Arbitration and ADR Archives - Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: OPPORTUNITIES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES

team valletta — Tue, 02 Sep 2025 11:01:09 +0000

Artificial intelligence (hereinafter also “AI”) has become an integral part of modern society. While its use is sometimes criticized, and concerns remain about the potential replacement of human activity in certain fields, there is no denying that this emerging technology enhances work efficiency and simplifies many tasks. Given the rapid pace of development, those who choose not to engage with AI risk falling behind. The use of AI-based systems in the legal field offers numerous advantages, but it also presents significant challenges. The same applies in the context of international arbitration. In the sections that follow, the reader will find an overview of the main areas in which AI systems are currently being applied in arbitration proceedings (Section 1). This will be followed by an examination of the key challenges that arise from the use of such technologies in this context (Section 2). A brief overview of institutional rules and initiatives that have begun to address the integration of AI into arbitration will then be provided (Section 3). Finally, some concluding remarks and reflections on the way forward will be offered (Section 4).

Potential Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration

In international arbitration, AI can be highly valuable. It enables the automation of numerous legal tasks, helping to ease the workload of lawyers and arbitrators while enhancing the overall efficiency of proceedings. This technology can assist arbitration practitioners throughout the entire arbitral process, from the initiation of proceedings to their conclusion. Among its various applications, AI is particularly effective in analyzing large volumes of documents. It facilitates both document review and fact-finding and streamlines the document production phase. For example, AI can be used to quickly generate chronologies, accurately identify documents by category, and redact sensitive information more efficiently.^[1] AI can also accelerate and improve the accuracy of legal research, enabling practitioners to quickly access relevant case law and precedents. It can provide high-quality machine translations, which simplify communication in international arbitrations and help reduce translation costs for annexes. Moreover, the drafting of standard documents – such as procedural orders, procedural calendars, or Redfern schedules – can be efficiently managed using AI-based systems.^[2] AI can also assist in analyzing arbitrator profiles, helping parties identify the most suitable candidates based on objective and tailored criteria.^[3] In addition to the aspects already mentioned, AI systems also play a significant role in predictive analysis, offering parties and counsel advanced systems to preliminarily assess the likelihood of success in a given dispute or legal action.^[4] For example, several platforms available on the market use large case law databases to offer detailed insights into arbitral tribunals, judges, lawyers, and opposing parties. These systems claim to predict how different legal strategies may influence arbitral proceedings^[5] and their outcomes by analyzing established trends and complex statistical models.^[6] Some suggest that AI systems could even assist arbitrators in anticipating how an arbitral award might be treated in the future, such as the likelihood of it being set aside, refused enforcement, or freely enforced.^[7] This could help arbitrators draft decisions that, drawing on historical data and predictive models, are more likely to remain stable over time.^[8] Finally, AI could evolve to assist arbitrators in preparing the decision-making process, especially in highly complex disputes. These types of applications are already being used in ordinary litigation and class action proceedings.^[9] It is therefore possible that similar systems will also be adopted in international arbitration in the relatively near future (but see Section 2.4 below for potential challenges in this area).

Emerging challenges in the use of artificial intelligence

While the benefits of artificial intelligence outlined above are undeniable, it is essential not to overlook the potential risks linked to its use in international arbitration. The following section examines some of the main issues that may arise in this context. 2.1 Data processing and training: the “black box” and “bias” problem The “black box” problem in AI refers to the lack of transparency in how AI systems – particularly those based on complex algorithms like deep learning – reach their decisions.^[10] This lack of transparency makes it difficult to understand, interpret, and trust the outcomes generated by AI systems. In the legal field, it raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the reproduction of discriminatory patterns, commonly referred to as bias. AI systems, after all, rely on the data they are fed.^[11] AI systems are trained on information that may include biased or unrepresentative data.^[12] If such data is not identified and corrected, the algorithm trained on it may perpetuate – or even amplify – certain biases, leading to inaccurate or flawed outcomes.^[13] The risk of perpetuating stereotypes may arise, for example, when AI systems are used to select arbitrators based on statistical probabilities drawn from available data, particularly data reflecting the prevailing composition of arbitral tribunals in practice.^[14] 2.2 Outdated data and “hallucinations” AI requires access to up-to-date and relevant data in order to function effectively. If the system is fed outdated information, there is a risk that its analyses and recommendations will be out of context or no longer applicable to current circumstances. In this regard, another significant challenge is the risk of so-called “hallucinations” generated by AI.^[15] These occur when AI systems generate inaccurate or misleading responses based on non-existent or incorrect data.^[16] A notable example occurred during legal proceedings in the United States, where a defense team relied on an AI system to identify legal precedents to present at a hearing. It was only during the proceedings that the judge discovered those cases did not, in fact, exist.^[17] Another emblematic incident took place in early 2025 in Norway, where a lawyer submitted fictitious sources generated by an AI system during court proceedings. This prompted the Norwegian Supreme Court to update its guidelines, introducing a new provision specifically aimed at regulating the use of AI in judicial proceedings.^[18] These cases clearly highlighted the risks associated with the use of such technologies, particularly the tendency of some systems to produce inaccurate, misleading, or entirely fabricated content. In the context of arbitration, this raises the very real possibility that AI-based systems could lead to the submission of documents containing errors or flawed assessments, especially if the underlying data is poorly managed.^[19] It is therefore essential for lawyers and arbitrators to adopt a critical approach to AI technologies, ensuring through careful oversight that the information used is accurate, verifiable, and reliable.^[20] 2.3 Duty of professional secrecy, data confidentiality In addition to the points already mentioned, another important aspect must be considered, as lawyers are bound by a strict duty of professional secrecy.^[21] In an increasingly digitized age marked by the widespread use of AI systems, data relating to legal proceedings may not be fully protected when shared with AI solution providers or external platforms. In particular, there is a concrete risk that client information – such as case details or confidential documents – could be processed without adequate safeguards, potentially resulting in breaches of confidentiality and improper use.^[22] Online legal platforms and AI providers often do not clearly disclose whether, and to what extent, they may reuse retained data, raising concerns about the potential use of client information.^[23] In addition, legal data such as court decisions or contracts in full-text format are particularly difficult to anonymize effectively. Even when anonymization is promised or applied, contextual elements may still allow the identification of the clients or entities involved.^[24] Considering the above, it is essential for those who intend to use AI systems in arbitration proceedings – whether lawyers relying on them to draft pleadings or arbitrators using them for case management support – to carefully select their AI service providers. This helps ensure that confidentiality is respected and data is properly protected, avoiding any breach of professional secrecy.^[25] 2.4 Risks related to automated decision-making Finally, to complete this overview of critical issues surrounding the use of AI in arbitration, we turn to the risks linked to the potential use of AI by arbitrators in the decision-making process. As discussed above, this possibility may become increasingly common in the future. At the same time, it is essential to recognize that the role of the arbitrator must comply with specific ethical standards, including independence, impartiality, competence, and the duty to ensure the enforceability of awards.^[26] The improper use of AI-based systems by arbitrators to assist in their decision-making process could undermine these principles and may provide grounds for challenging the award.^[27] In this regard, a key consideration is the intuitu personae nature of the arbitral mandate, which requires that the assigned functions be performed directly by the arbitrator.^[28] Where delegation does occur – for example, through the appointment of a tribunal secretary – it must be disclosed to the parties in advance.^[29] Thus, legitimate concerns have been raised as to whether it is appropriate for an arbitrator to delegate activities related to the decision-making function to an AI system or software.^[30] Under French law, for instance, only a natural person with full legal capacity may act as an arbitrator.^[31] Similarly, under Italian law, “no person who lacks, in whole or in part, the legal capacity to act may be an arbitrator”.^[32] In addition, case law in the context of AI-assisted patent registration has established that AI systems cannot be considered natural persons.^[33] Consequently, delegating adjudicative functions to an AI system could violate this requirement^[34] and potentially lead to a challenge of the award.^[35] In addition, it is worth noting that the New York Convention, which governs the enforcement of arbitral awards across many jurisdictions, provides under Article V that enforcement may be refused if the arbitration procedure was not conducted in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat. Accordingly, the use of AI in the decision-making process, without party consent or in breach of applicable procedural law, could also risk refusal of enforcement under such Convention.^[36] A further issue concerns the alleged inability of AI systems – at least at this stage of technological development – to produce adequately reasoned legal decisions.^[37] Reasoning, which involves explaining the logical and legal grounds on which a decision is based, is a cornerstone of legal decision-making. This limitation represents a significant obstacle to the adoption of AI in arbitration.^[38] In light of these considerations, the use of AI systems in the decision-making process remains particularly problematic. It is thus essential that arbitrators and the parties involved agree on strict criteria governing the possible use of AI systems, to ensure compliance with the principles of independence, impartiality, and transparency throughout the arbitration process, thereby avoiding uncertainty and potential disputes. In this context, a key question emerges: should parties be informed when arbitrators or lawyers make use of AI during legal proceedings? This is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future.^[39]

Emerging regulatory approaches on this issue

Precisely for the reasons outlined above, arbitral institutions are beginning to adapt to the introduction of artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings. On 30 April 2024, the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (“SVAMC”) published the first edition of its “Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration” (“Guidelines”). This was the first example of an arbitration institution incorporating AI provisions into its rules.^[40] The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (“JAMS”), one of the leading providers of alternative dispute resolution services, also began adapting to the emergence of AI systems in arbitration proceedings. On 23 April 2024 – around the same time as the SVAMC’s Guideline – it issued the “Rules Governing Disputes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems”, a set of provisions specifically designed to regulate disputes arising from the use of AI systems.[41] In October 2024, the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”) issued a guide dedicated to the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration proceedings conducted under its rules. The document sets out guidelines aimed at ensuring that the adoption of AI technologies does not compromise the integrity and impartiality of the arbitral process.^[42] Despite the differences and specific features of the individual sources cited, some common principles emerge, reflecting the risks outlined above. First, human oversight remains central to all three institutions (see Section 2.2 above). Under no circumstances may final decisions be delegated to AI. Arbitrators are permitted to use such systems only for support activities, such as factual analysis or document management, while remaining responsible for verifying their accuracy and fully accountable for the results produced. Transparency is another shared pillar (see Section 2.4 above), although with some variation. The SCC requires arbitrators to disclose any use of AI, enabling parties to be informed and, if necessary, to object. The SVAMC adopts a more flexible approach, leaving the decision to the discretion of the arbitral tribunal, depending on the circumstances of the case. JAMS, on the other hand, has introduced specific protocols to ensure that AI-generated outcomes are accessible and subject to review by all parties. Finally, all three sets of rules place particular emphasis on data protection, confidentiality, and security (see Section 2.3 above). Each Institution requires that AI systems comply with the highest standards of data protection and anonymization, and mandates verification of data storage and management policies. It is therefore likely that, following these initial efforts, more arbitral institutions will soon begin developing frameworks to regulate the use of AI systems in the proceedings they administer, in order to remain aligned with technological developments.[43]

Conclusion and recommendations

In conclusion, artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities to enhance efficiency in international arbitration over the long term, creating new possibilities for optimizing time and resources. However, these innovations also introduce novel risks that require careful regulation and oversight by both arbitrators and legal practitioners. As a result, an increasing number of arbitral institutions are progressively developing guidelines to support the responsible use of AI. Looking ahead, collaboration among technology developers, arbitral institutions, and legal professionals will be essential to fully harness the potential of AI, helping to shape an arbitration process that is safer, more accessible, and better tailored to the needs of the parties involved. In the meantime, while this regulatory landscape continues to evolve, we offer the following recommendations for the safe and effective use of AI in arbitration: 1) prioritise AI systems with transparent processes and regularly assess the risks and critical issues associated with their use. 2) Ensure that AI systems are updated with current data and carefully review the outputs they generate. 3) Select AI technology providers with care, verifying that they comply with strict data protection standards and applicable regulations. 4) Discuss and agree on the use of AI with clients, parties and arbitrators and clearly define how it will be integrated into the proceedings. 5) When acting as an arbitrator, always retain full decision-making authority, using AI solely as a support tool and ensuring that its use is disclosed to and accepted by the parties.

