Capstone Project Proposal
AI Arbitration Governance Framework: Analyzing Due Process and Transparency Requirements for Algorithmic Dispute Resolution
Focus Area: Institutional Innovation in Law
Intern Information
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Name | Isabel Budenz |
| Program | LLM International Commercial Arbitration, University of Stockholm (2025-2026) |
| Background | LLB International and European Law, University of Groningen (2022-2025) |
| Languages | German (Native), Spanish (Native), English (C2), French (B1) |
| Relevant Experience | Legal Researcher, A for Arbitration (2019-2025); Clifford Chance Antitrust Global Virtual Internship |
| Relevant Coursework | Introduction to AI and the EU AI Act; International Commercial Arbitration |
Executive Summary
International arbitration is experiencing a paradigm shift. In November 2025, the AAA-ICDR launched the first AI-native arbitrator from a major institution, while the ICC, CIArb, SCC, and VIAC have all issued guidance on AI use in proceedings. This project will develop a comprehensive governance framework for AI in arbitration, analyzing due process requirements and proposing model rules that balance innovation with procedural fairness.
This institutional innovation focus leverages Isabel’s LLM specialization in International Commercial Arbitration and positions her as an expert in how arbitral institutions are transforming through AI adoption.
Problem Statement
The rapid adoption of AI in international arbitration has outpaced governance frameworks:
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| 2024 | SVAMC and SCC issue first AI guidelines |
| March 2025 | AAA-ICDR and CIArb release AI guidance |
| April 2025 | VIAC publishes AI note |
| November 2025 | AAA-ICDR launches AI-native arbitrator |
| 2026 | ICC Task Force expected to issue recommendations |
Critical Questions Remain Unanswered:
- Do AI arbitrators satisfy due process requirements across jurisdictions?
- What transparency obligations should apply to algorithmic decision-making?
- How should parties disclose AI use in proceedings?
- What standards ensure AI-assisted awards remain enforceable under the New York Convention?
Business Need: [Company Name] requires a comprehensive framework to advise clients on AI in arbitration, evaluate institutional AI offerings, and contribute to industry standards development.
Project Objectives
Primary Objectives
- Conduct comprehensive comparative analysis of AI guidelines from 8+ arbitral institutions
- Develop due process assessment framework for evaluating AI arbitrators and AI-assisted proceedings
- Create model disclosure protocols for parties and arbitrators using AI tools
- Analyze enforceability implications of AI-assisted awards under the New York Convention
Secondary Objectives
- Assess “high-risk” AI classification implications under EU AI Act for judicial/arbitral systems
- Propose harmonized standards for AI governance in international arbitration
- Develop training materials on AI arbitration for dispute resolution practitioners
Research Foundation
Key Institutional Developments
AAA-ICDR AI Arbitrator (November 2025)
- First AI-native arbitrator from major institution
- Trained on 1,500+ real construction arbitration awards
- Available for document-only construction disputes under $100,000
- Projected 30-50% cost reduction for parties
- Expansion planned for 2026+
Institutional Guidelines Comparison
| Institution | Document | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| SVAMC | Guidelines on AI Use (2024) | Pioneering framework for Silicon Valley disputes |
| SCC | Guide to AI in SCC Cases (2024) | Nordic approach to AI governance |
| AAA-ICDR | Guidance on Arbitrators’ AI Use (March 2025) | Pre-cursor to AI arbitrator launch |
| CIArb | Guidelines on AI in Arbitration (March 2025) | Professional body perspective |
| VIAC | Note on AI in Proceedings (April 2025) | Central European approach |
| ICC | Task Force (announced Sept 2024) | Global harmonization effort |
Regulatory Context
- UNESCO Guidelines on AI in Courts (December 2025): 15 principles for judicial AI
- EU AI Act: Potential “high-risk” classification for AI in judicial contexts
- California: First U.S. state generative AI rules for courts (September 2025)
Scope
In Scope
| Area | Details |
|---|---|
| Institutions | ICC, AAA-ICDR, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC, DIAC, SCC, VIAC, CIArb, SVAMC |
| AI Applications | AI arbitrators, AI-assisted drafting, document review, case management, predictive analytics |
