AI rules in dispute resolution: what each body has published

SVAMC Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, 1st edition (2024)

Published

30 April 2024

Applies to

All participants (Guidelines 1 to 3), parties, representatives and experts (4 and 5), arbitrators (6 and 7), where adopted by agreement or by a tribunal or institution

Key provisions

Preliminary Provisions, Guidelines 1 to 7 (disclosure in 3 and 7), Commentary, Model Clause for procedural orders

Website

svamc.org

Seven principle-based guidelines on using AI in arbitration, with a commentary and a model clause for procedural orders. Guidelines 1 to 3 address all participants (understanding tools, confidentiality, disclosure). Guidelines 4 and 5 address parties and their representatives, with Guideline 5 also covering experts (diligence, integrity of evidence). Guidelines 6 and 7 address arbitrators (non-delegation, due process). They apply where parties agree or a tribunal or institution adopts them. The PDF is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0.^1,2

On disclosure: Guideline 3 says disclosing AI use is not generally necessary and should be decided case by case, and Guideline 7 says arbitrators should disclose reliance on AI-generated information outside the record and, as far as practical, let the parties comment.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for SVAMC

Guide to the use of artificial intelligence in cases administered under the SCC rules

Published

17 October 2024

Applies to

Participants in SCC-administered cases, chiefly arbitral tribunals

Key provisions

Four unnumbered principles (Confidentiality, Quality, Integrity, Non-delegation of the decision-making mandate), citing EU AI Act Art. 3(1), Recitals 12 and 61 and Annex III point 8(a)

Website

sccarbitrationinstitute.se

A short, non-binding guide adopted by the SCC Board on 16 October 2024 that offers flexible guidance to participants in SCC cases without imposing specific obligations. It lists current uses of AI in arbitration and cites the EU AI Act’s high-risk category for AI used to research and interpret facts and law. It encourages tribunals in particular to keep four points in mind: confidentiality, quality with human review of outputs, integrity through transparency, and non-delegation of the decision.^3,4,5

On disclosure: Tribunals are encouraged to disclose any AI use for researching or interpreting facts and law, or for applying law to facts, which the guide says may help protect the parties’ right to be heard and keep the tribunal within its mandate.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for SCC

AAA-ICDR Guidance on Arbitrators’ Use of AI Tools

Published

March 2025

Applies to

Arbitrators on AAA-ICDR cases, read with the commercial and labor-management arbitrator ethics codes

Key provisions

Considerations 1 to 4 (4 covers transparency and disclosure), Confidentiality and Data Protection 1 to 2 in the March 2025 text and 1 to 3 in the January 2026 text

Website

adr.org

AAA-ICDR encourages arbitrators to use AI tools while keeping to their existing ethics codes. The guidance asks them to check outputs against primary sources, keep full control of their decisions and keep confidential case material out of tools that lack data protection. A January 2026 revision adds advice to record key verification steps, raise AI expectations at the preliminary hearing, consider a procedural order on AI use and review each tool’s privacy and retention settings.^45,46,47,48

On disclosure: Arbitrators should disclose generative AI use “when such use materially impacts the arbitration process or the reasoning underlying their decisions”, and the January 2026 text adds that this covers AI outputs that shape substantive reasoning, award wording or evidence analysis, but not clerical uses or AI built into the AAA-ICDR case platform.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for AAA-ICDR (guidance)

Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (2025)

Published

19 March 2025

Applies to

Arbitrators, parties, counsel, experts and other participants, where adopted by agreement or procedural order

Key provisions

Parts I to IV (paras 1 to 9), disclosure in paras 4.4, 6.5 and 7.1 to 7.7, arbitrators’ use in 8.1 to 9.2, Appendix A paras 7.3, 8 and 10.2.1, Appendix B Option 2 paras 2 and 4

Website

ciarb.org

Guidance for arbitrators, parties, counsel and experts on getting the benefits of AI while managing risks to process integrity, procedural rights and enforceability. Part I covers benefits and risks, Part II general recommendations, Part III arbitrators’ powers to direct and rule on parties’ AI use, including disclosure, and Part IV arbitrators’ own use, which should not replace their judgement. Appendices give a template AI agreement and short and long form procedural orders. First launched March 2025, updated September 2025.^{6,7,8,9,10,11}

On disclosure: Arbitrators may require parties, experts and witnesses to disclose AI use where it may affect the evidence or the outcome or involve delegating a duty (paras 4.4, 7.1 to 7.7), and are encouraged to consult the parties before using AI themselves (para 9.1).

