THE AUTHOR:
Sadaf Ghani, Corporate Lawyer at Aziz Law Associates
Asian adoption of AI in arbitration is progressing but uneven: major hubs like Singapore, Hong Kong, and China are issuing pragmatic guidance and institutional rules while many Southeast and South Asian jurisdictions are still in ad hoc or pilot phases. Regional actors have begun publishing frameworks, for example, CIETAC (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission)’s Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology in Arbitration 2025. The guidance of global bodies is influencing practice; however, divergent data-protection laws, cross-border data flows, and varying judicial attitudes create complexity. Key risks are due process, explainability, bias, confidentiality, and tribunal competence.
Practical priorities are mandatory to preserve fairness and party autonomy, such as:
- Early disclosure of material AI use;
- Minimum documentation and explainability standards for AI outputs;
- Data‑protection safeguards for cross‑border processing;
- Tribunal and counsel training; and
- Pilot procedural clauses.
Rapid, locally tailored but harmonized guidance from Asian institutions is essential to prevent fragmentation and protect arbitration’s core values.
The Middle East and the Indian subcontinent are at an early-to-intermediate stage of integrating AI into arbitration, with important differences.
Gulf countries and major Indian arbitration centres are showing active interest and piloting guidance or institutional tech upgrades, while Pakistan and many smaller Middle Eastern states remain largely in a discussion and capacity‑building phase. Regulators and institutions across the region prioritise data localization, cross‑border data transfer controls, and confidentiality safeguards, producing cautious, pragmatic approaches rather than affirmative endorsements of unconstrained AI use.
India’s legal community and top courts have embraced technology in court e‑filing and virtual hearings but remain cautious about AI’s evidentiary and ethical consequences, with India’s evolving data‑protection landscape likely to shape practice. Pakistan has emerging practitioner debate and academic work on AI in arbitration, but limited formal institutional rules, constrained by resource and expertise gaps. Across all these jurisdictions, the immediate priorities are disclosure of material AI use, enforceable confidentiality and data‑processing safeguards, tribunal and counsel upskilling, and pilot procedural orders to enable controlled experimentation while protecting due process and fairness.
Pakistan’s arbitration system still faces significant structural and enforcement challenges that limit arbitration’s practical role and make widespread AI adoption premature: Pakistan continues to rely on old statutory frameworks, and courts often remain interventionist in arbitration matters, leading to uncertain enforcement of domestic and foreign awards and inconsistent jurisprudence. India has made more strides with institutional arbitration growth, court support for virtual procedures, and an evolving data‑protection debate that will shape AI use, but concerns over evidentiary standards and judicial backlog temper immediate, unchecked deployment of AI tools.
Gulf and Qatar are more proactive on tech and institutional modernization, yet regional variations in data localization and regulatory approaches mean AI integration will be cautious and incremental. Before AI can be effectively scaled in these jurisdictions, priority reforms are needed: revising arbitration laws and streamlining enforcement; strengthening institutional capacity and specialist arbitral centres; providing training to judges and arbitrators on AI and digital evidence; implementing mandatory disclosure and data‑processing safeguards for AI use; and conducting controlled pilots with privacy‑preserving platforms to build confidence and establish precedent.
The Middle East is far more prepared to adopt AI in arbitration than many other regions, especially when compared to South Asia. The Gulf states, particularly the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, have invested heavily in digital infrastructure, AI strategies, and international connectivity across sectors like construction, technology, and e-commerce. These advancements naturally extend to legal and dispute resolution systems, where arbitration has become a preferred mechanism due to its speed, neutrality, and global enforceability. Arbitration centres like DIFC-LCIA and ADGM in the UAE are already integrating digital case management and virtual hearings, operating within regulatory environments that support innovation while maintaining procedural integrity. This makes the Middle East not only a strong candidate for AI adoption in arbitration but also a potential leader in setting regional standards for responsible use. However, successful integration still depends on ensuring due process, data protection, and tribunal competence areas where ongoing investment and harmonized guidance will be essential.
As of 2025, the DIAC (Dubai International Arbitration Centre) has emerged as a regional leader in arbitration following the consolidation of Dubai’s framework under Decree No. 34 of 2021. With updated rules, streamlined administration, and expanded international partnerships, DIAC has positioned itself at the forefront of innovation. The launch of the DIAC Academy and ADR Lab reflects a strategic commitment to professional development and procedural modernization.
DIAC’s partnership with Jus Mundi and Jus AI marks a significant step toward integrating advanced AI tools into arbitration processes. The collaboration equips DIAC’s case management team with cutting-edge AI tools to streamline operations and enhance efficiency, transparency, and knowledge-sharing. This initiative also reflects the UAE’s broader ambition to lead in digital dispute resolution while maintaining international standards. With over three decades of experience and a renewed institutional framework, DIAC exemplifies how targeted investment, regulatory clarity, and technological collaboration can drive responsible AI adoption in arbitration setting a benchmark for the region and beyond.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Sadaf Ghani is an Advocate of the High Court of Sindh with extensive experience in civil and constitutional litigation. She’s a Corporate lawyer at Aziz Law Associates in Pakistan. As a former Arbitrator for government cases, she has played a pivotal role in resolving complex legal disputes involving public sector entities. Holding a Master of Laws degree from the University of Law, United Kingdom, she brings a global perspective to local legal challenges. A consistent contributor to legal writing, Sadaf is recognized for her excellence in drafting contracts and arbitral awards. Her familiarity with AI tools and legal technologies informs a forward-thinking approach to arbitration and legal documentation.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
