BELGIUM Trends and Developments Contributed by: Nathalie Colin and Florence Frühling, Freshfields LLP
AI tools in hearings AI tools such as live transcription, translation or auto - mated argument-mapping can improve efficiency dur - ing hearings, but also carry risks. These tools may lack contextual understanding, leading to inaccuracies or misinterpretations. In light of these challenges, the use of AI in interna - tional arbitration must be carefully managed to ensure that efficiency gains do not come at the expense of fairness, confidentiality or human oversight. Institutional responses and the Belgian approach As AI technologies continue to impact international arbitration, arbitral institutions around the world are responding by implementing practical measures and developing soft law instruments (ie, non-bind - ing guidelines). Institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Arbitra - tion Association (AAA) or the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) have recently issued guidance or started integrating AI tools into their operations to address the challenges outlined above. Meanwhile, the EU’s AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on AI), which entered into force in August 2024, marks a major milestone in regulating AI across the EU. It introduces stricter requirements for transparency, human oversight and data governance, and is expected to drive further institutional engagement with AI in international arbi - tration. Given Belgium’s strategic position in European arbi - tration, as a multilingual jurisdiction with a strong legal tradition and close ties to EU policymaking, Belgian institutions might be expected to lead in this area. Yet, most (EU-based) arbitration bodies, including the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI), have so far only issued general statements rather than adopted formal rules or ethical frameworks on the use of AI in international arbitration. AI is often compared to arbitral secretaries, whose roles are strictly regulated to prevent undue influence. As reflected in the CEPANI and the Young ICCA guide - lines on arbitral secretaries, any support function must
not undermine the arbitral tribunal’s decision-making authority, and must therefore be exercised with trans - parency and the parties’ consent. Given the specific risks associated with AI (such as bias, lack of explain - ability, and data vulnerability), similar safeguards are increasingly seen as necessary to preserve the integ - rity and credibility of the arbitral process. While Belgian institutions have yet to formalise AI- specific rules, Belgian arbitrators and counsels are actively experimenting with and applying AI tools in practice. Importantly, AI is not replacing core legal judgement but is used to reduce procedural burdens that traditionally increase the costs and length of the proceedings. Belgian practitioners adopt a prudent approach to the use of AI tools, ensuring that their deployment aligns with professional standards while carefully upholding their confidentiality obligations. Belgian law imposes strict professional secrecy obligations on legal prac - titioners, most notably under Article 458 of the Bel - gian Criminal Code and reinforced by Bar association rules, prohibiting the disclosure of any client-related information. Article 871bis BJC further restricts the disclosure of materials identified as trade secrets. In arbitration, while confidentiality rules depend on the chosen procedural framework, Article 26 of the CEPANI Rules (most commonly applied) impose broad confidentiality obligations, covering all docu - ments and awards unless already public. Disclosure is permitted only when legally required or necessary to protect rights or enforce awards. These robust confidentiality standards pose clear challenges to the use of cloud-based AI tools, espe - cially those relying on external data processing. To mitigate the risk of breaching professional secrecy or confidentiality, Belgian practitioners generally favour AI solutions that operate within secure, closed envi - ronments and are subject to strict contractual safe - guards. In this context, the liability of arbitrators using AI tools must also be considered. Under Belgian law, unlike judges, arbitrators do not benefit from immunity for their judicial functions under Article 1140 BJC. There - fore, arbitrators may be held liable for breaches of
64 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook