Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: The Guidelines That Are Transforming Dispute Resolution

How should arbitrators, lawyers, and parties use artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings?

At a time when artificial intelligence is transforming virtually every area of ​​legal practice, international arbitration is no exception. Since 2024, several of the world's leading arbitral institutions have published a series of guides and guidelines that seek to establish a framework of best practices for the responsible, ethical, and efficient use of AI tools in arbitration proceedings. This article provides an overview of these guides, their content, and their relevance for legal professionals in Latin America and the Iberian Peninsula.

The Starting Point: SVAMC (April 2024)

The Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC) marked one of the first milestones by publishing, on April 30, 2024, the Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in ArbitrationThese guidelines, developed by a Task Force made up of experts from different jurisdictions, constitute one of the first international standards on the subject.

The SVAMC Guidelines adopt a principles-based approach and are organized into three chapters: one with general guidelines applicable to all participants in the arbitration process, a second specifically for parties and their representatives, and a third with particular considerations for arbitrators. Among their most relevant provisions, they prohibit the delegation of decision-making authority to AI tools, require transparency in the disclosure of the use of these technologies, and emphasize the arbitrator's responsibility to independently and critically evaluate information derived from AI. The Guidelines also include a model clause for inclusion in procedural orders.

The SCC Guide: Flexibility and Confidentiality (October 2024)

In October 2024, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) published its Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cases Administered Under the SCC RulesThe SCC opted for a short document aimed primarily at arbitration tribunals.

The SCC Guide focuses on four pillars: confidentiality, quality, integrity, and non-delegation of decision-making authority. Regarding confidentiality, it warns that the use of certain AI tools can have unforeseen consequences for the confidentiality of the arbitration, and therefore urges participants to learn how the data entered into these tools is used and disseminated. With respect to integrity, it encourages arbitral tribunals to disclose any use of AI in the investigation and interpretation of facts and law.

AAA-ICDR: From the Guide for Arbitrators to the “AI Arbitrator” (March and November 2025)

The American Arbitration Association and its International Center for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) made two significant contributions in 2025. In March of that year, it published its Guidance on Arbitrators' Use of AI Tools, a document aimed at helping arbitrators adopt AI technology while respecting their professional obligations under the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes.

This guide establishes guidelines around five key areas: (i) the accuracy and reliability of AI-generated information, (ii) maintaining fairness and due process, (iii) independence in decision-making, (iv) transparency with the parties, and (v) safeguarding confidential information. It emphasizes the obligation of arbitrators to verify AI results against primary sources and to disclose the use of generative AI tools when it materially impacts the process or reasoning behind their decisions.

In November 2025, the AAA-ICDR took a further step by launching the “AI Arbitrator,” deploying an AI tool to generate draft arbitration awards. This system, trained on more than 1,500 real awards, operates under a voluntary participation scheme (Opt-in). The process also operates with a “human in the loop” model (human-in-the-loop): the parties upload their materials, the AI ​​system generates summaries that the parties validate, and subsequently produces a draft award that is reviewed, refined and issued by a human arbitrator.

CIArb: The Most Complete Guide (March 2025)

In March 2025, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) published its Guideline on the Use of AI in ArbitrationUpdated in September 2025, this guide is structured in four parts: benefits and risks of using AI in arbitration; general recommendations; powers of arbitrators to give instructions on the use of AI by the parties; and the use of AI by the arbitrators themselves.

What distinguishes the CIArb Guide is its practical scope: it includes a model agreement on the use of AI in arbitration and two model procedural orders that tribunals can adapt to the circumstances of each case. The guide stipulates that participants must not delegate decision-making responsibilities to AI and must assume authorship and responsibility for the outcomes produced with the assistance of these tools. It also provides for penalties for non-compliance with disclosure obligations.

VIAC: Note for the Dialogue between Parties (April 2025)

The Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) published its Note on the Use of AI in Arbitration ProceedingsThe VIAC Note encourages arbitrators to use AI tools responsibly, in accordance with ethical standards and professional duties, while maintaining confidentiality and procedural fairness. Its aim is to provide arbitrators with a comprehensive framework for managing the use of AI in the proceedings as a whole, including regulating its application by parties, lawyers, and other participants, for example, in relation to the production of evidence.

ICC: Principles-Based Guidance (March 2026)

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) established a Task Force on AI in International Dispute Resolution with the aim of “to provide guidance and thought leadership on balancing the opportunities presented by AI and the need to protect the fundamental principles underlying international dispute resolution against the risks associated with its use”.  

Conclusion

The progressive development of international standards reveals a clear trend: arbitral institutions are actively responding to the challenge of integrating AI into their procedures, seeking a balance between efficiency and procedural safeguards.

Companies and lawyers who understand these guidelines, stay abreast of the publication of new standards, and prepare to apply them in arbitration proceedings will be better positioned to navigate the technological transformation of international arbitration, protecting both procedural efficiency and the integrity of awards.