VIAC and AI in arbitration: what its 2025 Note on AI says

The short version

• VIAC has one AI instrument: the Vienna International Arbitral Centre’s non-binding Note on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings, dated April 2025 (VIAC’s own short form is the Note on AI).
• It is opt-in. It applies only where the arbitrators and parties agree, and they should then agree which AI tools it covers. VIAC adopts no single definition of AI.
• It is non-binding, and the Vienna Rules 2021 (version of 1 January 2025) prevail in any conflict.
• Six short sections cover ethical rules, non-delegation by the arbitrator, confidentiality, responsible use, managing AI use, and evidence. The arbitrator keeps the decision. How AI is used in arbitration more widely is in AI in arbitration.
• There is no general duty to disclose AI use. Arbitrators may tell the parties which tools they plan to use (para 5.2), and the tribunal has discretion to request disclosure of AI-assisted evidence (para 6.1).
• VIAC endorses no AI tools and accepts no liability for AI-related breaches. The Vietnam International Arbitration Centre is a different body that shares the acronym.^1,3,10

What is the VIAC Note on the Use of AI?

VIAC’s only AI instrument is a short Note, published in April 2025. The Note says it is non-binding and is there to facilitate discussions on AI in VIAC arbitration proceedings (Applicability). People sometimes search for the VIAC AI guidelines, but its own title is a Note, not guidelines.¹

The Note is a nine-page PDF; the operative text runs to about two pages, with six numbered sections, an Applicability preamble and an Exclusion of Liability section. It came out of VIAC’s Legal Tech Think Tank, which met through 2024, and was released during VIAC’s 50th-anniversary year (VIAC was founded in 1975). VIAC issued it under its Best Practice Series and describes it as “aimed at advising, rather than regulating”.^1,2,6

A working group of the VIAC Secretariat and its Legal Tech Think Tank drafted it. How AI is used in arbitration generally, and how each body’s text compares, is in our guide to AI in arbitration; every instrument is summarised in the AI rules tracker.¹

When does the Note apply, and which AI tools does it cover?

The Note applies only where the arbitrators and parties agree it will, and they should then agree which AI tools fall within its scope. The Note says its application should be tailored to the case, so the use of AI tools enhances rather than hinders the efficiency or effectiveness of the proceedings while safeguarding their integrity (Applicability).¹

VIAC adopts no single definition of AI, generative AI included, because tools spread too fast for a fixed definition to hold. That is why the parties pick the scope themselves. The hierarchy is plain: the Note is non-binding, and if it conflicts with the Vienna Rules 2021 (the version of 1 January 2025, defined in Art 47), the Rules prevail (Applicability).^1,3

Because the Note is opt-in and VIAC publishes no take-up figures, a reader cannot tell from the published material how often it is used in practice.¹

One edge is unsettled. The Note speaks only of VIAC arbitration proceedings under the Vienna Rules 2021; it does not say whether it also reaches cases under the Vienna Investment Arbitration Rules 2021, and we read nothing in the Note that settles the point either way.¹

What does the Note require of arbitrators and parties?

Six short sections set out what the Note expects. The common thread is that AI may support the work, but the arbitrator stays in control and keeps responsibility. Two duties carry the most weight: non-delegation (para 2) and responsibility for outputs (para 4.2). Under para 2, the arbitrator keeps full control of the decision-making process and shall not delegate any decision affecting the proceedings to an AI tool, and AI may only facilitate, not replace, the arbitrator’s independent analysis.¹

Section 1 is the only one that names tribunal secretaries and counsel alongside arbitrators. A secretary’s duty not to take on decision-making is reinforced by VIAC’s Guidelines for Arbitrators 2026, which say the tribunal shall not delegate to the secretary any task within its exclusive remit, in particular any decision-making function (II.5.4). How to vet an AI tool before case material goes into it is in AI legal tech.^1,4

Confidentiality (para 3) asks arbitrators and parties to respect the confidentiality “of the arbitral process as a whole”. That is broader than the Vienna Rules’ own confidentiality duty, which binds the arbitrators to keep information confidential (Art 16(2)) but does not impose the same general duty on the parties.^1,3

Must AI use be disclosed in a VIAC arbitration?

No. The Note imposes no general duty to disclose AI use. Disclosure is a matter the arbitrators may raise, and, for their own tool use, may choose to share. AI search results sometimes attach the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC) line that disclosure is generally not necessary to VIAC; that line is SVAMC’s Guideline 3, not VIAC’s.^1,11

• Case management conference (para 5.1): the arbitrators may discuss the potential use of AI, the requirement of disclosure, and AI’s impact on timeline and costs, and may help parties and third parties, such as experts and court reporters, understand AI.
• Arbitrators’ own tools (para 5.2): the arbitrators may tell the parties which AI tools they plan to use, naming the tool and the tasks it will do, and the parties shall then be given a chance to comment. This is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Procedural Order No. 1 (para 5.3): the arbitrators and parties may agree provisions on confidentiality and transparent AI use, for example in Procedural Order No. 1.¹

None of the published institutional guidance we reviewed offers model wording for this. As our own suggestion, not VIAC’s, a tribunal can use Procedural Order No. 1 to record which AI tools may be used and whether their use is to be disclosed, so the point is settled early rather than argued late. How each institution’s text compares on disclosure is in AI disclosure in arbitration, model clause and procedural-order wording is in AI arbitration clauses, and the tracker row sits at the VIAC entry.¹

How does the Note treat AI-generated evidence?

