This is the final instalment² of a multi-part series highlighting key takeaways from a World Arbitration Update on International Arbitration & Emergent Technologies, which took place in Singapore on 22 May 2025.

--

Yasmin Hussain shared about opportunities and risks in the use of AI-assisted tools, and Sherly Gunawan, FCIArb shared about how emergent technologies have led to an evolution in the administration of Singapore International Arbitration Centre arbitrations.

There's one specific intersection, though, that I suspect is developing fairly rapidly - and that's the use of AI-assisted tools...

...by arbitrators.

The question that arbitrators are already confronting - and are starting figure out their individual answers to - is whether AI tools can start to take over some tasks that would traditionally be done by an enthusiastic, hardworking, but not particularly experienced tribunal secretary.

For example, a senior practitioner told me recently that in an arbitration for which he had been appointed as the sole arbitrator, he had plugged the notice of arbitration, response, and correspondence into an LLM, which then generated a commencement letter that was about 80% there.

This, I suspect, is only the tip of the iceberg.

I don't want to turn this post into a harangue about the dangers and downsides of AI.³ And I hope that experienced arbitrators, of all people, will be well aware of the risks and how to mitigate them.

But I predict that the use of AI-assisted tools by arbitrators is set to explode.⁴

--

Yi Xiang Yong shared about the increased use of arbitration in esports disputes, and some recent fascinating developments as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport over an esports refereeing dispute.

I'm not sufficiently embedded within the esports community to speak intelligently about this. I'll just say - hit Rodolphe Ruffié-Farrugia or Yi Xiang up if you're interested in this area, and would like to be involved in shaping the future of esports dispute resolution.

I will say, however, that in the event of a esport dispute arising in the context of, say, a Counter-Strike competition, then rather then parties heading for arbitration...

...why not resolve the dispute via a 1v1 match, best of 3, winner gets the dispute resolved in their favour, no appeals allowed?⁵

But if this idea takes off, it would lead to a drop in arbitration work, so maybe I should just cut myself off here as a matter of self-interest.

--

Many thanks as well to Raja Bose and K&L Gates for hosting, Robert Houston for the massive amount of work behind the scenes and organisational nous, Ronald JJ Wong for providing the opportunity to speak, my fellow panelists, and participants.