ICC and AI in arbitration: what ICC has said, and what it has not

The short version

• The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has no rule on artificial intelligence (AI) in ICC arbitration. The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules, in force from 1 June 2026, do not mention AI.
• We found no ICC guidelines dedicated to AI (how we search). ICC’s Note to Parties of 1 June 2026 names the EU AI Act only under data protection (para 76).
• ICC’s Commission on Arbitration and ADR set up a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution in 2025. ADR stands for alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation.
• A draft protocol on arbitrators’ use of AI was reported to have been presented to the Commission on 3 October 2026. ICC has not published it (tracker entry).
• We found no ICC AI arbitrator. ICC says AI tools may support its staff with limited administrative and operational tasks, and that no AI system makes decisions affecting the parties, the conduct of proceedings or the outcome of cases.
• ICC signed a joint letter of 23 July 2026 that asks the European Commission to keep institutions’ administrative tools outside the EU AI Act’s high-risk label.^1,3,4,5,8,14

What has ICC published or done on AI?

ICC has published no AI rules for arbitration and no guidance dedicated to how arbitrators or parties use AI. Its texts touch on AI in a few places, listed below.^1,3,6,7,8

We found no ICC page on the draft protocol. The 2026 Note expects tribunals to give “due consideration” to the 2022 report on technology, which the Note dates 2021 and ICC published in February 2022 (Part III, para 5).^3,4,6

Do the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules say anything about AI?

No. The 2026 ICC Rules never use the words “artificial intelligence” or “AI”, and we found no ICC statement on how any article applies to AI. If the Rules are silent, the parties can agree the procedure. If they do not, the tribunal (the arbitrators hearing the case) decides it (art 20).¹

So AI in an ICC case is governed by what the parties agree and what the tribunal orders, within the Rules’ general provisions. The list below is our reading of which provisions of the ICC Arbitration Rules an AI question would touch.¹

• Case management (arts 23(2) and 24(1)). After consulting the parties, the tribunal adopts procedural measures, which may include techniques “described in the guidance notes issued by the Secretariat” (the ICC staff who administer cases). It must hold a first case management conference with the parties within 30 days of receiving the file from the Secretariat, unless the Secretary General extends that time.
• Confidentiality (arts 12(8) and 23(3)). Arbitrators “shall keep confidential all matters relating to the arbitration”, subject to listed exceptions. At a party’s request, the tribunal may make confidentiality orders and protect trade secrets. What confidentiality and data protection require when AI touches the file is in confidentiality and AI in arbitration.
• Fairness (art 23(4)). The tribunal must act fairly and impartially and give each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
• Reasons and scrutiny (arts 35(2) and 37). “The award shall state the reasons upon which it is based”, unless the parties to a Highly Expedited Arbitration, a fast-track procedure, agree otherwise (Appendix VI, art 7(2)). The ICC International Court of Arbitration (the Court) checks, or scrutinises, every draft award before the tribunal signs it. It considers, as far as practicable, the award’s validity and enforceability and mandatory law at the place of the arbitration (art 37(3)).
• Tribunal secretaries (art 44(1)). A secretary, someone who assists the tribunal, works “under the arbitral tribunal’s direction and control, without delegating its decision-making authority” (non-delegation).
• Technology the Rules do name (arts 3(1), 19(3), 24(5) and 38(1)(a)). They provide for email to the Secretariat, conferences and deliberations by videoconference, and signing the award electronically.
• General rule (art 46). In matters the Rules do not expressly cover, the Court and the tribunal act in their spirit and “make every effort to ensure that the award is enforceable at law”.¹

ICC’s release of 22 May 2026 says the list of case management techniques left the Rules so that the techniques can be updated more easily. Terms of Reference, a case management document, are no longer required, though tribunals keep “the option to establish them” (Foreword).^1,2

What does ICC expect of arbitrators, parties and mediators who use AI?