[1] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [2] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It?, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [3] Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 10; Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [4] Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 12. [5] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [6] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/). [7] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It?, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [8] Leonardo F. Souza-McMurtrie, Arbitration Tech Toolbox: Will ChatGPT Change International Arbitration as We Know It? in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 February 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/26/arbitration-tech-toolbox-will-chatgpt-change-international-arbitration-as-we-know-it/). [9] For instance, the Frankfurt Regional Court developed an AI tool called Frankfurter Urteils-Konfigurator elektronisch (FRaUKe) to assist judges in managing air passenger rights cases (https://hessen.de/presse/hessen-und-brandenburg-kooperieren-beim-ki-projekt-frauke). Similarly, the Stuttgart Court of Appeals introduced a project named Oberlandesgerichtsassistent (OLGA) to support the handling of mass litigation arising from the Diesel emissions scandal (https://de.newsroom.ibm.com/2022-12-07-OLG-Stuttgart-pilotiert-IBM-Massenverfahrensassistenten-zur-Fallbearbeitung-in-Dieselabgasverfahren). [10] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22 ff. [11] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 19; Mahnoor Waqar, The Use of AI in Arbitral Proceedings, in Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 2022, volume 37, number 3, p. 343f. [12] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, pp. 22f., 31. [13] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, pp. 22f., 31; Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary to Guideline 1, p. 16. [14] Janine Haesler/Tim Isler, Navigating the Main Impacts of Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: Insights from the ICC YAAF Workshop, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 17 March 2024 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2024/03/17/navigating-the-main-impacts-of-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration-insights-from-the-icc-yaaf-workshop/); Martina Magnarelli, Cogito ergo (intelligens) sum? Artificial Intelligence and international arbitration: who would set out the rules of the game? Iurgium, volume 2022, number 43, p. 31 ff., para. 10. [15] Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [16] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary on Guideline 1, p. 16. [17] See https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/05/27/lawyer-uses-chatgpt-in-federal-court-and-it-goes-horribly-wrong/. [18] See https://www.advokatbladet.no/hoyesterett-kunstig-intelligens/hoyesterett-har-mottatt-sitt-forste-prosesskriv-med-oppdiktede-kilder/227171 ; https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/internett/advokatveiledningen/advokatveiledningen-april-2025.pdf . [19] Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [20] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary on Guideline 1, p. 16. [21] Art. 13 of the Italian Code of Legal Ethics. [22] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 47, 51. [23] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 48. [24] Moreover, the safeguards provided by the GDPR do not necessarily address in a comprehensive manner the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence-based systems (Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools by Lawyers and Law Firms in the EU, 2022, p. 48). The growing use of such systems also introduces an additional risk concerning the extraterritorial application of the GDPR. In particular, when cloud service providers – commonly used in AI applications – are subject to local regulations outside the scope of the GDPR, users may lose control over how those rules affect the protection of personal data in the context of legal proceedings (ibid., p. 44). [25] Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law firms in the EU, 2022, p. 51; Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, Commentary to Guideline 2, p. 17. [26] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [27] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [28] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/); Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff. [29] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [30] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [31] Art. 1450 of the French Code of Civil Procedure: “La mission d’arbitre ne peut être exercée que par une personne physique jouissant du plein exercice de ses droits.” [32] Art. 812 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. [33] United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Stephen Thaler v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. 2021-2347, 5 August 2022. [34] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). [35] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity); Crenguta Leaua/Corina Tănase, Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration: Some Considerations on the Eve of a Global Regulation, in Revista Română de Arbitraj, 2023, volume 17, number 4, pp. 31 ff, p. 38. [36] Juan Perla, A Closer Look at the New SVAMC Guidelines for AI in International Arbitration, 23 May 2024 (https://aria.law.columbia.edu/a-closer-look-at-the-new-svamc-guidelines-for-ai-in-international-arbitration/#:~:text=Guidelines%20for%20Arbitrators,-Arbitrators%20are%20subject&text=While%20arbitrators%20may%20use%20AI,instructed%20to%20verify%20their%20veracity). It should be noted, however, that while not explicitly mentioning the use of AI, some authors point out that the 1958 New York Convention could not foresee such an eventuality, thus making the issue particularly interesting (see in more detail the analysis by Annabelle O. Onyefulu, Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration: A Step Too Far?, in The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, p. 56 ff., p. 60 ff., with further references). [37] Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22. [38] See in more detail Maxi Scherer, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 318/2019, p. 22 ff. [39] Claire Morel de Westgaver, Canvassing Views on AI in AI: The Rise of Machine Learning, in Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 12 July 2023 (https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/07/12/canvassing-views-on-ai-in-ia-the-rise-of-machine-learning/). [40] Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center, Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration, p. 8 (“computer systems that perform tasks commonly associated with human cognition, such as understanding natural language, recognising complex semantic patterns, and generating human-like outputs“). Specifically, the Guidelines define artificial intelligence as “computer systems that perform tasks commonly associated with human cognition, such as understanding natural language, recognising complex semantic patterns, and generating human-like outputs“. [41] Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Artificial Intelligence Disputes Clause and Rules, Section 1, p. 1 ff. [42] Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), Guide to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Cases Administered Under the SCC Rules, Section ‘AI and its uses‘, p. 1 ff. [43] In this regard, it should be noted that both the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) of the AAA have more recently issued guidance documents on the use of AI in arbitration proceedings, with CIArb publishing its guideline in March 2025 and ICDR following in April 2025.

The post INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: OPPORTUNITIES AND EMERGING CHALLENGES appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

SUMMIT ON COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CHINA – Rome, 27 June 2025

team valletta — Fri, 27 Jun 2025 10:09:10 +0000

On 27 June, our partner Andrew Paton moderated a session on ADR at the Summit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in China, organised by the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court and sponsored by UNIDROIT – International Institute for the Unification of Private Law and Sapienza Università di Roma.

The Sessions focussed on recent legislative developments regarding commercial arbitration and mediation in China, also through the development of pilot mediation legislation in 3 Chinese free trade zones.
These changes are part of broader efforts to make China more welcoming to foreign businesses and investors, while addressing the so-called “litigation explosion” marked by an unprecedented volume of disputes across the country.

Among the solutions discussed were the simpler enforceability of foreign arbitration awards in China, the opening this year of the International Organization for Mediation in Hong Kong and the growing interconnection between litigation and mediation.

Participants also reflected on the role of China’s cultural mindset of “harmony” or “unity of paradoxes” as a potential resource for navigating today’s rising trade and geopolitical uncertainties.

The post SUMMIT ON COMMERCIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN CHINA – Rome, 27 June 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

AIJA HALF-YEAR MAY CONFERENCE – Milan, 14 – 17 May 2025

team valletta — Fri, 16 May 2025 08:56:06 +0000

Last Friday, 16 May, within the AIJA Half-Year Conference in Milan, our senior associate Giulia Beneduci moderated the session “Fashion in Trouble: ADR or Litigation to the Rescue?“, organized by the Litigation, International Arbitration, Insolvency and IP/TMT Commissions. The topic was discussed with the other panelists: Dimosthenis Stefanopulos, Anna Zabrotskaya and – as keynote speaker from the fashion industry – Sara Citterio (TRUSSARDI).

Starting from a cross-cutting legal overview, following up with a series of real-life cases and finally collecting direct insights from the fashion industry, it was shown that the issues revolving around “fashion in trouble” are manifold, and chiefly revolve around (among others) how to preserve brand value and reputation. The answer to the question whether litigation and/or arbitation should be prioritized as a legal tool to the rescue, also based on polls launched to the audience, appeared anything but black-or-white.

Networking, updating and discussion: a perfect mix that made the conference a unique opportunity, bringing together hundreds of lawyers from various jurisdictions.

Thanks to all participants and the organisers for this inspiring event.

The post AIJA HALF-YEAR MAY CONFERENCE – Milan, 14 – 17 May 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

AIJA PANEL AND BRUNCH AT THE VIS MOOT – Vienna, 15 April 2025

team valletta — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 19:11:50 +0000

On April 15th, Michelangelo Cicogna joined the AIJA Panel and Brunch at the Vis Moot in Vienna as a speaker, an event organized by AIJA – International Association of Young Lawyers.

The panel sparked an engaging conversation around a key topic for any young arbitration practitioner: how to build and strengthen your professional profile in a competitive and ever-evolving field.

Michelangelo was glad to share the stage with friends and experienced practitioners (in different roles, private, in-house and institutional), offering practical insights on mentoring, networking, publications, speaking engagements and much more.

A warm thank you to AIJA and BINDER GRÖSSWANG Rechtsanwälte GmbH for the invitation, to fellow speakers Nadia Ohlhoff-Smahi, Kevin Nash, Chris Campbell, Marija Dobrić and Jacopo Piemonte for the inspiring exchange and to all the participants!

