Dilara Khamitova<\/a><\/strong><\/strong>, Jurist at Clyde & Co<\/strong><\/a>
Sanjana Sachdev<\/strong>, Trainee Lawyer at Clyde & Co<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Clyde & Co<\/a>\u2019s Young Arbitration Group provides a unique insight into\u00a0international arbitration\u00a0issues through the lens of young international arbitration practitioners working across different jurisdictions. In this series with\u00a0Daily Jus<\/a>, Clyde & Co explores the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence in arbitration<\/strong>, analysing recent developments, legislative changes, and their impact on dispute resolution worldwide.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n France<\/a> has adopted a measured and ethical approach to the integration of AI in arbitration. The jurisdiction has embraced AI as a tool for efficiency, while simultaneously reinforcing strict legal, procedural, and ethical boundaries. This article explores how AI is shaping the arbitration workflow today in France, how regulators and courts are responding to its integration, and what lies ahead for a legal system known for balancing innovation and legal tradition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n AI is increasingly built into the arbitration process in France. Whether a dispute is straightforward or complex, AI tools have proven valuable in simplifying dense legal documents, facilitating research, and mapping out intricate legal precedents. French practitioners now routinely use advanced legal tech platforms such as Predictice and Lexis+ AI for legal research and analysis, Hyperlex AI for contract management, Luminance and Relativity for summarizing legal documents, LinnkAI for translating multilingual legal documents, and Lami Liaisons Solutions for risk and compliance management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n France\u2019s arbitration framework is among the most forward-looking in Europe, and it continues to evolve.[i]<\/sup><\/a> A notable milestone was the release of the \u201cReport and Reform Proposals<\/em>\u201d by the Working Group on the Reform of French Arbitration Law, co-chaired by Fran\u00e7ois Ancel and Thomas Clay<\/a>.[ii]<\/sup><\/a> Although the report does not directly regulate AI, it does discuss the importance of digitalisation in arbitral proceedings, e.g. by proposing formal recognition of electronic awards, potentially paving the way for AI-assisted drafting, provided human oversight is preserved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Discussions around AI also took centre stage at the Paris Arbitration Week (PAW<\/strong>) this year where panels such as \u201cAI in Arbitration: Less Talk, More Tech<\/em>\u201d and \u201cThe Use of AI in Arbitration<\/em>\u201d identified practical applications \u2013 computer programs that can sort through thousands of pages in seconds, assist with case strategy, and even simulate procedural scenarios. The Paris International Arbitration Chamber (CAIP<\/strong>)<\/a> has undertaken a commendable endeavour to provide a useful bilingual guidance on the use of AI in arbitrations under its rules. Additionally, the Paris Bar has partnered with Ordalie, an AI model to assist law firms in their regular operational tasks whilst encouraging effective time management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The adoption of the EU AI Act<\/a> is reshaping the AI regulatory landscape across Europe.[iii]<\/sup><\/a> Rather than drafting its own standalone AI legislation, France is working within the European framework while developing sector-specific guidelines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For instance, proposed amendments to the French Intellectual Property Code (IPC<\/strong>) aim to regulate the use of generative AI and ensure AI-generated outputs respect copyright norms.[iv]<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, the French data protection agency (CNIL<\/strong>) has published a four-part AI Action Plan[v]<\/sup><\/a> focused on promoting innovation while safeguarding data privacy and accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Under the EU AI Act<\/a>, AI tools used in arbitration for research, legal analysis or fact interpretation are classified as high-risk, but those used for administrative tasks are practically excluded from that category.[vi]<\/sup><\/a> This aligns with French arbitration law, Article 1450 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that arbitrators be natural persons. Together, these legal frameworks reinforce a consistent principle that AI is going to remain in a completely supportive role, although it may increase efficiency in case management, document review, and predictive analysis. However, it should not replace the human element in decision making, at least not in the near future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The French courts have been a laboratory for figuring out how much AI can contribute to law and where its red lines must be drawn. On 28 April 2025, the Working Group on Artificial Intelligence submitted its report titled, \u201cCour de Cassation and Artificial Intelligence: Preparing the Court of Tomorrow<\/em>\u201d,[vii]<\/sup><\/a> highlighting both the opportunities and risks of AI. The report confirms that there is currently no need for AI in decision-making roles, reinforcing the principle that adjudication must remain human-led.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, the Cour de Cassation has also collaborated with AI research teams such as the ALMAnaCH project of INRIA to detect inconsistencies in case law.[viii]<\/sup><\/a> The court stressed these systems \u2013 internally developed, GDPR-compliant, and subject to strong governance \u2013 assist legal clerks in analysis without displacing human reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, a ruling by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Nanterre in February 2025 cautioned against deploying AI surveillance tools in the workplace without prior consultation with employee representatives.