English law assumes human arbitrators, but AI decision-makers may have a role to play, writes Daniel Kessler
- Some litigants might accept the risk of an inaccurate decision, given the speed and cost benefits of AI arbitration.
- The Arbitration Act 1996 would likely not recognise a decision made by an AI arbitrator, due to the drafting of the Act.
- English law might, however, recognise a foreign-law AI award, although recognition could be resisted on public policy grounds.
- Parties could also agree to a dispute resolution clause which uses AI determination, even if not enforceable as an ‘arbitration’.
Litigants may wish to resolve their disputes through artificial intelligence (AI). Documents could be uploaded to a platform like ChatGPT and the software invited to give a binding determination.
Many readers will doubt this process can yield a reliable result at present, and question whether AI technology will ever improve in the foreseeable future. In its favour, however, AI arbitration would be materially faster and cheaper than
To access this full article please fill the form below.
If you already a subscriber to New Law Journal, please login here