The post AIJA PANEL AND BRUNCH AT THE VIS MOOT – Vienna, 15 April 2025 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

TRADE SECRETS, INCREASING ARBITRATION TO AVOID COURTS

team valletta — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 13:44:49 +0000

Italy is the European country with the highest number of trade secret disputes. According to an EUIPO study, between 2017 and 2022, approximately 700 legal proceedings were recorded in the EU, with Italy leading the ranking. These disputes mainly involve employers and former employees, while cases against third-party companies are less frequent.

ItaliaOggi features an in-depth analysis by Alberto Grifone on the evolution of litigation and the importance of preventive protection for businesses.

Among the interviewees is Roberto A. Jacchia, who highlighted the role of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution tool: "Compared to court litigation, arbitration is characterized by a more flexible, streamlined, and faster procedure. Additionally, the parties can freely choose the arbitration venue and applicable rules, confidentiality is absolute, and arbitrators can be selected from experts with technical knowledge in the relevant field."

LEGGI L'ARTICOLO COMPLETO

The post TRADE SECRETS, INCREASING ARBITRATION TO AVOID COURTS appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA: MASSIMO CAIAZZA ENTRA COME PARTNER

marketude — Mon, 24 Feb 2025 09:40:15 +0000

Milano, 24 febbraio 2025 – De Berti Jacchia annuncia l’ingresso, in qualità di partner di Massimo Caiazza; con lui entra in studio Alessandro Saracco in qualità di associate.

Massimo Caiazza, fondatore di Caiazza & Partners, è uno tra i massimi esperti di diritto commerciale svedese in Italia. Iscritto all’Albo degli Avvocati Svedesi dal 1996, è stato eletto consigliere dell’Ordine degli Avvocati Svedesi, sezione estera dal 1997 al 2006, presidente del Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati Svedesi, sezione estera, nel 2005-2006 e nominato membro del Consiglio Nazionale Forense Svedese nel 2005-2006. È esperto in Diritto Internazionale, Diritto Europeo, Diritto Commerciale, Arbitrato Internazionale e contenzioso, assistendo aziende e privati ad orientarsi in contesti giuridici complessi in diverse giurisdizioni. Assiste società quotate e PMI in diversi settori, tra cui trasporti aerei, manifatturiero, farmaceutico e dispositivi medici, software, automotive, acciaio, gomma, ingegneria, hôtellerie, immobiliare e costruzioni, istituzioni ed organizzazioni non profit.

Con Marco Frazzica, partner di De Berti Jacchia dal 2005, che è stato per anni prima Consigliere di Amministrazione e poi Presidente della Camera di Commercio Italo-Svedese Assosvezia, nonché membro del consiglio di amministrazione di Unionestere ed è Console Generale Onorario di Svezia a Milano con giurisdizione sulla Lombardia e le Province di Alessandria, Novara, Verbano Cusio Ossola, dal 2002, Massimo Caiazza va a costituire un team unico nel panorama legale italiano con una profonda competenza ed ampia capacità operativa nei rapporti e scambi tra Italia e Svezia e, più in generale, tra l’Italia e il mondo scandinavo.

“Siamo fieri di accogliere Massimo nel nostro studio- commenta Marco Frazzica– con lui si costituisce un team, unico nel suo genere e senza precedenti, che assembla grandi competenze nel diritto commerciale internazionale relativo ai rapporti Italia-Svezia”.

“Sono certo che l’unione con lo studio De Berti Jacchia- afferma Massimo Caiazza– aprirà per me una nuova avventura professionale molto stimolante vista la presenza di Marco che, come me, ha una profonda conoscenza della Svezia e con cui costituiremo un polo estremamente qualificato del diritto svedese in Italia”.

“Un caldo benvenuto tra noi a Massimo e al suo team – aggiunge il Senior Partner Roberto A. Jacchia – che, innestandosi sulla solida realtà ultraventennale creata presso di noi da Marco, porterà la squadra svedese a più che raddoppiare in capitale umano e valore aggiunto”.

Alessandro Saracco è specializzato nella contrattualistica, nonché nel contenzioso civile e ADR, con ampie aree di competenza, tra cui il contenzioso con imprese e la crisi di impresa, il diritto immobiliare, il diritto aeronautico, il diritto assicurativo e della tutela della persona e la responsabilità in ambito sanitario.

