SLOVENIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Vesna Cukrov and Veronika Cukrov, Law Firm Cukrov (Odvetniška družba Cukrov o.p., d.o.o.)
Law Firm Cukrov (Odvetniška družba Cukrov o.p., d.o.o.) Tivolska cesta 48 1000 Ljubljana Slovenia
Tel: +386 8 20 59 630 Fax: +386 8 20 59 631 Email: tajnistvo@cukrov.eu Web: www.cukrov.eu
The institutions wrote the rules before the fire started What is notable about the Québec case is that the arbitration community did not wait for it. By the time the judgment was handed down, guidance had been in circulation for two years, and the court’s reasoning substantially vindicated it. Institutions began responding to the growing use of AI in 2024 and, within roughly a year, produced four instruments of significance: • the SCC Arbitration Institute in Stockholm pub - lished a guide to the use of AI in cases adminis - tered under the SCC Rules in October 2024; • the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) issued guidelines on the use of AI in arbi - tration, setting out general principles for the use of AI in international arbitration proceedings; • the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) pub - lished its Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration in April 2025; and • the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) released, in the same month and as part of its fiftieth anniversary, its Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings. The instruments differ in length and granularity, but they converge on four propositions: • AI may be deployed in the interests of efficiency; • confidentiality must be safeguarded; • an arbitrator may not delegate the decision-making function to a machine; and
Artificial Intelligence at the Arbitral Table: What It Means for Users of Arbitration Introduction: the case that moved the debate from the conference hall to the courtroom For years, artificial intelligence (AI) in arbitration was largely a panel topic. The discussion rarely advanced beyond speculation as to whether machines might one day replace arbitrators. That changed on 22 April 2026, when the Superior Court of Québec ( Cour supérieure du Québec ), in Asso- ciation des ressources intermédiaires d ’ hébergement du Québec ( ARIHQ ) v Santé Québec , 2026 QCCS 1360, set aside an arbitral award because the sole arbitrator had constructed his reasoning on case law that does not exist. Every authority relied on (every decision, every commentary) was fabricated, gener - ated by a large language model. This is the first publicly reported annulment of an arbi - tral award on account of AI-generated reasoning, and the decision has quickly become the central reference point in the debate over the limits of these tools. For businesses that use arbitration, the question is no longer whether AI is present in their disputes: it is, in document review and in the research behind submis - sions, and it may in future be present in the drafting of the award itself. The practical question is what safe - guards a party should insist upon, and what recourse exists when something goes wrong.
873 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook