THE AUTHORS:
Ignacio Arriagada, Senior Associate at Clyde & Co
Sofia Nievas, Associate at Clyde & Co
Clyde & Co’s Young Arbitration Group provides a unique insight into international arbitration issues through the lens of young international arbitration practitioners working across different jurisdictions. In this series with Daily Jus, Clyde & Co explores the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence in arbitration, analysing recent developments, legislative changes, and their impact on dispute resolution worldwide.
In the 2024 edition of the Latin American Artificial Intelligence Index (“ILIA”), Chile was recognized as the regional leader in the development of artificial intelligence (“AI”). This ranking, which in its last edition considered 19 countries, highlights local achievements, gaps, and opportunities to foster an ethical and sustainable AI ecosystem; Chile’s position is the result of the country’s progress in implementing innovative technologies. Additionally, according to the latest estimates from the Santiago Chamber of Commerce (“CCS”), the AI sector in Chile is experiencing remarkable growth, with a projected growth increase of 33% this year. This growth positions the country at the forefront of the AI market in Latin America, with a per capita figure of US$51, surpassing larger economies such as Brazil and Mexico.
Though noteworthy, the local reality is far from reaching that of more advanced counterparties, with the relative penetration of AI still not reaching the levels identified in the Global North eight years ago. This reality is also reflected in the dispute resolution space.
Although there is no specific regulation of its use in arbitration, Chile has taken steps towards creating a general legal framework for AI. Its first National Artificial Intelligence Policy was published in 2021 by the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge, and Innovation. Due to the rapid advancement of AI, this policy had to be updated in 2023. Subsequently, in May 2024, the government presented a bill proposal aimed at regulating “Artificial Intelligence Systems”, marking the first comprehensive effort to legislate on this matter (Bill 16821-19).
In this article, we will discuss the recent local use of AI in the field of dispute resolution in general, and arbitration in particular, and potential future regulatory issues that arbitration practitioners should keep in mind when considering the use of AI.
AI in the Dispute Resolution Space
In Chile, although the adoption of AI in the dispute resolution space is still in its early stages and lacks specific guidelines, in recent years, local arbitration institutions, the judiciary, universities and law firms have started developing and trialling AI tools. Specifically, the CAM – Santiago (Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the Santiago Chamber of Commerce) and the local Judiciary have been the main trailblazers.
The CAM Santiago, the main arbitration institution in the country, has historically shown an active interest in incorporating new technologies. A clear example of this was the adoption of their bespoke digital processing platform ‘e-CAM’ in 2013, through which parties could make submissions and access the case file. In relation to AI, they recently developed the ‘Resolución en Línea’ (‘Online Resolution’) ‘feature, designed to resolve disputes between consumers and businesses through algorithm-assisted negotiation and online mediation. This initiative, 100% developed in Chile, allows for automated solutions to be proposed by the system in response to consumer complaints (e.g., in e-commerce). If necessary, a mediator will intervene within a short timeframe (generally 10 days). The authorities of the CAM Santiago have highlighted the benefits that AI gives to arbitral institutions and it appears more elaborate tools are currently being developed.
With regards to the Judiciary, the use of AI has been varied and not widespread. Firstly, the pilot of the new ‘Justa’ project has been successfully trialled in specific Family, Criminal and Labour courts in the country. This system uses AI algorithms to transcribe hearings, automatically generating hearing minutes and analysing submissions, allowing for a drastic reduction in case processing times. Additionally, to improve efficiency and response times, the Court of Appeals of Temuco (in conjunction with the University of La Frontera) has automated the issuance of certain certificates with the use of AI. Finally, in July 2025, the Supreme Court launched a new Jurisprudence Search Engine that uses AI to search more than 1,500,000 judgments. However, improved data generation accuracy, controlled access, and anonymised information would be obtained through the use of AI.
In the private sector, large law firms and legal tech companies have begun to incorporate and develop AI technologies in-house for legal support tasks. For example, some law firms have started using AI-powered document analysis software in due diligence processes or mass contract reviews related to arbitration cases. Although there is not yet a consolidated local platform for predictive analytics in Chile, lawyers are closely watching foreign developments that could be applied in domestic or international arbitrations based in Chile.
Additionally, some legal tech boutiques and innovation departments within firms are testing automation tools for procedural tasks (for example, generating drafts of simple documents or creating chatbots for client interaction regarding the status of their arbitration cases, etc.). Although no public cases of arbitration awards written wholly or partially by AI have been reported in Chile, there is a growing awareness within the arbitration community about the usefulness of these resources.
General Regulatory Panorama
Currently, Chile does not have specific regulations addressing the use of artificial intelligence in arbitration. The existing arbitration rules, primarily the Civil Procedure Code and the Judicial Organization Code (which govern domestic arbitration) and Law No. 19,971 on International Commercial Arbitration, do not include references to AI systems or the automation of decisions. Consequently, the use of AI tools in arbitration proceedings is, at present, regulated only by general rules: the autonomy of the parties to agree on certain procedures, the ethical duties of arbitrators (impartiality, diligence, confidentiality), and the basic due process principles that must be respected in any arbitration.
This regulatory gap has been highlighted by experts. It reveals the need to develop clear procedural rules considering the use of AI in arbitration. Possible regulatory adjustments could include, for example, requiring parties to disclose if they use algorithms to make strategic decisions, or for arbitrators to inform whether they rely on any AI tools in their analysis, to ensure transparency.
The new AI bill that is currently being discussed in Congress, a pioneering one in the region, is based on the EU model and proposes a regulation based on risk levels, categorising AI systems into those that pose minimal, limited, high or unacceptable levels of risks to the safety and the rights of individuals. In that sense, practices such as subliminal manipulation through AI, large-scale real-time biometric surveillance (except for narrowly defined public security purposes), or social scoring systems would be banned, high-risk systems would be permitted subject to strict requirements (conformity assessments, documentation, human oversight, etc.), limited-risk systems would only be required to implement transparency measures or user notification and Minimal-risk systems would be virtually free of regulatory burdens.
If approved as it stands, AI systems applied to dispute resolution could potentially be considered ‘high risk’, given their implications for the rights of the parties, which would entail further transparency and human oversight requirements. Furthermore, this law would enhance the accountability of those who develop or implement AI (for example, a provider of legal prediction software) and encourage regular audits and certifications of algorithms.
Another relevant regulation to keep in mind is the recently published Personal Data Protection Law (Law 21.719), which is to enter into force at the end of 2026 and aims to align local legislation with standards such as the European GDPR. Given that AI tools in arbitration may involve the processing of sensitive data (client data, trade secrets in evidence, etc.), stricter data legislation will impose additional security and confidentiality obligations on those tools. For example, if an arbitrator uploads documents from the parties to a cloud AI platform for analysis, they must ensure compliance with the requirements of anonymisation, consent from the parties, or equivalent measures as required by law.
Finally, it should be noted that, although the rules of local arbitration institutions, such as the CAM Santiago Procedural Rules, do not yet contain explicit provisions regarding AI, it seems that it is only a matter of time before they do. Just as CIArb (The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) and other international organisations are doing, it would be expected that Chilean arbitration centres formulate recommendations for the appropriate use of AI in cases managed by them. This could include suggestions on the disclosure of AI use, agreements between parties to limit or allow certain tools, and guidelines for the arbitrator on the extent to which they may delegate tasks to automated systems.
Conclusion
In summary, the Chilean AI industry and its legal framework are under construction. According to recent reports, though important growth is projected for this year, the local sector is composed of around 400 young companies, all with an average age of 5 years. The regulation of the industry, and specifically the use of AI in the field of arbitration, follows the same pattern: though there is awareness of the need to legislate, so far, no specific rules and laws exist, and the use of AI tools is left to the discretion of the actors involved.
For local arbitrators and practitioners to properly navigate this current state of non-regulation, the recommendation is as follows:
- Firstly, when using AI tools the general principles of arbitration, that is the autonomy of the parties, impartiality, diligence, confidentiality and basic due process, mainly, must be respected;
- Additionally, arbitrators must abstain from delegating any decision-making solely to an AI, and all parties must ensure careful handling of client and case information to avoid personal data being accidentally uploaded to an unchecked AI platform.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Ignacio Arriagada is a senior associate based in Clyde & Co’s Santiago office. He is a qualified solicitor in Chile specializing on litigation before Chilean Courts and arbitration. He has experience representing clients from a variety of industries, including insurance, aviation, healthcare and construction, in complex dispute matters.
Sofia Nievas is an associate based in Clyde & Co’s London office. She specializes in handling complex international disputes in the energy, engineering and construction sectors, including for insurers and reinsurers in respect of policy coverage and subrogated recoveries. Before joining the London team, she was a senior associate at Clyde & Co.’s Santiago office.
*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.
