examination. During the hearing, the AI system performs real-time transcriptions and translations and detects contradictions. Finally, the system generates a summary report of its evidence analyses, argument comparisons, and probability evaluations, without adjudicating. For the time being, humans still retain substantive jurisdiction. Naturally, AI systems will initially need to demonstrate their accuracy compared to human system performance to prove their validity and reliability.
The Near Future: Will AGI Replace Humans?