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for Ciarb

VIAC Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings

Published

9 April 2025

Applies to

Arbitrators, tribunal secretaries, counsel and parties in VIAC proceedings that agree to apply it

Key provisions

Applicability, paras 1 to 6 (disclosure-related 5.1, 5.2 and 6.1), Exclusion of Liability (applies Vienna Rules 2021 Art. 46 para 1)

Website

viac.eu

A short, non-binding note meant to support discussion of AI use in VIAC arbitrations. The Vienna Rules 2021 prevail in any conflict. It adopts no fixed definition of AI, so parties and arbitrators who agree to apply it should also agree which tools it covers. Six sections cover ethical rules, non-delegation by arbitrators, confidentiality, responsible use, managing parties’ and arbitrators’ AI use, and evidence produced with AI. VIAC endorses no AI tools and accepts no liability for AI-related breaches.^12,13

On disclosure: Arbitrators may raise disclosure at the case management conference (para 5.1), may tell parties which AI tools they plan to use and for what tasks, with parties given a chance to comment (para 5.2), and have discretion to request disclosure of evidence produced with AI (para 6.1).

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for VIAC

AAAi Standards for AI in ADR

Published

9 May 2025

Applies to

ADR administrators, neutrals and advocates (encouraged, not mandated)

Key provisions

Standards 1 to 6 (Standard 4 is explainability and transparency)

Website

adr.org

The AAAi Standards group responsible AI use in ADR under six themes: ethical and human-centered values, privacy and security, accuracy and reliability, explainability and transparency, accountability, and adaptability. Each theme sets expectations for ADR administrators, neutrals and advocates (the accuracy theme treats the last two together), and AAA-ICDR encourages others to apply them. Its announcement says they supersede the Principles Supporting the Use of AI in Alternative Dispute Resolution that AAA-ICDR released in November 2023.^49,50,51

On disclosure: Standard 4 asks neutrals to tell case participants how AI informs their process and asks advocates to explain how AI was used and correct errors promptly.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for AAA-ICDR (AAAi)

Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Arbitration (Trial), CIETAC’s English rendering

Published

18 July 2025

In force

18 July 2025

Applies to

Parties, arbitral tribunals and other participants in arbitration, framed around CIETAC’s Arbitration Rules and practice. Not part of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules.

Key provisions

Sec. 1 (scope, status, in force 18 July 2025), 2.1 to 2.4 (risks), 3.1 to 3.3 (principles), 4.1 to 4.2.3 (tribunals), 5.1 to 5.4 (recommended risk checklist, 5.2 on disclosure)

Website

cietac.org

CIETAC’s trial guidelines, in effect from 18 July 2025, cover AI use by parties, tribunals and other participants. They rest on three principles: party autonomy, AI as an aid only, and good faith. Tribunals must not hand decision-making to AI and must write their own reasons. A recommended checklist suggests AI terms in arbitration clauses and, where needed, tribunal consultation of the parties on AI use. The text states it is not part of the CIETAC Arbitration Rules.^17,18,19,20

On disclosure: Parties may agree on disclosure of AI use (3.1), and the tribunal may invite their views on reasonable disclosure in a procedural order or pre-hearing conference (5.2), but the text sets no general disclosure duty.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for CIETAC

Procedural Order No. 1, section 28 ‘Artificial Intelligence Tools’, ENCORE Investment Group Limited (Malta) v. Republic of Türkiye (ICSID Case No. ARB/24/46)

Published

22 July 2025

In force

22 July 2025

Applies to

The tribunal in this one case only. No rule on the parties’ AI use.

Key provisions

Section 28 (paras 28.1, 28.2)

Website

icsid.worldbank.org

In its first procedural order of 22 July 2025, the tribunal in this ICSID investment treaty case told the parties it may use AI tools for tasks such as preparing summaries, searching and organising the record, and legal research. It said it will not hand any decision-making function to those tools, and that it must make sure the tools give adequate cybersecurity and confidentiality guarantees. The order sets no rules on the parties’ own use of AI.^83,84

On disclosure: The order itself tells the parties in advance how the tribunal may use AI, and it places no AI disclosure duty on the parties.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for ICSID tribunal (ARB/24/46)

ICC Protocol on Arbitrators’ Use of AI (draft, title as reported)

Applies to

Arbitrators, as reported. Final scope not published.

Website

iccwbo.org

As reported by Chen & Chang, a law firm whose partner attended as a Commission member, the AI task force of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR presented a draft protocol on arbitrators’ use of AI at an online meeting on 3 October 2026. The report says the draft has no blanket ban, sets core principles and sorts arbitral work into tiers with different requirements. We found no ICC copy. The draft is expected to change after feedback.^74,75,76

On disclosure: Not reported.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for ICC (draft protocol)

JAMS Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules

Published

23 April 2024

In force

14 June 2024

Applies to

Parties to JAMS-administered binding arbitrations that adopt the rules, or AI-related disputes absent such agreement (Rule 1(a))

Key provisions

Rule 1(a) scope, 1(e) AI definition, 15(b) technical panelists, 16.1(a) AI Disputes Protective Order (Appendix A), 16.1(b) AI system inspection

Website

jamsadr.com

JAMS rules for arbitrating disputes that involve AI systems, not for a neutral’s own use of AI tools. They define AI, have JAMS propose only arbitrators approved for technical subject matter where available, apply a standard AI Disputes Protective Order unless the parties agree another, and limit inspection of AI systems, models and training data to experts working in a secure environment set up by the disclosing party. First issued on 23 April 2024 and amended in June 2024.^59,60,61,62

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for JAMS

Website

diac.com

We checked DIAC’s arbitration rules pages, its news listing and the texts of the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022 and Mediation Rules 2023. No dedicated AI instrument was found as of 21 October 2026. The 2022 Rules allow virtual hearings and electronic signature of awards but do not mention AI. DIAC’s site records a June 2025 partnership with Jus Mundi to give its case management team AI research and workflow tools.^{33,34,35,36,37}

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for DIAC

Website

hkiac.org

We checked HKIAC’s rules, practice notes, guidelines and news pages, ran a site search and read the 2024 Administered Arbitration Rules. No dedicated AI instrument was found as of 21 October 2026. The 2024 Rules, in force from 1 June 2024, ask tribunals to weigh effective use of technology and information security when setting procedure (Art. 13.1). They do not mention AI. In April 2025 HKIAC said Jus Mundi’s AI would summarise its procedural decisions for its Case Digest.^{21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28}

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for HKIAC

Website

iccwbo.org

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules took effect on 1 June 2026 and apply to ICC arbitrations started on or after that date. A text search of the official English PDF found no reference to artificial intelligence. The closest provisions are general. Arbitrators’ disclosure duties cover independence and impartiality, and a tribunal secretary may assist without taking over decision-making. ICC’s companion Note to Parties of 1 June 2026 mentions the EU AI Act only in its data protection section. The ICC Commission’s reported work on a draft protocol is a [separate entry](#icc-ai-protocol-draft).^{69,70,71,72,73}

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for ICC (Rules)

Website

icsid.worldbank.org

We found no ICSID rule, note or guidance dedicated to AI. Text searches of the 2022 ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, the 2022 Additional Facility Rules, the 2022 Mediation Rules and the UNCITRAL 2023 Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Dispute Resolution found no reference to artificial intelligence. ICSID’s rules page and its 2026 news releases up to 16 October announce no AI guidance. One tribunal has set out its own AI use in a procedural order (ARB/24/46).^{77,78,79,80,81,82}

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for ICSID

Website

lcia.org

We checked the LCIA Arbitration Rules (2020) page, the LCIA Guidance Note for Parties and Arbitrators and the LCIA news listing. No dedicated AI instrument was found as of 21 October 2026. AI disclosure and guardrails are a theme of the LCIA’s rules revision consultation, opened in March 2026. On 23 July 2026 the LCIA coordinated a joint letter from 16 institutions on the European Commission’s draft high-risk AI guidelines.^{38,39,40,41,42,43,44}

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for LCIA

Website

siac.org.sg

SIAC’s website showed a bot-verification page on 21 October 2026, so its own listings could not be checked, and no dedicated AI instrument was found as of that date. As reported by Faegre Drinker in February 2026, SIAC had issued no explicit AI guidance. A third-party copy of the SIAC Rules 2025 does not mention AI.^29,30,31,32

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for SIAC

Guidelines on the use of generative artificial intelligence in mediation

Published

19 June 2025

Applies to

Mediators, parties, party representatives and mediation institutions

Key provisions

Part one ss. 1 to 4 (uses), Part two ss. 1 to 4 (safeguards, para 4.2 on requests for tool information), Part three sample AI usage statement

