Abstract
ABSTRACT Robots are slowly replacing humans in many areas of the economy. This paper compares the current-day arbitration laws of Australia, Cayman Islands, European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, Qatar, Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States, which are considered arbitration friendly. The paper confirms that the respective arbitration laws do not clearly and unequivocally provide for a robot to be used as an arbitrator. It is well understood that robots today do not have the emotional or social intelligence, such as bias, that a human naturally brings to the arbitration table. There are four streams of studies on this issue: AI-powered arbitrator, AI arbitration, AI-assisted arbitration, and a robot as arbitrator. However, none of these is clearly defined by arbitration law. This paper argues that the current day laws do not provide for robots to replace the human arbitrator, and must retain the status quo. Any law reform to allow a robot to replace the human arbitrator, would be a jump too far, and would significantly diminish the long-standing reputation that arbitration has as an effective legal mechanism for resolving international commercial and investor-state disputes.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
