European AI Regulation (EU 2024/1689) and its implications for the use of AI in arbitration proceedings was the focus of the 12 December 2024 Lunch DIScussions.
Leading a panel that included Ilka Beimel (Noerr) and Simon J. Heetkamp (TH Köln) Christoph Lüttenberg (YPOG) began with a brief overview of AI Regulation, which included discussion of the following questions: How is the AI Regulation structured? What is a high-risk AI system? What are the obligations for operators or users of AI systems?
Current questions in connection with the personal and territorial scope of the AI Regulation came first. With regard to the personal scope of application, it will initially depend on whether arbitrators are to be regarded as providers or as operators of the AI system, with the latter being the more typical situation. An operator within the meaning of the AI Regulation is a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body using an AI system on its own responsibility. For these operators, the territorial scope of application of the AI Regulation is established if they are habitually resident in the EU.
This was followed by a discussion of questions relevant to practice – such as whether the AI Regulation also applies if only part of the arbitral tribunal has its habitual residence in the EU and whether, in such a case, the entire arbitral tribunal can be taken into account. The panel also addressed the question of the potential impact of the enforcement of an arbitral award within the EU alone.
In the third part of the Lunch Discussions, Beimel and Heetkamp discussed the necessity of a disclosure requirement regarding the use of AI systems in arbitration proceedings. They also looked at the corresponding ‘Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration’ of the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center and the ‘Guide to the use of artificial intelligence in cases administered under the SCC rules’ of the SCC Arbitration Institute, in addition to the corresponding provisions of the AI regulation.
At the end of the discussion, the audience was asked to give their assessment: ‘What information should a court of arbitration have to disclose regarding the use of AI?’ The results were:
The speakers have addressed the topics described and other issues related to the use of AI in arbitration proceedings in a recent article (SchiedsVZ 2024, 225).
Karsten Grillitsch