Assessing the Position of Artificial Intelligence in Arbitration Proceedings in England (İngiliz Tahkim Yargılamasında Yapay Zekâ Konumunun Değerlendirilmesi)

Abstract

In the ever-evolving landscape of legal dispute resolution, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within arbitration processes poses a profound transformation, especially within the context of UK law. This article begins by contextualizing the current state of arbitration in the UK, followed by an analysis of the intersection between AI and legal technology. The core of the article delves into the multifaceted benefits of AI arbitrators, including their promise of increased efficiency, reduced bias, and cost-effectiveness, whilst addressing complex data analytical needs. Conversely, it critically examines the challenges that such a paradigm shift entails, including ethical implications, adherence to the Arbitration Act 1996, and technological vulnerabilities. Through case studies and comparative analysis, the article explores existing AI applications in UK arbitration and international precedents, offering insights into the UK’s position on legal tech innovation. The discussion culminates by considering the future trajectory of AI in arbitration within the UK, highlighting the critical roles of policymakers, legal practitioners, and tech developers in steering this future.

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, UK Arbitration Law, Legal Technologies, Arbitration Processes, Legal Innovation.

Öz

Hukuki uyuşmazlık çözümünün sürekli gelişen ortamında, Yapay Zekanın tahkim süreçlerine entegrasyonu, özellikle İngiliz hukuku bağlamında derin bir dönüşüm oluşturmaktadır. Bu makale, İngiltere’de tahkimin mevcut durumunu inceleyerek başlamakta ve ardından yapay zekâ ile hukuk teknolojisi arasındaki kesişimin bir analizini yapmaktadır. Makalenin özü, karmaşık veri analitik ihtiyaçlarını ele alırken, artan verimlilik, azaltılmış önyargı veDrmaliyet etkinliği vaatleri de dahil olmak üzere yapay zekâ hakemlerinin çok yönlü faydalarını araştırmaktadır. Buna karşılık, etik sonuçlar, 1996 Tahkim Kanunu’na bağlılık ve teknolojik güvenlik açıkları da dahil olmak üzere, böyle bir paradigma değişikliğinin getirdiği zorlukları eleştirel bir şekilde incelemektedir. Makale, vaka çalışmaları ve karşılaştırmalı analiz yoluyla, İngiliz tahkim ve uluslararası emsallerdeki mevcut yapay zekâ uygulamalarını araştırmakta ve İngiltere’nin yasal teknoloji yeniliği konusundaki konumuna ilişkin içgörüler sunmaktadır. Tartışma, İngiltere’deki tahkimde yapay zekanın gelecekteki yörüngesini göz önünde bulundurarak, politika yapıcıların, hukuk uygulayıcılarının ve teknoloji geliştiricilerinin bu geleceği yönlendirmedeki eleştirel görevlerini vurgulayarak sonuçlanmaktadır. Makale, İngiliz hukuk düzeninin yasal ve teknolojik ilerlemenin ön saflarında yer almasını sağlayarak, tahkimde yapay zekanın sonuçlarını yönlendirmek için devam eden araştırma ve görüşmeler için bir eylem çağrısı ile sona ermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yapay Zekâ, İngiliz Tahkim Hukuku, Yasal Düzenlemeler, Tahkim Yargılaması, Yasal İnovasyon

Introduction

Arbitration has long been a cornerstone of dispute resolution within the UK legal framework, offering parties a private, efficient, and binding means to resolve conflicts outside the courts[1]. Rooted in the principles of autonomy and confidentiality, the UK arbitration process has been governed by the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides a comprehensive code reflecting modern arbitration practice. In recent years, the rapid advancement of technology has begun to permeate the legal sector, revolutionizing how legal processes are conducted. This technological infusion, especially the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), stands to significantly alter the landscape of dispute resolution[2].

The advent of AI in legal practices around the world has raised critical discussions within the UK legal community, particularly concerning its applicability to arbitration. AI systems, with their unparalleled data processing capabilities and potential for impartial decision-making, present an intriguing opportunity for enhancing arbitration proceedings. The thesis of this article posits that the integration of AI within UK arbitration could not only streamline processes but also introduce a new paradigm of legal reasoning and decision-making, provided that ethical, legal, and practical considerations are meticulously addressed[3].

As we stand on the cusp of this technological shift, this article seeks to explore the symbiotic relationship between AI and arbitration in the UK. It will assess the potential that AI holds to transform arbitration into a more efficient, accessible, and modernized form of dispute resolution. Moreover, it will critically analyze the readiness of the current legal framework to adapt to such groundbreaking changes, the potential benefits of AI integration, and the challenges that must be overcome to ensure that the sanctity and efficacy of the arbitration process are maintained.

I. The Convergence of AI and UK Arbitration

The trajectory of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the realm of UK legal technology is a narrative of gradual but significant integration. AI, once relegated to the peripheries of theoretical constructs, has burgeoned into a suite of tools with practical applications across various sectors, including law. In the context of UK legal tech, AI encompasses algorithms capable of executing tasks that traditionally require human intelligence, such as language processing, pattern recognition, and predictive analytics. These capabilities are not only augmenting the efficiency of legal operations but also transforming the nature of legal reasoning and decision-making processes.

The historical context of AI within UK law traces back to the nascent stages of legal computing, where rudimentary forms of technology assisted in research and documentation. Over time, as computational power increased and machine learning algorithms evolved, AI began to assert a more active role. It transitioned from a passive repository of legal knowledge to an active participant capable of analyzing legal documents, predicting outcomes, and even suggesting resolutions[4]. The UK has witnessed a burgeoning interest in AI after recognizing its potential to uphold the rule of law through innovation.

In present times, AI’s application in UK legal practices has seen exponential growth. Law firms and in-house legal departments increasingly rely on AI for due diligence, contract analysis, and case prediction. Specifically, in the arena of arbitration, AI tools are being explored for optimizing case management, evidence synthesis, and arbitral decision support. AI-driven analytics are aiding arbitrators in understanding complex data patterns and predicting possible outcomes based on legal precedents and probabilistic modeling. Platforms employing AI in arbitration are not merely fanciful future prospects; they are current realities that are redefining efficiency and effectiveness in dispute resolution[5].

This convergence of AI and arbitration is not without its complexities. The UK’s robust legal traditions and the high stakes involved in arbitration require a cautious approach to the adoption of AI technologies. As AI begins to take on more substantive roles, such as assisting with decision-making in arbitral tribunals or providing preliminary assessments of disputes, questions surface regarding the intersection of technology with the human elements of judgment and discretion that are hallmarks of the arbitral process[6].

The next sections will delve into these complexities, examining the potential benefits of this convergence, while also scrutinizing the challenges it presents to the established tenets of UK arbitration law[7].

II. Benefits of AI in the Arbitration Landscape

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within arbitration is poised to revolutionize the traditional proceedings by injecting unprecedented levels of efficiency and objectivity. AI’s ability to automate and expedite the analysis of documents and management of case logistics promises to significantly reduce the time from the initiation of proceedings to the final award. This acceleration is not just a matter of convenience but a transformative shift that makes arbitration a more competitive and appealing alternative to litigation.

Beyond speeding up processes, AI stands as a beacon of impartiality, potentially minimizing the human biases that can inadvertently seep into decision-making. By processing information and making determinations based on vast datasets and pre-set parameters, AI systems offer a level of consistency and fairness that is difficult for even the most conscientious human arbitrators to match. This objectivity is particularly crucial in arbitration, where decisions are final and opportunities for appeal are limited[8].

The economic benefits of AI in arbitration cannot be understated. The efficiency and automation afforded by AI have the potential to significantly lower the costs associated with arbitral proceedings. By trimming down on the hours that legal and administrative professionals need to invest in each case, AI could democratize access to arbitration, making it a more viable option for a wider range of disputants who may have previously been excluded due to financial constraints.