[ix]<\/sup><\/a> This reaffirms the duty of transparency and stakeholder disclosure \u2013 principles that also apply in arbitration when AI tools are used in case preparation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At a November 2024 colloquium hosted by the Tribunal Administratif d’Orl\u00e9ans, judicial experts examined AI\u2019s role in high-tech fields such as construction, finance, and environmental law.[x]<\/sup><\/a> While the specialists concurred that AI has the capacity to speed up data processing and pattern detection, the debates unleashed eternal threats: algorithmic prejudice, lack of transparency in \u201cblack box\u201d systems, and risk of dissolving impartiality. The consensus was clear: AI may assist, but its results should be verifiable, disputable, and subject to human judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While these decisions are not specifically talking about arbitration, they underscore values that are fundamental to arbitration: due process, transparency, and party autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey by Queen Mary University of London and White & Case<\/a>, 91% of respondents expect to use AI for research and data analytics within the next five years. Respondents largely approve of the use of AI by arbitrators to assist in administrative and procedural tasks. There is strong resistance, however, to its use for tasks requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment, which are fundamental aspects of the mandate given to arbitrators.[xi]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n To conclude, the message from the French court is consistent: AI may accelerate the arbitration process, but it must not substitute a human\u2019s judgment. The message is as expressed at a PAW event last year, \u201c[t]echnology can accelerate the ride, but the driver’s seat should still be human<\/em>\u201d.[xii]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n [i]<\/a> \u00c9lys\u00e9e Palace, Make France an AI Powerhouse, February 10th<\/sup> and 11th<\/sup>, 2025,<\/em> https:\/\/www.elysee.fr\/admin\/upload\/default\/0001\/17\/d9c1462e7337d353f918aac7d654b896b77c5349.pdf<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [ii]<\/a> Working Group on the Reform of French Arbitration Law Co-chaired by Fran\u00e7ois Ancel and Thomas Clay, Report and Proposed Reforms<\/em>, 26 March 2025, https:\/\/www.justice.gouv.fr\/sites\/default\/files\/2025-03\/rapport_2025_arbitrage.pdf<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [iii]<\/a> Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [iv]<\/a> Proposition de loi visant \u00e0 encadrer l’intelligence artificielle par le droit d’auteur, n\u00b0 1630 de 2023, 12 septembre 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [v]<\/a> CNIL, Artificial Intelligence: Action Plan of the CNIL<\/em>, 16 May 2023, https:\/\/www.cnil.fr\/en\/artificial-intelligence-action-plan-cnil<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [vi]<\/a> Regulation (EU) 2024\/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024, Recital 61 [which provides that the high-risk status is not triggered by \u201cpurely ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases<\/em>.\u201d].<\/p>\n\n\n\n [vii]<\/a> Cour de Cassation, Working Group on Artificial Intelligence, Cour de cassation and Artificial Intelligence: Preparing the Court of Tomorrow<\/em>, 28 April 2025, \u00a0https:\/\/www.courdecassation.fr\/files\/files\/Publications\/Rapport%20IA%20v%20English%20VF3.pdf<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [ix]<\/a> Comit\u00e9 Social et \u00c9conomique de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 de MetLife Europe DAC v. MetLife Europe DAC<\/em>, Tribunal judiciaire de Nanterre, Ordonnance de r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9, No. RG 24\/01457, Portalis No. DB3R-W-B7I-ZSDB, 14 February 2025, https:\/\/clawdey.notion.site\/Done-1a6ec4618823808fa933c80bf3db00e4<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [x]<\/a> Tribunal administratif d\u2019Orl\u00e9ans, Le tribunal participe au colloque relatif \u00e0 l\u2019intelligence artificielle au service de l\u2019expert judiciaire<\/em>, 9 D\u00e9cembre 2024, https:\/\/orleans.tribunal-administratif.fr\/qui-sommes-nous\/vie-du-tribunal\/le-tribunal-participe-au-colloque-relatif-a-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-service-de-l-expert-judiciaire<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n [xi]<\/a> Queen Mary University of London \u2013 White\u202f&\u202fCase, 2025 International Arbitration Survey: The Path Forward \u2013 Realities and Opportunities in Arbitration<\/em>, https:\/\/www.qmul.ac.uk\/arbitration\/media\/arbitration\/docs\/White-Case-QMUL-2025-International-Arbitration-Survey-report.pdf<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025), p. 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n [xii]<\/a> Paris Arbitration Week, Innovating Justice: The Rise of AI in International Arbitration<\/em>, 19 March 2024, https:\/\/parisarbitrationweek.com\/event\/innovating-justice-ais-role-in-reshaping-international-arbitration\/<\/a> (last accessed 24 July 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dilara Khamitova<\/a><\/strong> is a Jurist at the Paris office of Clyde & Co<\/a><\/strong>. Her practice focuses on international commercial and investment arbitration as well as public international law. Dilara is particularly active in sectors such as oil and gas, construction, urban infrastructure, and international trade, advising clients across Europe, Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. She handles arbitrations in English, French, Spanish, and Russian.<\/p>\n\n\n\nAI\u2019s Role in Arbitration and the French Legal Landscape<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Digital Reformation under the French Arbitration Law<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Synergy Between French and EU Law<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
AI Before French Courts: Lessons for Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Looking Ahead: Reform, Resistance, and a Human-Centric Future<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/2024-09-Clyde-and-co-1024x337.png\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n