Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2024 - 51

DOCTRINES - DÉBATS
might include the scrutiny of awards, prima facie jurisdiction determinations based
on the review of arbitration agreements, complex arbitration decisions such as
consolidation, joinder, etc. It is understood that some institutions are already
working on developing such projects.
In this regard, institutions could consider the following in dealing with " simple "
decisions:
- Decisions as to the number of arbitrators: Under most arbitration rules,
such decisions, when needed, often take thirty days, if not more. With AI,
this determination could be made within days and with little need for human
interaction. Parties could jointly agree on certain attributes of the relationship
and the nature of the dispute, including the amount in dispute, seat of arbitration,
and then feed this information into an AI tool. This tool could then make a
determination based on past decisions within the institution and also court
decisions from the relevant seat.
- Appointment of arbitrators: When parties are unable to agree on the
appointment of the presiding arbitrator, this decision will be made by the institution
after consulting with the parties. This exercise may take in the range of one month
on average. It has been observed that the appointment process typically takes the
following course: (1) establishing a list of qualities and profile of the ideal arbitrator
for the case; (2) performing an initial search for arbitrators who satisfy that represent;
(3) conducting some due diligence; (4) preparing a final shortlist; and (5) selecting
the arbitrator. 34
With AI, parties could enter the necessary information such as the
specific characteristics that they wish the arbitrator to possess along with other
information relevant to the case, into a tool. This tool could then automatically
and immediately offer them any qualified candidates who fit the specific qualities.
To the extent parties look for different qualities, they could individually enter the
information and obtain a list of relevant candidates. Where institutions have panels
or lists, such lists could be then put to better use than the way in which current
institutional arbitrator panels are utilised. This could have the impact of improving
the efficiency of the whole appointment process.
- Appointment of emergency arbitrators: The same approach can be used
with the appointment of emergency arbitrator, which process is even more
straightforward since the only requirement that must be met in such cases is that
the party making such application must do so before the file is sent to the tribunal, 35
or before the formation or " expedited formation " of the tribunal. 36
To the extent
the parties forewarn the institution that an application will be filed shortly, the
institution could operate even more efficiently and with less human engagement
than what the current process requires.
Confirmation of arbitrators: Similarly, confirmation of arbitrators is another
area where institutions can utilise AI. 37
The purpose of confirmation is for the
34. Dr Ula Cartwright-Finch, Managing Director, Cortex Capital, " The Usual Suspects: DecisionMaking
in Arbitrator Selection, " last accessed on 16 June 2024.
35. See e.g. 2021 ICC Rules, Article 29; and 2023 SCC Rules, Appendix II, Article 1(1).
36. See e.g. 2020 LCIA Rules, Article 9B; 2018 HKIAC Rules, Schedule 4, para 1; and CIETAC
Rules, Appendix III, Article 1.
37. Many institutional rules have provisions making reference to their right to confirm arbitrators
that are designated by the parties. This includes the party-nominated arbitrators; see e.g. 2021 ICC
Rules, Article 13; 2016 SIAC Rules, Article 9; and 2018 HKIAC Rules, Article 9.
Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage 2024‑2
417

Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2024

Table des matières de la publication Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2024