Moreover, AI’s advanced analytical capabilities come to the forefront in complex disputes that hinge on the interpretation of vast amounts of technical data. In such scenarios, AI can dissect and understand intricate patterns and variables with a level of precision and speed unattainable by human arbitrators[9].

This proficiency is particularly advantageous in disputes across specialized sectors, where the depth of analysis provided by AI could be instrumental in clarifying the crux of the matter and guiding the arbitral tribunal toward a reasoned and just resolution[10].

The promise of AI in enhancing the arbitration process is clear. It offers a pathway to more streamlined, unbiased, and accessible dispute resolution. However, realizing these benefits fully requires thoughtful engagement with the technology, ensuring that AI tools are employed in a manner that respects the integrity and the nuanced nature of arbitration. The following sections will delve into the challenges inherent in this technological integration, ensuring that AI serves as an ally rather than an adversary to the arbitral process[11].

III. Challenges Specific to the UK

In the UK, the adoption of AI in the realm of arbitration must confront a series of unique challenges that stem from both ethical and legal considerations. The ethical dilemmas inherent in AI decision-making are particularly pronounced. Questions arise concerning the extent to which AI should be entrusted with decisions that have significant legal and personal impacts on the parties involved. As AI systems are designed by humans, the potential for embedded biases and the opaqueness of decision-making algorithms present serious concerns regarding the fairness and integrity of AI arbitrators[12].

Moreover, the integration of AI in arbitration must be navigated within the strictures of the UK’s legal framework. AI systems must be meticulously tailored to comply with the standards set forth in the Arbitration Act 1996, which remains the cornerstone of arbitration law in the UK. The Act outlines the principles of fairness, impartiality, and the right of parties to agree on their arbitration procedure, principles that must be upheld even when AI tools are deployed in arbitral proceedings.

Additionally, the incorporation of AI in arbitration brings to the fore the need for robust cybersecurity measures[13]. The UK, with its highly developed legal tech sector, is acutely aware of the technological vulnerabilities that could potentially be exploited through cyber threats. Safeguarding the confidentiality and integrity of arbitral proceedings is paramount, especially when sensitive data is being analyzed and stored by AI systems. The legal community must ensure that the AI systems used in arbitration are secure against such threats, maintaining the trust and reliability that are foundational to the arbitration process[14].

These challenges are not merely technical but go to the heart of the arbitration system’s credibility and effectiveness. As the UK continues to refine its approach to legal tech, these issues must be addressed with a combination of technological savvy and a firm commitment to the principles of justice. The task ahead is to harmonize the benefits of AI with the established norms of UK arbitration, ensuring that the evolution of dispute resolution remains both innovative and principled.

IV. Case Studies and UK Initiatives in AI and Arbitration

The integration of artificial intelligence into the UK’s arbitration sector is an unfolding narrative marked by innovation and strategic development. Various AI arbitration tools have already been implemented across the UK, signifying a shift towards a more technologically advanced legal framework. An in-depth exploration of these tools unveils a spectrum of functionalities ranging from the automation of routine procedural tasks to sophisticated algorithms capable of offering predictive insights into dispute resolution outcomes[15].

One such case study may involve the use of AI in streamlining the evidence-gathering process. AI-powered document review systems are capable of processing vast quantities of legal documents at speeds unattainable by human reviewers, identifying relevant case law and evidentiary materials pertinent to the arbitration case at hand. Another example could be the adoption of AI for drafting arbitral awards, where machine learning algorithms assist in formulating decisions based on historical data and recognized legal principles.

These domestic examples are set against the backdrop of a broader international movement towards digital arbitration practices. The UK’s endeavors can be critically examined through a comparative lens, looking at similar AI arbitration tools being employed in jurisdictions such as Singapore or the United States, which have also made significant strides in legal technology. Such comparative analysis affords a clearer understanding of where the UK stands in the global arena—its competitive advantages, challenges to overcome, and lessons to be learned from the experience of others[16].

Furthermore, the UK’s trajectory towards legal tech innovation in arbitration is underscored by various initiatives that reveal a commitment to a future-oriented legal sector. This commitment is evidenced by the collaborative efforts between legal institutions, tech startups, academia, and government bodies. Together, they are working to craft a legal environment that not only embraces technological advancements but also upholds the highest standards of justice and impartiality. Discussions around these initiatives often highlight the UK’s strategic policies aimed at nurturing legal tech growth, such as funding for AI research in law, incubation programs for legal tech startups, and forums for dialogue between technologists and legal professionals[17].

In conclusion, the case studies and initiatives of AI in UK arbitration form a comprehensive picture of a legal landscape in transition. They tell a story of a jurisdiction that is not merely adapting to technological change but is actively seeking to shape the future of legal tech. The UK’s approach is characterized by a willingness to experiment and innovate while carefully considering the ethical and practical implications of AI in the law. The collective aim is to ensure that as AI becomes an integral part of the arbitration process, it enhances, rather than undermines, the delivery of justice.

V. The Road Ahead for AI in UK Arbitration

The future trajectory of artificial intelligence within the context of UK arbitration presents a pathway bristling with possibilities and challenges. Current projections suggest that AI’s role will only deepen and expand in the near future, branching into more complex aspects of arbitration proceedings. This evolution is anticipated to offer profound benefits, such as enhancing the precision of dispute analysis and providing more accessible arbitration services through automated platforms[18].

For policymakers in the UK, the rise of AI in arbitration mandates a vigilant and proactive approach. They bear the responsibility of guiding the integration of AI in a manner that aligns with the foundational principles of the UK legal system—fairness, transparency, and justice. Legal practitioners, on their part, must stay abreast of technological advancements, equipping themselves with the knowledge and skills to work alongside AI tools effectively. They must also engage in an ongoing dialogue with technologists to ensure that the development of AI tools is informed by the nuanced realities of legal practice[19].

Tech developers, entrusted with the actual creation and refinement of AI systems, must prioritize the ethical implications of their work. AI systems designed for arbitration must be robust against biases, transparent in their operations, and capable of explaining their processes and decisions in understandable terms. This is essential to maintain trust in the arbitration process and ensure that AI aids rather than obscures the pursuit of justice[20].

However, the incorporation of AI into the arbitration process is not without potential legal ramifications. There is a growing consensus that regulatory reform may be necessary to fully accommodate the capabilities of AI arbitrators. Current legal frameworks were not designed with AI in mind, and as such, they may lack provisions for the unique scenarios presented by AI participation in legal processes. This could include the need for new guidelines on the use of AI in evidence evaluation, award formulation, and the enforceability of AI-generated decisions[21].

Moreover, there may be a need for the development of specific standards and certifications for AI systems used in arbitration, ensuring they meet rigorous quality and ethical standards. The potential for AI to take on more adjudicative roles in arbitration also raises questions about the legal status of AI decisions and the need for mechanisms to appeal or review such decisions.

As AI continues to evolve, so too must the legal landscape. The UK, with its rich legal traditions and forward-looking stance on technology, is well-positioned to navigate these changes. However, this will require concerted efforts from all stakeholders to ensure that as AI becomes a staple in arbitration, it serves to reinforce, rather than undermine, the principles of due process and equitable justice[22].

VI. Comparative Legal Analysis: Embracing AI in Arbitration – A Cross-Jurisdictional Perspective with a Focus on the UK, Turkey, and Beyond

The advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in arbitration processes marks a significant juncture in legal technology discourse, offering a wide array of efficiencies and challenges that vary across different legal systems. This comparative legal analysis delves into the complexities of AI’s integration within arbitration, primarily contrasting the landscapes in the United Kingdom and Turkey while drawing insights from jurisdictions that are leading in legal tech innovation.

In the United Kingdom, the interplay between AI and arbitration thrives under a legal system that champions both innovation and time-honored traditions. The Arbitration Act of 1996, while not specifically designed with AI in mind, provides a broad framework that does not preclude the use of technology, paving the way for British arbitral institutions to explore AI-driven analytics and smart contracts[23]. These pioneering steps have established the UK as a benchmark in the domain, influencing global perceptions and practices in AI-assisted arbitration[24].

Turkey’s engagement with AI in arbitration, by comparison, is at a nascent stage. Governed by the International Arbitration Law, which is modeled after the UNCITRAL Model Law, Turkish arbitration has yet to formally integrate AI tools. Nonetheless, the burgeoning interest in the efficiency and analytical prowess offered by AI suggests a forthcoming shift, with Turkish legal professionals increasingly looking toward international exemplars for inspiration.

Broadening the scope of this analysis, the application of AI in arbitration varies markedly across the globe. Singapore, for instance, has emerged as a vanguard, utilizing AI for an array of arbitral tasks, from predictive analytics to document scrutiny, within a regulatory framework that encourages innovation. In the United States, particularly in tech-centric jurisdictions like Silicon Valley, AI is shaping dispute resolution, with its common law system providing fertile ground for AI to analyze and predict outcomes based on historical data[25].

Meanwhile, Germany’s approach is characterized by a careful balance between innovation and data protection, upholding its stringent privacy laws even as it explores AI’s potential. In China, the embrace of AI in legal processes reflects a broader ambition to modernize and streamline, with AI applications ranging from case filing to decision-making support.

This juxtaposition of AI’s role in arbitration across these varied legal jurisdictions underscores the delicate equilibrium between technological advancement and the preservation of legal integrity.

It highlights the need for a harmonized approach that enables jurisdictions like the UK and Turkey to learn from international experiences. Such a global perspective not only informs their own legal tech strategies but also ensures that their arbitration systems evolve in a manner that is both forward-looking and rooted in the principles of fair and equitable dispute resolution.

In the realm of Turkish legal technology, one of the most intriguing and progressive applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is in the field of arbitration. As Turkey continues to emerge as a significant hub for international arbitration, the integration of AI in this sector holds promising potential for transforming traditional arbitration processes[26]. Arbitration, known for its flexibility and efficiency compared to traditional court proceedings, stands to benefit significantly from AI integration. In Turkey, where both domestic and international arbitration cases are on the rise, AI tools are being explored for their potential to further streamline the arbitration process. This includes the use of AI for the analysis of legal documents, predictive outcome modeling, and even for assisting in the drafting of arbitration agreements and clauses. One of the most notable applications of AI in arbitration is predictive analysis. By analyzing past arbitration decisions, AI can assist legal practitioners and arbitrators in Turkey in anticipating possible outcomes of cases. This not only aids in better preparation but also provides insights that can guide strategy in arbitration proceedings. AI’s potential in the actual dispute resolution process in arbitration is immense. Tools that utilize Natural Language Processing (NLP) can help in sifting through extensive case files and evidence, identifying relevant precedents and legal arguments more efficiently than traditional methods. This can be particularly beneficial in complex international arbitration cases, where the volume of documentation can be overwhelming. However, the use of AI in arbitration in Turkey is not without challenges[27]. Questions regarding the ethical implications, transparency of AI algorithms, and the potential for bias remain at the forefront of discussions. There is also the need for appropriate regulatory frameworks to ensure that the use of AI in arbitration aligns with legal standards and ethical norms. The future trajectory of AI in arbitration in Turkey seems poised for growth. As legal practitioners become more familiar with AI tools and their capabilities, and as these tools become more refined and adapted to the specific needs of arbitration, their role is likely to expand significantly. This advancement could position Turkey not just as a key player in international arbitration but also as a pioneer in the application of AI in legal dispute resolution.

In weaving together these diverse strands, the analysis offers a comprehensive picture of the global landscape of AI in arbitration, illuminating the routes through which different legal systems are adapting to—and shaping—the future of legal dispute resolution in the age of AI[28].

A. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Domestic Arbitration in Turkish Law and Solution Proposals

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in domestic arbitration processes has the potential to accelerate legal proceedings, enhance impartiality, and improve accuracy. However, the implementation of this technology also brings certain legal and ethical challenges. Insights from studies and current practices in English law can be highly informative for Turkish law. Domestic arbitration in Turkish law is governed by the Turkish International Arbitration Act No. 4686 and the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code. The use of AI in domestic arbitration can lead to more efficient and faster arbitration processes. Nonetheless, there are uncertainties regarding the legal validity, acceptability, and impartiality of AI-assisted decisions. AI can be particularly beneficial in arbitration cases that require complex data analysis and review of large volumes of documents. However, the role of AI in decision-making must not undermine the non-delegable authority and responsibility of the judge or arbitrator. Therefore, it is crucial that AI be used only as an auxiliary tool, with final decisions made by human arbitrators. Detailed regulations are needed to define the scope and limitations of AI use in domestic arbitration. This includes specifying which aspects of arbitration AI can assist with, such as data analysis, document review, and preliminary assessments, while ensuring that final decision-making authority remains with human arbitrators. Laws should mandate transparency in AI’s role in arbitration processes. This includes documenting how AI systems were used in a case and ensuring that arbitrators understand and can explain AI’s contributions to their decisions. Legal frameworks must address data protection and privacy concerns related to the use of AI. This involves ensuring that AI systems comply with existing data protection laws and that sensitive information handled by AI is safeguarded against unauthorized access. Comprehensive training programs should be developed for arbitrators, lawyers, and legal professionals to familiarize them with AI technologies and their applications in arbitration. This includes understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI, as well as the legal and ethical implications of its use. Regular workshops and seminars should be organized to discuss the latest developments in AI and its integration into the legal field. These events can provide a platform for sharing knowledge, best practices, and addressing concerns related to AI in arbitration. Legal professionals should be encouraged to engage in continuous professional development to stay updated with advancements in AI and its impact on arbitration practices. Ethical guidelines should emphasize the importance of impartiality and fairness in AI-assisted arbitration. AI systems must be designed and trained to avoid biases, and arbitrators should ensure that AI recommendations do not unfairly influence their decisions. Pilot projects should be initiated to test the use of AI in domestic arbitration. These projects can evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and accuracy of AI systems in real arbitration cases. The results can provide valuable insights into the practical benefits and challenges of AI integration. Feedback from pilot projects should be systematically collected and analyzed to identify areas for improvement. Lessons learned from pilot applications can inform the development of best practices and guidelines for broader AI adoption in arbitration.

VII. Conclusion

The exploration of artificial intelligence’s potential in the realm of UK arbitration has surfaced numerous insights, revealing both the promise and the perils of this technological integration. AI, with its capacity to transform vast quantities of data into actionable insights and its potential to streamline complex processes, stands poised to revolutionize the arbitration landscape. The UK, with its deep-seated legal traditions and progressive technological sector, is at a crossroads where the adoption of AI in legal practices could set a global precedent.

In reflecting upon the UK’s position and response to AI arbitrators, it is clear that while there is enthusiasm for technological innovation, there remains a cautious awareness of the need for governance and oversight. The delicate balance between embracing AI’s capabilities and maintaining the sanctity of human judgement in legal matters is a central theme in the ongoing dialogue within legal and tech circles.

The culmination of this discussion serves as a clarion call for continued research into the implications of AI within arbitration. This research must be interdisciplinary, drawing from legal theory, technological expertise, and ethical philosophy to ensure a holistic understanding of AI’s role. Concurrently, there is an imperative for robust development of AI technologies that are tailored to arbitration’s unique demands, prioritizing transparency, fairness, and accountability.

The ethical considerations surrounding AI in arbitration cannot be overstated. As AI systems become more autonomous, the legal community must ensure that these systems operate within the bounds of ethical conduct and that they reflect the values we hold as indispensable to the pursuit of justice. This includes addressing the potential for AI to perpetuate existing biases or create new forms of inequality.

In conclusion, the UK’s journey towards integrating AI into arbitration is not simply a matter of technological adoption; it is a venture that touches upon the core principles of how justice is dispensed and the role that human agency plays in its administration. The way forward will require not only careful planning and regulation but also a shared commitment to preserving the integrity of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes with both wisdom and humanity.Top of Form

REFRENCES

Akıncı Z, Milletlerarası Tahkim (6^th edn, Seçkin Yayınevi 2021) 3

Aschauer C and Piers M, Arbitration in the Digital Age: The Brave New World of Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2018)

Bak B, ‘Medeni Hukuk Açısından Yapay Zekânın Hukuki Statüsü ve Yapay Zekâ Kullanımından Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk’ (2018) TAAD 9(35), 220

Bilgin H, ‘Yapay Zekânın Mahkeme Kararlarında Kullanımına Uluslararası Bir Bakış ve Robot Hâkimler Hakkında Düşünceler’ (2022) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 411

Born G, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2014), 291

Hastie R and Dawes M R, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (SAGE Publications 2009) 60

Herring J, Legal Ethics (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 305

Kahneman D and Tversky A, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk (1979) 47

Econometrica 263

Kalpsüz T, ‘Tahkim Anlaşması Bilgi Toplumunda Hukuk Ünal Tekinalp’e Armağan’ 2003 (2) 1027, 1032

Kasap H G, ‘Can Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Replace Human Arbitrators? Technological Concerns and Legal Implications’ (2021) 2 (5) Journal of Dispute Resolution, 7

Kim T P, ‘Deliberation and Strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Exploration of Panel Effects’ (2009) 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1319

Lipshitz R, Klein G, Orasanu J, and Salas E, ‘Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making’ (2001) 14 Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 331

Malhoutra A and Faizan A, ‘Artificial Intelligence and International Arbitration and International Arbitration (2022) 27(2) Novos Estudos Jurídicos, 258-281

Makridakis S, ‘The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms’ (2017) 90 Futures 46, 49

McCarty L T, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Law: How to Get There from Here’ (1990) 3(2) Ratio Juris, 189

Movsesian L M, ‘International Commercial Arbitration and International Courts’ (2008) 18 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 424

Najar C J, ‘Inside Out: A User’s Perspective on Challenges in International Arbitration’ (2009) 25(4) Arbitration International 515

Paisley K, and Edna S, ‘Artificial intelligence challenges and opportunities for international arbitration’ (2018) 11(1) New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer, 35-40

Park W W, ‘Arbitration in Autumn’ (2011) 2 (2) Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 28

Pekcanıtez H, Atalay O and Özekes M, Medeni Usul Hukuku Ders Kitabı (10^th edn, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2022) 608

Redfern A, Hunter M, Blackaby N and Partasides C, Redfern & Hunter: Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (6^th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2015) 165

Rafique M, ‘Why Artificial Intelligence Is a Compatible Match for Arbitration’ (2022) 88(2) Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 3

Retronaz A E and Güçlütürk G O, Gelişen Teknolojiler ve Hukuku II: Yapay Zeka (On İki Levha Yayınları 2021) 21

Sim C, ‘Will artificial intelligence take over arbitration’ (2018) 14 Asian Int’l Arb. J, 1

Stipanowich J T and Schmitz J A, Arbitration (Aspen Publishing 2022) 316

Schultz T and Kovacs R, ‘The Law Is What the Arbitrator Had for Breakfast: How Income, Reputation, Justice, and Reprimand Act as Determinants of Arbitrator Behaviour’ in Julio César Betancourt (ed), Defining Issues in International Arbitration: Celebrating 100 Years of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Open University Press 2016) 55

Şanlı C, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (7^th edn, Beta Basım 2019) 28

Vanleenhove C and Bruyne J, Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Intersentia 2023) 60

[1] Jonathan Herring, Legal Ethics (2^nd edn, Oxford University Press 2017) 305; Hakan Pekcanıtez, Oğuz Atalay and Muhammet Özekes, Medeni Usul Hukuku Ders Kitabı (10^th edn, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2022) 608; Ziya Akıncı, Milletlerarası Tahkim (6^th edn, Seçkin Yayınevi 2021) 3; Cemal Şanlı, Uluslararası Ticari Akitlerin Hazırlanması ve Uyuşmazlıkların Çözüm Yolları (7^th edn, Beta Basım 2019) 28; Alan Redfern, Martin Hunter, Nigel Blackaby and Constantine Partasides, Redfern & Hunter: Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (6^th edn, Sweet and Maxwell 2015) 165

