SIAC and AI in arbitration: what the 2025 Rules mean for AI use

The short version

• We found no rule, practice note or guidance on artificial intelligence (AI) from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) as of 28 October 2026. SIAC’s website showed a bot check, so we read archived and other copies of its texts.
• The SIAC Rules 2025, in force since 1 January 2025, do not mention AI. In our reading, the closest provisions are Rule 61 on information security, Rule 59 on confidentiality and Rule 24.3, which bars the tribunal from delegating any of its decision-making functions to a tribunal secretary, an assistant it may appoint.
• No SIAC rule or guidance we found requires parties, counsel or arbitrators to disclose AI use. Agreeing on AI in the first procedural order is our suggestion, not SIAC’s.
• SIAC Gateway, launched in August 2024, is SIAC’s e-filing and document management system. Its FAQs and terms, in copies archived in 2025, describe no AI features, and we found no SIAC AI arbitrator.
• SIAC has put AI and legal technology on its event programme, at its Symposium in 2024 and during Singapore Convention Week in 2026.
• SIAC was not among the signatories of the 23 July 2026 joint submission by 16 arbitral institutions and bodies to the European Commission’s AI Office on classifying high-risk AI systems.^{1,2,4,5,8,10,15}

What has SIAC published or done on AI?

On SIAC AI arbitration, the record is short: events, and no AI guideline or policy. We found no SIAC rule, practice note or guidance on AI as of 28 October 2026 (how we search). The SIAC Rules 2025, in force since 1 January 2025, do not mention AI. Our AI rules tracker also lists none.^1,2,8,10

Apart from event listings, the only SIAC text we could open that mentions AI is its Year in Review 2024. It records that a plenary session at the SIAC Symposium 2024 discussed “the opportunities and risks in the use of artificial intelligence and technology in international arbitration” (section 4). The report describes the discussion and states no SIAC position.²

SIAC’s website, siac.org.sg, showed a bot check during our research, so we read the Rules in a copy hosted elsewhere. We read its other pages in Internet Archive copies, the latest from October 2025, and its 2026 events on the Symposium and Singapore Convention Week sites. We could not check anything SIAC posted on its own site after October 2025.

Do the SIAC Rules 2025 say anything about AI?

No. The SIAC Rules 2025, the seventh edition, apply to arbitrations started on or after 1 January 2025 unless the parties agree otherwise (r 1.5), and never mention artificial intelligence. A full-text search of the copy we read found no AI terms. In our reading, several rules still bear on AI use.¹

We found no SIAC statement on how any of these rules applies to AI.¹

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

We found no SIAC expectations specific to AI. Nothing in the SIAC Rules 2025 allows or forbids AI tools in a SIAC arbitration. In our reading, their use is for the parties to agree and, failing that, for the tribunal to direct (rr 3.6, 32.2), and the general duties apply to AI use as they do to any other work.¹

Arbitrators must stay independent and impartial, follow the Rules, SIAC’s Code of Ethics and the Practice Notes in force (r 20.1), and give each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case (r 32.2).¹

In our reading, a tribunal that lets an AI tool shape its reasoning raises the question Rule 24.3 answers for a human tribunal secretary. That rule bars the tribunal from delegating any of its decision-making functions, which keeps a human in the loop. Checking AI output for hallucination, meaning invented authorities or facts, is ordinary care; no SIAC rule requires it.¹

Parties must try to agree procedural matters the Rules do not expressly cover before asking SIAC or the tribunal to decide them (r 3.6). Any party may propose information security measures as soon as practicable after the arbitration starts (r 61.1). The confidentiality duty covers parties, their representatives, witnesses, experts and third-party funders (r 59.1), and a tribunal can sanction a party that does not follow agreed or directed security measures (r 61.3). How to assess an AI tool before using it on case material is covered in AI legal tech.¹

The SIAC Rules cover arbitration. At the first case management conference the tribunal may consult the parties on settlement, including mediation with the Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC) under the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (r 32.4(a)), but the Rules say nothing about how mediators work. AI in mediation and online dispute resolution is covered in our guide to AI in dispute resolution.¹

Must AI use be disclosed in a SIAC arbitration?