The Note leaves AI-generated evidence to the tribunal’s discretion, both whether to request disclosure and what weight the evidence carries. For factual and expert evidence, it is within the arbitrators’ discretion to decide whether to request disclosure of evidence “produced by AI or with the support of AI” (para 6.1).¹

The tribunal also decides the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence a party produces with the support of AI (para 6.2). VIAC’s Legal Tech Think Tank is separately drafting guidelines on digital evidence, set out in what VIAC is working on next, below. How tribunals test AI-made and deepfake evidence generally is in AI document review in arbitration; what arbitrators may and may not draft with AI, including AI translation of awards, is in AI and award drafting.^1,5

Can AI be an arbitrator, and do the Vienna Rules mention AI?

The Vienna Rules 2021 never mention AI, and nothing we read in the Rules or in Austrian arbitration law lets an AI system replace the arbitrator. The Rules are silent on AI; the Note is the only VIAC text on it.^1,3

Vienna Rules Art 16(1) says “Any person with full legal capacity may act as arbitrator”, and Art 16(2) says arbitrators act independently, are not bound by any instruction, and keep information confidential. The management and evidence parts of the Note rest on the Rules the tribunal already works under: efficient and fair conduct and the right to be heard at every stage (Art 28(1)), the tribunal’s power to collect evidence on its own initiative (Art 29(1)), hearings in person or by other means and not in public (Art 30(1), (2)), and the liability exclusion in Art 46(1), which the Note adopts.^1,3

Para 2 keeps the human arbitrator in control whatever tools are used: no decision affecting the proceedings may be handed to AI, and AI may only facilitate the arbitrator’s analysis. On Austrian law, read in VIAC’s published English translation of the arbitration provisions (ZPO Sections 577 to 618), we found no section that expressly says an arbitrator must be a natural person; Section 594(2) requires that the parties be treated fairly and each be granted the right to be heard. The comparative law on whether AI can be an arbitrator, in France, Portugal, Scotland and the Model Law, is in our guide to AI in arbitration.^1,3,9

Does the EU AI Act apply to VIAC arbitrations?

It can, mainly where AI helps decide the case, and it matters for VIAC because most VIAC arbitrations are seated in Vienna, inside the EU. In 2025, 94% of VIAC cases were seated in Vienna. The Note itself does not name the EU AI Act or the GDPR; it refers only to “applicable laws and regulations” (Exclusion of Liability).^1,7

The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) can treat AI that helps decide an arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) whose outcome has legal effects as high-risk: Annex III point 8(a) covers AI used “in a similar way in alternative dispute resolution”, and recital 61 limits this to outcomes with legal effects for the parties and excludes purely ancillary administrative activities. The European Commission’s draft high-risk guidelines of 19 May 2026, not yet adopted, treat arbitration as ADR and say awards “generally have binding and final effect”.^18,19,21

Those high-risk duties apply from 2 December 2027 under the Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744. On 23 July 2026, VIAC co-signed, with 15 other institutions, a joint letter asking that the high-risk label fall on AI a tribunal uses to decide, not on institutions’ administrative tools. What the letter asked, and how the Act lands on European ADR, is in AI in dispute resolution in Europe; the full provider-and-deployer read across arbitration and ADR is in the EU AI Act and dispute resolution.^16,17,20

How does the VIAC Note compare with other institutions’ AI texts?

VIAC sits among a cluster of soft-law instruments that all keep the decision with the arbitrator and differ mainly on disclosure and on how they come to apply. The clearest contrast is on disclosure: SVAMC says it is generally not necessary and should be decided case by case (Guideline 3); the SCC Arbitration Institute guide encourages tribunals to disclose AI used to research or interpret the facts and the law; VIAC leaves disclosure of the arbitrator’s own tools to the arbitrator (para 5.2).^1,11,12

The sibling institution explainers go deeper on each text: ICC, the LCIA, AAA-ICDR, JAMS and SIAC, with the SCC Guide, the SVAMC Guidelines and the Ciarb Guideline covered in their own pages. The AI rules tracker lists each one.¹

What is VIAC working on next?

VIAC’s Legal Tech Think Tank has two technology-related workstreams under way, and the 2026 Guidelines for Arbitrators add one AI point. The Think Tank, a working group of 20 members, is drafting guidelines on digital evidence, covering deepfakes, digital impersonation, corrupted or lost data, and the use of AI, and it is drafting an annex to the Vienna Rules tailored to the needs of technology-related disputes. Neither is published yet.^5,6,8

On AI translation of awards, the Guidelines for Arbitrators 2026 say the VIAC Secretariat will in principle not review a translation of a whole award, “AI-generated or otherwise”, because of the heightened risk of translation inaccuracies (IV.3.7), and that the tribunal “remains solely responsible for the content of the award” (IV.3.5). The Note itself says VIAC may periodically update it; as of 30 October 2026 no update has been published. What arbitrators may and may not draft with AI is in AI and award drafting.^1,4

Is this the Vienna or the Vietnam centre?

The Note is the Vienna International Arbitral Centre’s. A separate body, the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre, is also abbreviated VIAC. Its Rules of Arbitration 2026 (in force 1 July 2026) let the tribunal discuss with the parties the use of information technology tools, including tools supported by or incorporating AI (Art 16(6)); we found no stand-alone AI note or guidelines from the Vietnam centre like the Vienna centre’s. We always write the Vietnam centre’s full name. How the Vietnam centre and other regional bodies treat AI is in AI in dispute resolution in South East Asia.¹⁰