Website

ibanet.org

Guidelines from the IBA Mediation Committee on generative AI in mediation. They do not cover non-generative tools that work on fixed rules. Part one lists possible uses for mediators, parties, their representatives and mediation institutions. Part two sets safeguards under four headings covering party autonomy, privacy and confidentiality, mediator neutrality, impartiality and independence, and a balanced process. Part three gives a sample statement for telling other participants which AI tools are in use. The IBA calls it a living document.^14,15,16

On disclosure: Part three offers a sample statement for disclosing AI use where that is required or helpful, and Part two para 4.2 lets any participant ask another which AI tools they use and what those tools do.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for IBA

Guidance for Third Parties Using Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution: Applying the Online Dispute Resolution Standards

Published

8 April 2026

Applies to

Mediators, arbitrators, facilitators and other third parties in online or face-to-face processes, plus providers and tool developers

Key provisions

Guidance under each of the nine ODR Standards (Accessible to Transparent), plus a pre-use question checklist

Website

odr.info

NCTDR and ICODR apply each of their nine Online Dispute Resolution Standards to AI use by mediators, arbitrators and other third parties, online or face to face. The guidance calls for human oversight, auditable AI outputs, bias monitoring, data protection and clear disclosure to parties, and keeps the practitioner responsible for decisions based on AI outputs. It ends with a checklist of questions to ask before using a tool, and extends the May 2022 NCTDR-ICODR ODR Standards.^{63,64,65,66,67,68}

On disclosure: Practitioners should tell parties in advance how and when AI influences the process and outcome, including the data sources the tool uses, the extent of its influence on options and decisions, and the level of human oversight.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for NCTDR and ICODR

AAA-ICDR AI Arbitrator, governed by the AI Led Arbitration Rules

Published

17 September 2025

Applies to

Two-party, documents-only construction cases where both parties opt in, and the appointed human arbitrator

Key provisions

AI Led Arbitration Rules (amended and effective 18 February 2026) R-1, R-2(c), R-7, R-8, R-10, R-13

Website

adr.org

AAA-ICDR announced its AI arbitrator on 17 September 2025 and made it available on 3 November 2025 for two-party, documents-only construction cases. Use is opt-in and both parties must agree, otherwise the case follows the usual AAA process. The AI summarises submissions and drafts the award, and AAA says human arbitrators “oversee, revise (if needed), confirm, and authorize each outcome before they finalize and issue an award”. In October 2026 adr.org still lists the same case scope.^{52,53,54,55,56,57,58}

On disclosure: AI use is agreed at the outset, since Rule R-2(c) records both parties’ consent to an AI preliminary decision that the human arbitrator reviews and finalises, and AAA’s FAQ says parties see the AI’s summaries of their case but not its draft award.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for AAA-ICDR (AI arbitrator)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders (31 October 2025)

Published

31 October 2025

Applies to

Judicial office holders under the Lady Chief Justice’s and Senior President of Tribunals’ responsibility, plus clerks, judicial assistants, legal advisers and support staff

Key provisions

Section 3 (parts I to VI), section 4

Website

judiciary.uk

The October 2025 guidance replaces the April 2025 version, which replaced the first guidance of 12 December 2023. It tells judicial office holders to understand AI’s limits, keep private material out of public chatbots, check outputs for accuracy, watch for bias, and remain personally responsible for work issued in their name. It lists summarising and admin tasks as possible uses, advises against AI for legal research and analysis, and warns about fake material and hidden white text.^86,87,88,89

On disclosure: Judges are not generally obliged to describe preparatory work behind a judgment, and a lawyer who uses AI responsibly need not mention it, depending on context, though judges may ask litigants in person what checks they made.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2025 guidance)

Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Published

9 October 2026

Applies to

Judicial use of AI, guiding the senior judiciary working with Judicial Office, HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice

Key provisions

Core principles 2 and 4, paras 9 and 10 (tools), 13 (steering group), 15 (review)

Website

judiciary.uk

Issued on 9 October 2026 by the Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, this statement explains how the judiciary adopts and oversees AI. Only approved tools may be used, with UK data residency, enterprise data protection and web access disabled. It states that “AI tools must not determine the outcome of a case”. Every AI output used in judicial work must be checked and approved by the responsible judicial office holder, and a central steering group vets new uses.⁸⁵

On disclosure: Not addressed.

Checked 21 October 2026Copy link for Courts and Tribunals Judiciary (2026 statement)