IN THE PRESS

Il Sole 24 Ore – De Berti crea un team dedicato Italia-Svezia

NTplus Diritto Il Sole 24 Ore – De Berti Jacchia: Massimo Caiazza entra come partner

Legalcommunity – De Berti Jacchia: Massimo Caiazza entra come partner. Lo studio accelera sui rapporti Italia Svezia

Diritto e Affari – De Berti Jacchia: Massimo Caiazza entra come partner

iMille – Massimo Caiazza entra come partner in De Berti Jacchia, rafforzando l’expertise nei rapporti Italia-Svezia

TopLegal – De Berti Jacchia: Massimo Caiazza entra come partner

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA: MASSIMO CAIAZZA ENTRA COME PARTNER appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

DE BERTI JACCHIA: CHIARA CALIANDRO NOMINATA PARTNER

marketude — Wed, 12 Feb 2025 10:21:56 +0000

Milano, 12 febbraio 2025 – De Berti Jacchia annuncia la nomina a partner di Chiara Caliandro.

Chiara si occupa principalmente di contenzioso, sia ordinario che arbitrale (anche nel ruolo di arbitro), e fornisce assistenza a clienti italiani e stranieri in materia di contrattualistica commerciale. Dal 2023 è Co-President della commissione Litigation di AIJA, associazione internazionale di giovani avvocati under 45 in cui è molto attiva da sempre.Collabora con lo Studio dal 2008, dopo essersi laureata in giurisprudenza presso l’Università Bocconi di Milano.

Nel 2011 ha operato in secondment presso la sede milanese di una società del gruppo svedese IKEA. Nel 2015 è stata premiata come una dei 5 migliori professionisti under 35 del Corso annuale di Arbitrato presso la Camera Arbitrale di Milano. Dal 2021 è membro della CRINT – Commissione Rapporti Internazionali dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano, con delega ad AIJA.

“Siamo felici di comunicare la nomina a partner di Chiara, che nel corso degli anni ha dimostrato competenza, dedizione e capacità di creare valore per sé, i colleghi e i clienti. È un segnale che lo Studio continua a credere nella crescita anche per linee interne, con la volontà di proseguire nella costruzione di un ambiente orientato alla gender equality, anche nella fase di ricambio generazionale.”, dichiara Roberto Jacchia, senior partner di De Berti Jacchia

IN THE PRESS

TopLegal – De Berti Jacchia, Chiara Caliandro promossa partner

Global legal Chronicle – Chiara Caliandro nominata Partner in De Berti Jacchia

Legalcommunity – De Berti Jacchia: Chiara Caliandro nominata partner

Diritto e Affari – De Berti Jacchia: Chiara Caliandro nominata partner

iMille – Chiara Caliandro nominata partner di De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani: nuova leadership per il contenzioso e la contrattualistica commerciale

NTPlus Diritto Il Sole 24 Ore – De Berti Jacchia: Chiara Caliandro nominata partner

The post DE BERTI JACCHIA: CHIARA CALIANDRO NOMINATA PARTNER appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

AI-POWERED JUSTICE: TRANSFORMING ARBITRATION – Milan, November 28th, 2024

marketude — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 16:43:22 +0000

On 28 November 2024, our partner Michelangelo Cicogna, as Co-Chair ArbIt, gave the closing remarks.

Programme

The post AI-POWERED JUSTICE: TRANSFORMING ARBITRATION – Milan, November 28th, 2024 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

GAR LIVE: CIVIL LAW SUMMIT 2024 – Madrid (Spain), October 10th, 2024

marketude — Thu, 10 Oct 2024 13:04:23 +0000

On October 9 and 10, at the Thompson Hotel in Madrid, the inaugural GAR Live: Civil Law Summit will take place.

Michelangelo Cicogna speaks on 10 October at 9.35 a.m., atackling the challenging topic of costs in the panel “Does civil law have the key to cutting costs?”.

Visit Website

The post GAR LIVE: CIVIL LAW SUMMIT 2024 – Madrid (Spain), October 10th, 2024 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.

2024 INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE – Mexico City (Mexico), September 17th, 2024

marketude — Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:03:05 +0000

At the 2024 International Bar Association (IBA) Annual Conference in Mexico City Michelangelo Cicogna is Session Chair at the event “Confronting ‘old style’ advocacy to artificial intelligence solutions”.

Visit Website

The post 2024 INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION ANNUAL CONFERENCE – Mexico City (Mexico), September 17th, 2024 appeared first on Studio Legale De Berti Jacchia Franchini Forlani.