No SIAC rule or guidance we found requires parties, counsel or arbitrators to disclose AI use. Under the arbitrator’s duty of disclosure, arbitrators must reveal circumstances that may give rise to “justifiable doubts” about their impartiality or independence, both before and after appointment (rr 20.2, 20.3). The same applies to tribunal secretaries (r 24.2). Parties must disclose the existence of any third-party funding agreement and the funder’s identity (r 38.1).¹

SIAC already has a model for agreeing on technology. Its Gateway FAQs encourage the tribunal to discuss Gateway and its scope with the parties, typically at the first case management conference, and to record the agreed scope in a procedural order (Q22).⁴

We suggest doing the same for AI, alongside the information security discussion Rule 61.2 requires. Record in Procedural Order No. 1 which AI tools may be used and whether their use is disclosed. The 2026 rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) already encourage tribunals to discuss AI tools with the parties (art 16.5).^1,17

Does SIAC use AI itself, and does SIAC Gateway?

We found no AI tool in SIAC’s own case administration. SIAC Gateway, launched in August 2024, is an online case management system “powered by” an outside technology provider (Year in Review 2024, section 1). Its FAQs, last updated in November 2024, call it “an e-filing and document management system” (Q27). In the copies we could read, archived in 2025, the FAQs and terms describe no AI features.^2,4,5

• Gateway offers electronic filing, online payment, document upload and storage, and case management (Q1). The Notice of Arbitration, the document that starts a case, can be filed through it (r 6.1).
• The Registrar may direct the parties to upload all written communications to Gateway (r 4.2). Even where the parties and the tribunal agree not to use it, SIAC’s case team uploads the written communications so the record is available (Q22).
• Uploads are scanned automatically, including for viruses (Q31).
• Data is encrypted in transit and at rest (Terms cl 6; Q40). Beyond that automatic scan, SIAC says it does not screen or review what users upload, though it reserves the right to remove content that breaks the terms (Terms cl 3.6, 4.2).
• The e-filing user guide, in the version archived in July 2025, does not mention AI either.^1,4,5,6

We found no AI-led procedure at SIAC like the one the American Arbitration Association (AAA) runs under its AI Led Arbitration Rules. AAA’s opt-in AI arbitrator is explained in AAA and AI in arbitration.²⁴

What has SIAC said about regulating AI?

We found no public SIAC statement on how AI should be regulated. 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). SIAC was not among the signatories.^15,16

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and AAA’s International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) signed. Neither the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) nor any Singapore body did. What the letter asked, and why, is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in Europe.¹⁵

SIAC procedure and fees, the Singapore courts and their guidance on generative AI are covered in our guide to arbitration in Singapore.¹³

What is SIAC working on?

We found no SIAC announcement of AI guidance or an AI product. We could not open its 2025 announcement of a memorandum of understanding with a legal research technology company. The AI-related activity we could check in 2026 is events.^7,8,10,11

Singapore’s Ministry of Law (MinLaw) listed “legal technology and its impact on arbitration practice” among the SIAC Symposium 2026 breakout topics in its release for Singapore Convention Week (para 6). Neither plenary session in the Symposium programme has technology or AI in its title.^8,9

In its Gateway FAQs, as archived in October 2025, SIAC says there are plans to develop Gateway into “a more interactive tool that could facilitate real-time communication, including instant messaging” (Q27). The plans do not mention AI.⁴

Disputes about AI, the theme of the 27 August 2026 session SIAC co-organised, are a separate subject. MinLaw notes that SIAC maintains a specialist panel of arbitrators for intellectual property disputes (para 30).^11,12

At a SIAC reception in March 2026, SIAC’s 35th anniversary year (para 2), MinLaw said the rise of digital assets, smart contracts and “AI-driven decision-making” creates “entirely new categories of commercial disagreements” (para 13(b)(iii)). The remark was the ministry’s.¹⁴

How does SIAC compare with ICC, the LCIA, AAA-ICDR and JAMS 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.^{1,18,19,20,21,23,24,25}

How other bodies’ texts compare, and how AI is used in arbitration generally, is in our guide to AI in arbitration. How other institutions and courts in the region treat AI is in our guide to AI in dispute resolution in South East Asia.¹

What is not settled about SIAC and AI?

• What form any SIAC guidance on AI would take, if SIAC issues it. A Practice Note under Rule 1.4 is one route.
• Whether a SIAC tribunal must tell the parties it used AI. The SIAC Rules 2025 do not say so, and we found no SIAC guidance that does.
• How far Rule 24.3’s bar on delegating to a tribunal secretary carries over to AI tools, and whether Rule 61 covers the choice of AI tools. Applying either rule to AI is our reading, not SIAC’s.
• What SIAC has posted on its own site since October 2025, including any 2026 practice or guidance notes, which we could not open.
• How a court would treat a SIAC award drafted with AI help. We found no reported decision on it. Awards challenged over AI use, including the Québec annulment, are covered in awards challenged over AI use.^1,2