Back
Does India Need Stronger Arbitral Institutions to Attract Disputes? Ciarb President Cesar Pereira Says Yes
In a compelling call for institutional reform, Cesar Pereira, President of the , has urged India to strengthen its arbitral institutions if it hopes to become a preferred destination for international dispute resolution. Speaking on the evolving role of artificial intelligence in arbitration, Pereira also offered critical insights into how AI tools should be regulated—not through blanket disclosure mandates, but through a clear-eyed focus on responsibility and accountability. His remarks arrive at a pivotal moment when arbitration practice worldwide is being reshaped by technological innovation, and India is vying for a larger slice of the global arbitration pie.
Pereira’s dual message—institutional robustness and measured AI governance—strikes a chord with legal practitioners, arbitrators, and policymakers who see India's potential as an arbitration hub. The country has long been criticized for and inconsistent , yet its courts have repeatedly affirmed the . Now, with the rise of AI, new questions are emerging about how to maintain the integrity of proceedings while embracing efficiency. Pereira’s views provide a roadmap that balances innovation with the core tenets of fairness and .
The Need for Institutional Strength
Pereira did not mince words: India must develop stronger arbitral institutions to attract disputes. This is not merely a matter of infrastructure, but of cultivating a robust ecosystem that includes qualified arbitrators, efficient , and predictable legal frameworks. Many international parties remain hesitant to choose India as a due to perceived delays, limited institutional support, and occasional . By strengthening institutions—such as the , , and others—India can signal its commitment to world-class dispute resolution standards.
The Ciarb, as a leading global body for arbitrators, has a direct interest in this evolution. Its president’s commentary reflects a broader concern that emerging arbitral seats must offer more than just legislation; they must provide practical, reliable mechanisms that inspire confidence. Pereira’s call is a wake-up for Indian legal professionals to invest in institutional capacity, continuing education, and technological adoption, ensuring that the country does not miss the boat in the competitive global market.
AI in Arbitration: A Tool, Not a Replacement
Turning to artificial intelligence, Pereira articulated a nuanced perspective that is likely to influence how tribunals and counsel approach AI tools. He emphasized that AI is a tool, and the responsibility and accountability for its use lie squarely with the human participants. “A person using AI must ensure that it does not cause a breach of any obligation owed in the arbitral process. If the arbitration is confidential, the tool must not compromise . The user must also verify the accuracy of its output. These obligations exist regardless of AI.”
This statement cuts through the hype surrounding AI, reminding practitioners that technology does not alter fundamental duties. When an assistant—human or algorithmic—invents a case and counsel presents it without verification, the fault remains with counsel. Similarly, an arbitrator cannot delegate decision-making to AI; the essential judicial function must remain human. Pereira’s framing redirects the conversation from “should we use AI?” to “how do we use it responsibly?” It also dispels the fear that AI will replace human judgment, affirming that it is simply another tool in the lawyer’s toolkit.
: Nuance Required
One of the most contentious issues in AI-assisted arbitration is the extent to which parties must be informed of AI usage. Ciarb’s guidelines address this head-on, recommending disclosure in certain circumstances—particularly when AI use creates a risk to the outcome of the arbitration. However, Pereira was quick to caution against a blanket disclosure obligation. “Disclosure is a difficult word here. We use the same term for , where the usual advice is to err on the side of disclosure. When it is used for AI, people naturally assume that every use must be disclosed. But AI is a tool. Responsibility and accountability are more important than general disclosure.”
This distinction is crucial. Forcing parties to disclose every use of AI, from grammar-checking tools to research assistants, would be impractical and could interfere with the effective use of helpful technologies. As Pereira noted, such a requirement would be comparable to “requiring counsel to use physical libraries instead of online research.” The real concern is not the use of AI per se, but whether that use compromises , accuracy, or the fairness of the process. By focusing on outcomes rather than process, the guidelines strike a pragmatic balance.
Tribunal Regulation and
Pereira also addressed the role of in regulating AI use. He acknowledged that tribunals have the power to set parameters, but they “should exercise restraint and openly discuss any limitations with the parties.” This approach respects , a fundamental principle in arbitration, while allowing tribunals to intervene when necessary. A proactive, dialogue-based approach can prevent disputes over AI usage from derailing proceedings. Furthermore, Pereira warned against unclear, retrospective . “Someone could ask at the end of a case whether an arbitrator had used Copilot and then challenge the because this was not disclosed.” Such challenges would undermine , a cornerstone of arbitration. By setting clear, prospective rules—decided in advance and communicated to all parties—tribunals can avoid post- litigation over AI-related issues.
of AI-Assisted Awards
Pereira’s remarks also touched on how courts have treated awards that involved AI. He observed that courts have so far been “relatively balanced,” refusing to annul awards merely because AI was used. Intervention has only occurred when the AI caused actual defects—such as invented authorities or reliance on facts outside the record. These defects, he noted, “can also result from human error,” suggesting that the legal system should not single out AI for stricter scrutiny. This reassuring position signals to arbitrators that they are not risking simply by embracing technology, as long as they maintain professional standards. However, Pereira’s caution implies that the judiciary will remain vigilant, ready to intervene when AI-created errors compromise the integrity of the .
Implications for India's Arbitration Landscape
For India, Pereira’s comments underscore a dual imperative. First, invest in institutional infrastructure to compete globally. Second, adopt a forward-looking approach to technology that aligns with international best practices. The Ciarb guidelines offer a template that Indian arbitration institutions can adapt, ensuring that both arbitrators and counsel understand their responsibilities when using AI. Such clarity will reduce uncertainty and encourage the use of AI tools that can enhance efficiency and accuracy in conducting arbitrations—qualities that India needs to attract international users.
Moreover, Pereira’s emphasis on accountability over disclosure resonates with the broader legal community. It reassures parties that their confidential information is protected, while allowing them to benefit from technological advances. As India modernizes its arbitration framework—through practices, specialized arbitral centers, and judicial training—it can position itself as a jurisdiction that embraces innovation without sacrificing fairness.
Conclusion
Cesar Pereira’s message is a timely reminder that arbitration’s future lies not in resisting change, but in managing it thoughtfully. India’s aspiration to become a global arbitration hub requires both institutional upgrades and a clear-eyed approach to AI governance. By fostering strong institutions and promoting responsible AI use, India can attract disputes from around the world, offering a credible alternative to traditional seats. The path forward is not without challenges, but with leadership from bodies like Ciarb and a commitment from local practitioners, India stands ready to enter a new era of dispute resolution.
