The Eurasia Review opinion piece examines how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the legal world, especially in litigation and international arbitration, and argues that legal systems must adapt to both the opportunities and challenges posed by these technologies. As AI tools become more sophisticated — capable of analysing vast datasets, identifying patterns, and even drafting legal arguments — lawyers and judges are rethinking how evidence is presented, how disputes are resolved, and how fairness can be ensured when autonomous systems play a role in decision-making. The article highlights that despite promises of efficiency and cost-saving, integrating AI into legal processes raises complex ethical and procedural questions.
One key issue the piece discusses is AI as both subject and object of legal disputes. On one hand, parties increasingly bring cases involving AI — such as liability claims over autonomous systems or disputes about intellectual property in AI-generated works. On the other hand, AI is being used within litigation and arbitration itself: tools for document review, predictive analytics for case outcomes, and AI-assisted drafting of pleadings and contracts. These dual roles challenge lawyers to understand the technology deeply enough to use it effectively while also critically evaluating its outputs in adversarial settings.
The article also explores standardisation and governance gaps that complicate the use of AI in international legal forums. Unlike clearly codified laws governing evidence or procedure, guidelines for AI-assisted processes are still nascent and vary widely across jurisdictions. In arbitration, where parties often operate under private rules and multiple legal regimes, lack of uniform standards for validating AI-generated evidence or ensuring explainability can undermine trust and legitimacy. The opinion suggests that unified frameworks and best practices — perhaps developed through international treaty or professional bodies — are increasingly necessary as AI tools become ubiquitous in cross-border disputes.
Finally, the author reflects on ethical and human rights considerations. AI’s integration into legal decision-making — from predictive tools to algorithmic risk assessments — can introduce biases if training data or models reflect systemic inequities. In high-stakes contexts like international arbitration, where parties depend on impartial outcomes, safeguards are needed to protect procedural fairness. The article argues that legal professionals must not only adopt AI for efficiency but also lead in shaping governance, accountability, and ethical use, ensuring that justice systems harness AI’s benefits while preserving core principles of equity and due process.
