Emerging arbiter
Artificial intelligence has opened up new avenues in the field of alternate dispute resolution but it should complement existing mechanisms rather than acting as substitute
The confluence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and law leads to the emergence of a new stream of method which, outside the constraints of concrete and mortar, contributes to the future of justice delivery process. This conflux focuses on the application of advanced computer technology for legal reasons and reducing human intervention for subsidiary legal purpose(s). Simply stated, the application of AI to law in general, and to various methods of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) in particular, serves two purposes: first, it aids the legal professionals by simplifying tedious procedures, and second, it aids the client by reducing the cost of availing legal consultation.
There are no particular laws in India regarding Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, or Machine Learning, despite the government’s promotion of AI. In the National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence, published in 2018, a plan was devised by the government to maximise the late mover advantage in the AI sector by consistently delivering homegrown pioneering technology solutions. This would also contribute in the fulfilment of the long-standing goal of Aatmanirbhar Bharat.
ODR and the role of judiciary
In the year 2021, NITI Aayog framed the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) Policy Plan for India. The report acknowledged the significance of AI in developing an effective ODR system. The objective of ODR is to replace the current paradigm of dispute resolution. Construction of such a system can be aided by AI in a variety of ways, including the elimination of human bias in the dispute settlement process. By revealing a bias, algorithms enable us to reduce its influence on our decisions and behaviours.
The judiciary has also been instrumental in shaping the ODR structure. Many initiatives have been launched as part of the eCourts Mission Mode Action plan. The Lok Adalats have been turned into an electronic version known as e-Lok Adalat. Use of SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), which translates judgments, orders, and other judicial documents from English into nine vernacular languages by leveraging AI’s potential, has also been promoted.
But there is still a substantial opportunity to integrate technology into the legal process, particularly in arbitration and other Alternate Dispute Resolution Method(s). For instance, blockchain-driven arbitration processes can be built for the drafting of smart contracts. Computer-coded smart contracts can leverage technology to automate enforceability via the transfer of rights and duties, facilitating the administration of blockchain-based arbitration in such smart contracts.
The UNCITRAL Electronic Model Law on Electronic Commerce, 1996 and the UNCITRAL Convention on Electronic Communications in International Contracts, 2007, are the principal instruments that support blockchain-based contracts. Articles 6 and 18 of the Convention of 2007 clarify onchain arbitration by permitting electronic data recordings and electronic transactions in the arbitration procedure. Ameliorating change Nowadays, AI assists in analysing the massive volumes of data involved in each arbitration and then separating the important facts and information that are advantageous for a specific case. This saves a substantial amount of time & money and facilitates the analysis of the intricate nature of disputes brought for arbitration and also makes the process more accurate by reducing the probability of any kind of lapse. AI may also be used to determine evidence’s relevance, admissibility, and discovery since it employs various predesigned methodological tools which are developed from past experiences in similar matters.
AI has proven to be highly successful in predictive coding, which can be used for faster document preparation and review. According to a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. BCA Trading Ltd., the accuracy of AI-affiliated arbitrations was determined to be 70.2 per cent. This data makes a good case for use of AI in arbitral proceedings.
Tidying a disruptive misconception
Although the use of AI in arbitration offers a number of benefits, as the critics argue, it also has a number of problems, which renders the notion of making arbitrations entirely dependent on AI a fallacy. There are several regulations and procedures involved in arbitration, which makes the application of AI in arbitration complicated. Although AI is based on “inductive reasoning” as opposed to “deductive reasoning,” it cannot replace the participation of different types of experts and specialists in arbitration. Concerns exist around data privacy, as AI is algorithm-based and is generated by software that is susceptible to hacking.
ADR has assisted in recalibrating the delivery of courts as a service rather than a location. It has been pushed to become a more accessible, formidable, intelligent, ubiquitous, and robustly constructed outcome-oriented framework as a result of the introduction of the Internet, advances in Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, etc. Although the technological revolution has made communication simpler, at the same time it has called into question an assumption that, can successful communication, and effective dispute resolution, occur without physical gathering?
Here, I humbly propose that AI systems may be utilised in conjunction with existing offline methods to handle both online and offline conflicts. Example of the same comes from the commercial sector, where businesses such as Smartsettle and Cybersettle have used new processes such as blind bidding or algorithmdriven resolutions.
In light of the COVIDmandated adjustments, it was only because of the quick developments in technology that we still had access to justice even in the horrifying times of the pandemic. It would not be incorrect to make reference to William Gibson’s eloquent remark that “the future has already arrived; it’s just not evenly distributed yet”. It is now the role of institutions and regulators to identify how fair distribution might be achieved through the use of technologies such as AI, while taking the data-driven principles of openness and accountability into consideration.
According to the judgment of the US Supreme Court in Brown v. BCA Trading Ltd., the accuracy of AI-affiliated arbitrations was determined to be 70.2 per cent