Dr. Nikolaus Pitkowitz<\/strong><\/a>, Founding Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution at Pitkowitz & Partners<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>& President of the Vienna International Arbitral Centre<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>(VIAC<\/strong>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Beijing, 17 September 2025<\/strong> \u2013 At the China Arbitration Summit, Dr. Nikolaus Pitkowitz, President of the Vienna International Arbitral Centre<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>(VIAC<\/strong>) and founding partner of Pitkowitz & Partners<\/strong><\/a>, called on arbitration institutions worldwide to take the lead in addressing the use of Artificial Intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d<\/strong>) in arbitration. In a speech to an audience of arbitration professionals, Pitkowitz emphasized that AI in arbitration is \u201cno longer theoretical but already shaping our practice,\u201d<\/em> and urged institutions to proactively set standards to ensure that this technology strengthens rather than undermines arbitral proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pitkowitz noted that international arbitration, being a private and consensual form of dispute resolution, is well-positioned for self-regulation on emerging issues like AI. He argued that arbitral institutions \u2013 not state legislators \u2013 should spearhead the development of AI guidelines to find the sweet spot between lawless uncharted territory and paralysis by overregulation. \u201cWe don\u2019t want a regulatory vacuum, but we also don\u2019t want heavy-handed state intervention,\u201d<\/strong> he stated, suggesting that institutions can fill the gap through soft-law instruments such as notes, guidelines, and rules tailored to arbitration\u2019s needs. By taking initiative, institutions can create balanced frameworks that keep pace with technology while preserving the fairness and integrity of the arbitral process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a forward-looking idea, Pitkowitz even floated the possibility of arbitral institutions offering AI tools directly to parties and tribunals as part of their services. If both sides and the tribunal have equal access to the same AI-driven resources (for tasks like organizing evidence or managing case data), it could \u201clevel the playing field\u201d<\/strong> and preempt concerns about unequal access or secret use of AI. In this way, institutions would not only set rules but also embed<\/em> transparency and fairness into the very tools used in proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As examples of institutional leadership, Pitkowitz highlighted recent advancements by VIAC and the CIETAC<\/a> (China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) in integrating AI guidance:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr. Pitkowitz distilled the approach of these initiatives into three core principles \u2013 essentially the \u201cfeatures\u201d<\/strong> that any use of AI in arbitration should uphold:<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the central themes of Pitkowitz\u2019s address was the \u201cdue process dilemma\u201d<\/em> posed by AI. He observed that the legitimacy of any arbitral award hinges on the parties\u2019 ability to understand and trust the decision-making process. Introducing AI into that process raises challenging questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n To address these issues, Pitkowitz advocated developing standards for minimum disclosure<\/strong> of AI use, avenues for parties to test and challenge AI-generated inputs<\/strong>, expectations for explainability<\/strong> in any AI-derived analysis, and measures to prevent inequality of arms<\/strong>. Without such guardrails, he warned, \u201cwe risk undermining the very fairness that gives arbitration its legitimacy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n While speaking in Beijing, Pitkowitz drew on developments in both China and Europe to illustrate that the intersection of AI and dispute resolution is a global concern. He pointed to the EU\u2019s Artificial Intelligence Act (EU) 2024\/1689)<\/strong><\/a>, set to be the world\u2019s first comprehensive AI legal framework. Adopted in 2024, this EU AI Act will classify AI systems used in judicial or quasi-judicial decision-making as \u201chigh-risk\u201d<\/strong>, subjecting them to stringent requirements for transparency, documentation, testing, and human oversight<\/strong>. For example, AI tools that help judges or arbitrators analyze facts or draft decisions fall into the high-risk category under this law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pitkowitz posed a provocative question: What happens if an arbitral tribunal\u2019s use of AI doesn\u2019t meet these new standards?<\/em> Could a losing party invoke the EU AI Act to challenge an award or resist its enforcement in court? He noted that these scenarios are no longer far-fetched. In fact, legal experts have already begun contemplating whether non-compliance with AI transparency and oversight obligations might violate public policy or due process to the extent of imperiling an award (being set aside in the worst case).<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese are not just academic questions,\u201d<\/strong> Pitkowitz remarked. They strike at the heart of what makes arbitration credible and enforceable across borders. As AI technologies and regulations evolve at alarming speed, it is imperative for the arbitration community\u2019s approach to keep up with the everlasting development and adopt accordingly. Pitkowitz urged collaboration across jurisdictions and institutions in developing coherent guidelines: a fragmented approach could lead to uncertainty, whereas a broadly harmonized set of best practices would ensure AI is used responsibly worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pitkowitz concluded his address with a balanced call to action. He warned against both uncritical embrace<\/strong> of AI and fear-driven rejection<\/strong>. Instead, he advocated for \u201cthoughtful integration\u201d<\/em> \u2013 welcoming AI\u2019s efficiency gains and innovative potential with proper guardrails in place<\/strong>. Those guardrails, as he outlined, will come largely from arbitral institutions taking initiative: through guidelines like those of VIAC and CIETAC, through updating arbitration rules, and through offering tools that promote transparency and equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf we embrace AI without thinking critically, we risk turning arbitration into a technological fa\u00e7ade,\u201d<\/strong> he said. \u201cIf we reject AI out of fear, we risk falling behind the demands of commercial reality.\u201d<\/strong> The solution lies in finding a middle path: embrace the benefits of AI \u2013 such as faster analysis, better management of large case files, and cost savings \u2013 but always prioritize human judgment, party consent, and fairness standards as core principles in arbitration<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Dr Nikolaus Pitkowitz<\/strong><\/a> is the founding partner and head of dispute resolution at Pitkowitz & Partners<\/strong><\/a> and President of the Vienna International Arbitral Centre<\/strong><\/a> <\/strong>(VIAC<\/strong>). Recognized as one of Austria\u2019s leading arbitration practitioners, he has acted as counsel and arbitrator in over 130 international cases across Europe, the US, and Asia, including Austria\u2019s largest-ever arbitration. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators<\/a> (CIArb<\/strong>), a court member of the Casablanca International Arbitration and Mediation Centre<\/a> (CIMAC<\/strong>), and co-editor of the Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration. He frequently lectures and publishes, with more than 50 works on arbitration and dispute resolution, including a monograph on Setting Aside Arbitral Awards and the Handbook on Third Party Funding in International Arbitration. Contact:<\/strong> n.pitkowitz@pitkowitz.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nInstitutions Over Legislators: Filling the AI Guidance Gap<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
VIAC and CIETAC Pioneering AI Guidelines<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Core Principles for AI Use in Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Safeguarding Due Process in an AI-Augmented Arbitration<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/142A8776-1024x683.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nA Global Issue Requiring a Global Approach<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Embracing Innovation with Guardrails<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Group-905-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n