We found no AI-specific ICC standard for arbitrators, parties or mediators. ICC neither allows nor forbids AI by name, so its general standards apply to arbitrators and parties who use AI. Arbitrators must stay impartial and independent (art 12(1)), and only they may decide the case.^1,3

Arbitrators must not let any consideration “extraneous to the case” influence their decisions (Note para 72). The closest ICC text on handing work to others covers tribunal secretaries: a tribunal may never delegate decision-making to one. Memos a secretary writes do not release the tribunal from its duty “to personally review the file and/or draft itself any arbitral tribunal’s decision” (para 210).³

A secretary may organise the tribunal’s file, draft procedural orders and the factual parts of an award for the tribunal to review, do legal research and check citations (para 211). ICC wrote this for human secretaries, and we found no ICC statement applying it to AI tools.³

We found nothing from ICC directly on using AI to draft awards. The reasons and scrutiny rules above still apply (arts 35(2) and 37). Awards challenged over AI use, including the Québec annulment, are covered in awards challenged over AI use.¹

For parties using AI, confidentiality rests on what they agree and on any tribunal order under art 23(3); the duty in art 12(8) binds arbitrators. The Note requires tribunals, parties and their representatives to put suitable security in place, taking account of “the state of the art of the technology” (para 80).^1,3

We found no ICC text on uploading case documents to public AI tools, and no ICC model clause on AI use. The closest advice is in the 2022 report: free translation services’ terms may give the developer a licence to use uploaded content, so parties should generally avoid them for confidential material (s 5.2). Where a tribunal considers that the EU’s data protection law (GDPR) or similar laws apply, it may refer to the ICC Model Data Protection Clause for Procedural Order One (Note para 77; see Procedural Order No. 1).^3,6

ICC mediation is in the same position. The ICC Mediation Rules (2014), published with the 2026 Arbitration Rules, do not mention AI, and ICC’s privacy notice on staff AI use covers mediation too. AI in mediation and online dispute resolution is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution.^1,8

Must AI use be disclosed in an ICC arbitration?

We found no ICC rule or guidance that requires arbitrators or parties to disclose AI use. An arbitrator must disclose facts or circumstances that might call their independence into question in the eyes of the parties, or raise reasonable doubts about their impartiality (arts 12(2) and 12(3)). That duty says nothing about tools. English law’s statutory arbitrator’s duty of disclosure does not mention AI either.^1,3

ICC’s 2022 report found “no rules or guidance” on whether a party using predictive coding to search for responsive documents must tell the other parties or the tribunal. It suggested raising this at the case management conference. For AI-generated translations of exhibits, it suggested agreeing their use with the other party, with a protocol for a human translation if needed (s 5.2).⁶

In our reading, any rule on disclosing AI use in an ICC arbitration, by arbitrators or by parties, comes from the parties’ agreement or the tribunal’s procedural measures (arts 20, 23(2) and 24(1)), alongside any duty under the applicable law. These are often recorded in the first procedural order. How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration.¹

Does ICC use AI itself, and does it offer an AI arbitrator?

ICC says its staff may use AI tools for “limited administrative and operational tasks”, and we found no ICC AI arbitrator. Under its rules, “The Court does not resolve disputes” (Appendix I, art 1(2)); tribunals do.^1,8

• Privacy notice, section III (20 October 2026). ICC’s technologies “may include” AI tools that support staff with limited administrative and operational tasks, such as translation and language optimisation, summarising and organising information, and preparing internal working materials. Using them does not change who may access personal data or the safeguards that keep it confidential. All outputs get human review and validation, and no AI system makes decisions affecting the parties, the conduct of proceedings or the outcome of cases.
• The earlier notice. The version captured on 16 June 2026 said AI tools were used “solely to support ICC staff with translation”.
• ICC Case Connect. ICC’s online case platform launched in October 2022, and a new version became available to users on 2 April 2025. In December 2025, ICC said all ICC arbitrations since April 2025 had been administered through it. Its two launch announcements describe no AI features.^5,8,9,11,12

We found no ICC procedure in which AI decides, and this is the clearest difference between ICC and AAA on AI. AAA’s opt-in AI arbitrator is explained in AAA and AI in arbitration.^1,18

What has ICC said about regulating AI?

