INTRODUCTION Contributed by: Gary Born and Matteo Angelini, King & Spalding LLP
Technology and Generative AI Investment in technology and AI continues to boom as companies have invested heavily, especially in the use of generative AI. This is having obvious and profound effects on the arbitration landscape. Many major arbitral institutions are either already using AI or considering it, for services including vetting and conflict checks, transcription and award scrutiny. The extent to which tribunals may rely on AI remains highly controversial. Most recently, in April 2026, the Supreme Court of Quebec in ARIHQ v Santé Québec , 2026 QCCS 1360 (22 April 2026) set aside a domes - tic award because the arbitrator had cited fabricated cases and authorities, generated by a large language model, and had developed his analysis based on those AI hallucinations. We can expect further chal - lenges to awards in other jurisdictions based on the Tribunal’s use of AI. Several initiatives have emerged to address, and seek to standardise, the use of AI in international arbitra - tion. The most notable are the Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025) published by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and the JAMS AI Rules pub - lished in April 2024. Another key, related develop - ment is the EU’s AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, and is the world’s first comprehensive AI law that provides for EU-wide rules on data qual - ity, transparency, human oversight and accountability. Together with an increased use of AI in the arbitral process, there has been a rise in technology and AI- related arbitrations. This increase is driven by the rapid growth of the tech industry and the increasing reliance on ever-more complex technologies and AI across a range of industries. According to recent sta - tistics, information and communication-related tech - nology disputes now represents around 10% of the caseload of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Examples of such disputes include Chinese telecoms giant Huawei’s treaty claim against the government of Sweden over its exclusion from the 5G network and Uber’s dispute with Colombia. Investor-state technology disputes of this nature are likely to raise a host of new and topical issues including whether digital assets, blockchain, AI or decentralised assets qualify as investments.
Caseload of Arbitral Institutions Arbitration continues to remain a preferred method of dispute resolution for many international businesses. A number of arbitral institutions recorded high num - bers of new case filings. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) registered 895 new arbitrations in 2025, with a total of 1,896 cases being administered by the ICC Secretariat. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) recorded 886 new case fil - ings, which is its second-highest annual caseload on record. Other institutions also recorded sizeable num - bers with 318 new cases for the LCIA and 582 for the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC). The five most preferred sets of arbitral rules are the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LCIA and UNCITRAL Rules, according to the Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, a recurring feature of the arbitration landscape that the industry has now grown used to seeing as a periodic barometer of its progress. In the most recent survey, the most preferred arbitral seat is London, with users citing the stability of its commercial law and highly regarded judiciary. Singapore was the second most popular seat, with users noting that it is receiving a larger share of Asian disputes as many US and West - ern companies have relocated out of Hong Kong. New Arbitral Rules In 2025, the SIAC introduced new arbitration rules. One of the key changes in the SIAC Rules 2025 is to enhance its emergency arbitration procedure by permitting an emergency arbitrator to order ex parte interim relief. The SIAC is one of the first major arbitral institutions to permit an emergency arbitrator to order interim relief on an ex parte basis. Other key changes include: • new rules on third-party funding to give tribunals wide-ranging powers to require details of third- party funding arrangements; • a new “preliminary determination” procedure; and • a new “streamlined procedure” for disputes of low value. These new provisions all improve the time, cost-effi - ciency and attractiveness of SIAC arbitration.
9 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook