In February 2026 I had the opportunity to attend the 83rd session of UNCITRALWorking Group II (Dispute Settlement) at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. I participated as an observer at the invitation of the American Society of International Law and in my capacity as a UWE academic.
Walking into the UN conference rooms where international legal texts are negotiated was a striking experience. Around the table were State delegates from across the world, representatives of international organisations, arbitral institutions and accredited observers, all contributing to discussions that may ultimately shape the future of international dispute resolution.
Working Group II is responsible for UNCITRAL’s work on arbitration, mediation and related dispute resolution mechanisms. This session was chaired by Andrés Jana (Republic of Chile), who also serves as Vice-President of the International Court of Arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce, and supported by the UNCITRAL Secretariat. The week’s discussions focused on how international dispute settlement frameworks should adapt to rapid technological change.
Artificial intelligence and the future of dispute resolution
One of the most fascinating themes throughout the session was the growing role of digital technologies in arbitration. Delegations discussed the increasing use of electronic communications, remote and hybrid hearings and the potential use of artificial intelligence tools within arbitral proceedings.
The conversation around AI was particularly lively. Delegates considered how AI might assist with tasks such as document review, legal research, case management and procedural administration. At the same time there was clear recognition that any use of AI must be carefully designed to protect core principles of dispute resolution: due process, transparency, party autonomy and equality of arms.
What made these discussions especially interesting was their global character. Delegations from jurisdictions including the United States, Israel, Finland, Russia, Cameroon, Bahrain, France and the Philippines offered different perspectives shaped by their own legal systems and policy priorities. Watching these viewpoints converge through negotiation and compromise offered a powerful illustration of UNCITRAL’s consensus based drafting process.
Alongside the formal plenary meetings, a series of colloquium panels brought together academics, practitioners and members of the judiciary. Leading arbitral institutions from major global centres were represented, including the London Court of International Arbitration, highlighting London’s continued importance as a hub for international arbitration.
One particularly thought-provoking moment came during a discussion of an AI assisted arbitrator model currently being trialled by the American Arbitration Association (AAA). The concept involves an AI system assisting an arbitrator with aspects of decision making, subject to the express consent of the parties. The idea sparked extensive debate about accountability, oversight and the limits of algorithmic decision making in legal processes.
A memorable intervention came from H.E. Judge Sapna Jhangiani KC of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts of Appeal. She emphasised that while AI systems may be capable of mimicking legal reasoning, they do not truly reason. For that reason she argued they must remain subject to meaningful human control. Her remarks captured a broader concern echoed throughout the session: technological innovation must support rather than replace judicial responsibility.
From working group to the General Assembly: how international law is made
The Working Group also advanced work under the Dispute Resolution in the Digital Economy (DRDE) project. During the session delegates approved draft texts including recommendations on the interpretation of the New York Convention in relation to arbitral awards in electronic form, proposed amendments to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and additions to the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings.
At the end of the week the Working Group adopted its draft report, which will now be submitted to the UNCITRAL Commission at its 59th annual session in 2026. If approved the outcomes may ultimately inform resolutions and legislative texts considered by the United Nations General Assembly. Observing this process offered a clear reminder that international law develops through patient negotiation, drafting and consensus building among States.
Reflections for research and teaching
For me personally the experience provided valuable insight into how debates about AI governance are unfolding in international legal institutions. As someone whose research focuses on the regulation and governance of artificial intelligence, hearing how States and arbitral institutions are thinking about the responsible integration of AI into legal processes was particularly valuable.
These discussions will inform my ongoing research on regulatory oversight, human control mechanisms and accountability in AI assisted adjudication. They will also enrich my teaching by offering students a clearer picture of how international legal norms are debated and developed in practice.
Leaving New York I brought back a small commemorative model of the United Nations Headquarters building, a reminder not only of the visit but also of the Law School’s growing engagement with international legal forums.
The Law School’s support in facilitating this participation is gratefully acknowledged.