As a business body, ICC argues for AI rules that are risk-based and work across borders. We found no ICC position on regulating AI in arbitration.¹³

ICC’s AI policy work is led by its Global Digital Economy Commission, not its Commission on Arbitration and ADR. Its AI page asks for “interoperable, risk-based, responsible AI governance” and says nothing about dispute resolution.¹³

On 23 July 2026, 16 arbitral institutions and bodies sent a joint submission, coordinated by the LCIA, to the European Commission’s AI Office on its draft guidelines for classifying high-risk AI systems. They asked that, where the EU AI Act’s high-risk label for alternative dispute resolution (Annex III point 8(a)) applies, it attach to AI used by or for the tribunal when it decides, not to the tools institutions use to administer cases (s 5).^14,15

ICC signed it, for its International Court of Arbitration and its International Centre for ADR. We found no copy of the letter, or any news item about it, on iccwbo.org. What the letter asked, and why, is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in Europe.^14,15

In our reading, ICC’s own staff AI use, as its October 2026 privacy notice describes it, is administrative work of the kind the letter asks to keep outside the high-risk label (purely ancillary administrative activities). How the EU AI Act applies to arbitration is explained in our guide to AI in arbitration. How the EU AI Act applies across arbitration and ADR is in the EU AI Act and dispute resolution.^8,14

What is ICC working on?

ICC’s Commission on Arbitration and ADR set up a Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Dispute Resolution in 2025. We found no date for its guidance. A draft protocol on arbitrators’ use of AI was reported to have been presented to the Commission on 3 October 2026. ICC has not published it (tracker entry).^4,5

In ICC’s words, the task force aims to “offer practical guidance to arbitrators and parties, and provide thought leadership on AI-driven innovation, while safeguarding fundamental principles in international dispute resolution”.⁴

ICC’s release of 22 May 2026 said the Secretariat “will issue updated guidance on various case management techniques”. Part III of the 1 June Note lists such techniques, and none mentions AI (Part III, paras 2 and 6). The Note also says the Commission is revising its Controlling Time and Costs report (Part III, para 5, fn 1). ICC has not published what the revision will cover.^1,2,3

How does ICC compare with AAA-ICDR, JAMS, the LCIA and SIAC on AI?

Of these five, only AAA-ICDR has guidance on arbitrators’ own use of AI and rules for AI-drafted awards. JAMS has rules for disputes about AI systems. ICC, the LCIA and SIAC have no AI provision in their arbitration rules, and ICC and the LCIA have work under way. See also the SCC and VIAC explainers, and the SVAMC and Ciarb guideline explainers.^{1,4,16,17,18,19,20,21,22}

How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration. Every institution’s AI texts are summarised in the AI rules tracker.

What is not settled about ICC and AI?

Most questions about AI in ICC arbitration are still open, because ICC has published no guidance dedicated to AI.^1,4

• What the task force will publish, and when. The Commission’s work can result in “concrete guidance and useful tools, recommendations or model clauses”; ICC has not said which form the AI work will take.
• The weight of anything the Commission publishes on AI. Its 2022 report said its views bind neither the Court nor the ICC International Centre for ADR (p 2), though the 2026 Note expects tribunals to give the Commission’s reports “due consideration” (Part III, para 5).
• How AI tools fit the tribunal secretary rules. A secretary may not take over decision-making (art 44(1); Note para 210), and we found no ICC statement on AI tools in this role.
• Any check on AI use in the Court’s scrutiny of draft awards (art 37). We found nothing from ICC on it.
• Who sets a disclosure standard: ICC itself, or parties and tribunals under arts 20 and 23(2).
• How the EU AI Act would class ICC’s own administrative AI use. The European Commission’s guidelines on classifying high-risk AI systems were still a draft when the institutions wrote on 23 July 2026 (high-risk).^1,3,4,6,8,14