English law assumes human arbitrators, but AI decision-makers may have a role to play, writes Daniel Kessler
- Some litigants might accept the risk of an inaccurate decision, given the speed and cost benefits of AI arbitration.
- The Arbitration Act 1996 would likely not recognise a decision made by an AI arbitrator, due to the drafting of the Act.
- English law might, however, recognise a foreign-law AI award, although recognition could be resisted on public policy grounds.
- Parties could also agree to a dispute resolution clause which uses AI determination, even if not enforceable as an ‘arbitration’.
Litigants may wish to resolve their disputes through artificial intelligence (AI). Documents could be uploaded to a platform like ChatGPT and the software invited to give a binding determination.
Many readers will doubt this process can yield a reliable result at present, and question whether AI technology will ever improve in the foreseeable future. In its favour, however, AI arbitration would be materially faster and cheaper than resolving a dispute through litigation in the civil courts. Litigants might