[2] Kathleen Paisley and Sussman Edna, ‘Artificial intelligence challenges and opportunities for international arbitration’ (2018) 11(1) New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer, 35-40

[3] Ankit Malhoutra and Ahmad Faizan, ‘Artificial Intelligence and International Arbitration and International Arbitration (2022) 27(2) Novos Estudos Jurídicos, 258-281

[4] Christine Sim, ‘Will artificial intelligence take over arbitration’ (2018) 14 Asian Int’l Arb. J, 1

[5]  Malhoutra and Faizan (n 3) 260

[6]  Paisley and Edna (n 2) 36

[7] Maroof Rafique, ‘Why Artificial Intelligence Is a Compatible Match for Arbitration’ (2022) 88(2) Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, 3

[8] Cedric Vanleenhove and Jan de Bruyne, Artificial Intelligence and the Law (Intersentia 2023) 60

[9] Malhoutra and Faizan (n 3) 260

[10] Christian Aschauer and Maud Piers, Arbitration in the Digital Age: The Brave New World of Arbitration (Cambridge University Press 2018)

[11] Thomas J. Stipanowich and Amy J. Schmitz, Arbitration (Aspen Publishing 2022) 316

[12] Malhoutra and Faizan (n 3) 260

[13] Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration (Kluwer Law International 2014), 291; Jean-Claude Najar, ‘Inside Out: A User’s Perspective on Challenges in International Arbitration’ (2009) 25(4) Arbitration International 515

[14] Thomas Schultz and Robert Kovacs, ‘The Law Is What the Arbitrator Had for Breakfast: How Income, Reputation, Justice, and Reprimand Act as Determinants of Arbitrator Behaviour’ in Julio César Betancourt (ed), Defining Issues in International Arbitration: Celebrating 100 Years of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Open University Press 2016) 55

[15] Spyros Makridakis, ‘The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms’ (2017) 90 Futures 46, 49

[16]Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, ‘Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk (1979) 47 Econometrica 263

[17] Pauline T Kim, ‘Deliberation and Strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Exploration of Panel Effects’ (2009) 157 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1319

[18] Reid Hastie and Robyn M Dawes, Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (SAGE Publications 2009) 60

[19] Raanan Lipshitz, Gary Klein, Judith Orasanu, and Eduardo Salas, ‘Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making’ (2001) 14 Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 331

[20] Mark L. Movsesian, ‘International Commercial Arbitration and International Courts’ (2008) 18 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 424

[21] William W. Park, ‘Arbitration in Autumn’ (2011) 2(2) Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 287

[22] L. Thorne McCarty, ‘Artificial Intelligence and Law: How to Get There from Here’ (1990) 3(2) Ratio Juris, 189

[23] Hikmet Bilgin, ‘Yapay Zekânın Mahkeme Kararlarında Kullanımına Uluslararası Bir Bakış ve Robot Hâkimler Hakkında Düşünceler’ (2022) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 411

[24] Malhoutra and Faizan (n 3) 260

[25] Başak Bak, ‘Medeni Hukuk Açısından Yapay Zekânın Hukuki Statüsü ve Yapay Zekâ Kullanımından Doğan Hukuki Sorumluluk’ (2018) TAAD 9(35),220; Turgut Kalpsüz, ‘Tahkim Anlaşması Bilgi Toplumunda Hukuk Ünal Tekinalp’e Armağan’ 2003 (2) 1027, 1032

[26] Pekcanıtez, Atalay and Özekes (n 1) 608

[27] Bilgin (n 23) 411

[28] Eylem Aksoy Retronaz and Osman Gazi Güçlütürk, Gelişen Teknolojiler ve Hukuku II: Yapay Zeka (On İki Levha Yayınları 2021) 21; Gizem Halis Kasap, ‘Can Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Replace Human Arbitrators? Technological Concerns and Legal Implications’ (2021) 2 (5) Journal of Dispute Resolution, 7