| Legal Issues | Due process, transparency, party autonomy, enforceability, confidentiality |
| Jurisdictions | New York Convention states, EU (AI Act), US, UK, Singapore, UAE |
Out of Scope
- Technical AI model development or evaluation
- Domestic court AI adoption (except for comparative context)
- Commercial AI vendor product reviews
- Mediation and other non-arbitration ADR
Deliverables
| # | Deliverable | Description | Format | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Institutional Guidelines Comparative Analysis | Side-by-side analysis of AI policies from 10 institutions | Report (30-35 pages) | Week 4 |
| 2 | Due Process Assessment Framework | Methodology for evaluating AI arbitrators against procedural fairness standards | Framework Document (20 pages) + Assessment Tool | Week 6 |
| 3 | Model AI Disclosure Protocol | Template disclosure requirements for parties and arbitrators | Protocol Document + Templates | Week 8 |
| 4 | Enforceability Analysis Memo | New York Convention implications for AI-assisted awards | Legal Memo (15-20 pages) | Week 9 |
| 5 | Proposed Model Rules | Draft harmonized standards for AI in international arbitration | Model Rules (10-15 pages) + Commentary | Week 11 |
| 6 | Executive Presentation & Training Module | Summary for leadership + practitioner training | PowerPoint (25 slides) + Training Guide | Week 12 |
Methodology
Phase 1: Institutional Landscape Mapping (Weeks 1-4)
Week 1-2: Data Collection
- Gather all published AI guidelines, rules, and announcements from target institutions
- Conduct literature review of academic commentary and practitioner perspectives
- Review White & Case 2025 International Arbitration Survey AI findings
- Identify key contacts at institutions for potential clarification
Week 3-4: Comparative Analysis
- Develop comparison framework (scope, disclosure requirements, restrictions, governance)
- Analyze areas of convergence and divergence
- Identify gaps in current guidance
- Produce Institutional Guidelines Comparative Analysis
Phase 2: Due Process Framework Development (Weeks 5-6)
Week 5: Legal Standards Research
- Research due process requirements across major arbitration jurisdictions
- Analyze human oversight requirements in UNESCO Guidelines and EU AI Act
- Review case law on procedural fairness in arbitration
- Examine “right to be heard” implications for algorithmic decisions
Week 6: Framework Construction
- Develop assessment criteria for AI arbitrators
- Create evaluation methodology for AI-assisted proceedings
- Build practical assessment tool
- Produce Due Process Assessment Framework
Phase 3: Practical Guidance Development (Weeks 7-9)
Week 7-8: Disclosure Protocol
- Analyze existing disclosure obligations in institutional rules
- Research confidentiality implications of AI tool use
- Draft model disclosure requirements for:
- Party use of AI in submissions
- Arbitrator use of AI in analysis and drafting
- AI-native arbitrator proceedings
- Produce Model AI Disclosure Protocol
Week 9: Enforceability Analysis
- Research New York Convention requirements (Article V grounds)
- Analyze “public policy” exception implications for AI awards
- Review recent enforcement decisions
- Consider jurisdictional variations
- Produce Enforceability Analysis Memo
Phase 4: Standards Development & Knowledge Transfer (Weeks 10-12)
Week 10-11: Model Rules Drafting
- Synthesize findings into proposed harmonized standards
- Draft model rules with commentary
- Align with existing institutional frameworks
- Incorporate stakeholder feedback
- Produce Proposed Model Rules
Week 12: Presentation & Training
- Prepare executive summary presentation
- Develop practitioner training module
- Present to dispute resolution leadership
- Deliver pilot training session
Timeline
Week 1-2 ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Data Collection & Literature Review
Week 3-4 ████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ Comparative Analysis → Institutional Report
Week 5-6 ░░░░░░░░████████░░░░░░░░ Due Process Framework Development
Week 7-8 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████ Disclosure Protocol & Templates
Week 9 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████ Enforceability Analysis
Week 10-11 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████ Model Rules Drafting
Week 12 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██ Presentation & Training
Key Milestones
| Week | Milestone | Checkpoint |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Institutional Comparative Analysis complete | Stakeholder review |
| 6 | Due Process Framework delivered | Legal team validation |
| 8 | Disclosure Protocol finalized | Practice group feedback |
| 9 | Enforceability Memo complete | Partner review |
| 11 | Model Rules drafted | External expert consultation |
| 12 | Project complete | Final presentation |
Multilingual Research Advantage
Isabel’s language capabilities enable access to primary sources across major arbitration jurisdictions:
| Language | Sources | Value |
|---|---|---|
| German | DIS rules and commentary, German arbitration scholarship, VIAC materials | Central European perspective |
| Spanish | Spanish Arbitration Act, Latin American institutional developments | Civil law tradition insights |
| French | ICC primary materials, French arbitration doctrine, Swiss scholarship | Global arbitration hub perspective |
| English | Common law jurisdictions, international materials, academic literature | Comprehensive coverage |
Resources Required
Access
- Kluwer Arbitration Database
- Institutional rules and guidelines (publicly available + subscription)
- Academic journal access (Journal of International Arbitration, Arbitration International)
- Case law databases (New York Convention enforcement decisions)
Subject Matter Expert Support
| Role | Purpose | Time |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Mentor | Weekly guidance | 2 hrs/week |
| Arbitration Partner | Strategic input, model rules review | 4 hrs total |
| Technology Counsel | AI regulatory consultation | 3 hrs total |
| External Arbitrator | Practitioner perspective validation | 2 hrs total |
Budget
| Item | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| Database access | Existing subscription |
| External expert consultation | $1,000 |
| Conference attendance (virtual) | $300 |
| Total | $1,300 |
Success Criteria
Deliverable Quality
- All 6 deliverables completed on schedule
- Comparative analysis covers 10+ institutions
- Due process framework validated by arbitration practitioners
- Model rules aligned with existing institutional approaches
- Multilingual sources incorporated in analysis
Business Impact
- Framework adopted by dispute resolution practice
- At least one client advisory application
- Training delivered to 15+ team members
- Positive feedback from stakeholders (>4.2/5)
Thought Leadership Potential
- Publication-ready content identified
- Conference presentation opportunity explored
- Contribution to ICC Task Force considered
Risks and Mitigation
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICC Task Force issues guidance during project | Medium | Medium | Build flexibility for incorporation; position as complementary analysis |
| Limited access to institutional decision-making rationale | Medium | Low | Focus on public materials; supplement with practitioner interviews |
| Rapid evolution of AI arbitrator offerings | Medium | Medium | Establish monitoring protocol; scope to framework principles |
| Due process standards vary significantly by jurisdiction | Low | Medium | Focus on common principles; note jurisdictional variations |
Career Positioning Value
This project positions Isabel as an expert in AI governance for international arbitration:
- Niche Specialization: Few professionals combine arbitration LLM training with AI governance expertise
- Institutional Relationships: Research creates connections with major arbitral institutions
- Thought Leadership: Model rules development demonstrates policy contribution capability
- Practical Application: Framework immediately applicable to client advisory work
- Publication Potential: Comparative analysis suitable for academic or practitioner publication
Stakeholders
| Stakeholder | Role | Engagement |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Mentor | Day-to-day guidance | Weekly 1:1 |
| Arbitration Partner | Executive sponsor | Bi-weekly check-ins |
| Dispute Resolution Team | End users | Feedback at Weeks 4, 8 |
| Technology/Innovation Team | AI expertise | Ad hoc consultation |
| External Arbitrators | Practitioner validation | Week 10 review |
Approval
Intern Acknowledgment
I have reviewed this proposal and commit to delivering the outlined project within the specified timeline and quality standards.
Intern Signature: _________ Date: _____
Isabel Budenz
Mentor Approval
Mentor Signature: _________ Date: _____
Executive Sponsor Approval
Sponsor Signature: _________ Date: _____
| *Proposal Version 1.0 | Focus: Institutional Innovation in Law | January 2026* |