LEGAL VALIDITY AND ETHICAL CONCERNS OF AI IN MEDIATION

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has sparked debate over its legal and ethical implications. Proponents note that AI tools can improve efficiency and consistency, but experts warn these applications must still align with core ADR values. Industry surveys have reported and emphasized that any AI use in dispute resolution must uphold fundamental principles like fairness, transparency, and due process (Burn, Morel de Westgaver, & Clark, 2023). In fact, UNCITRAL’s guidelines explicitly list “due process, fairness, accountability, and transparency” as cardinal principles for online dispute resolution (UNCITRAL, 2020). This paper examines whether AI-generated mediator decisions can be legally binding (particularly in international mediation) and whether AI can satisfy due process norms. It also explores how algorithmic bias and lack of human nuance threaten the legitimacy of AI-mediated outcomes. Analysis shows that, while no jurisdiction currently bars AI-assisted settlements, enforceability depends on traditional consent and contract rules. At the same time, ensuring impartiality, oversight, and bias mitigation is critical to preserve the integrity of mediated agreements.

INTRODUCTION:

Mediation is a consensual, often cross-border or commercial, method of resolving disputes outside of court. Globally, mediation settlement agreements (once signed by the parties) are enforceable under instruments like the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Mediation and the 2019 Singapore Convention on Mediation. Recently, ADR institutions (AAA/ICDR, ICC, SVAMC, etc.) and law reform bodies have begun to explore AI’s role in ADR. For example, major arbitration centers have issued guiding principles or formed working groups on AI (Eftekhar, 2025). An industry report highlights that while AI tools offer substantial benefits such as increased efficiency and enhanced access to justice, they simultaneously raise serious concerns, noting that “AI tools also pose significant […] legal and technical issues,” and emphasizing that their adoption “requires careful consideration […] to ensure compatibility with the principles and values of arbitration, such as fairness, impartiality, transparency, and party autonomy” (Burn, Morel de Westgaver, & Clark, 2023). Likewise, UNCITRAL’s Technical Notes on ODR emphasize that any online dispute resolution system must embody “impartiality, […] due process, fairness, accountability and transparency” (UNCITRAL, 2020). Hence, while AI may streamline mediation (e.g. analyzing data or drafting settlement terms), experts uniformly stress that ADR outcomes must preserve the parties’ procedural rights and ethical norms (Burn, Morel de Westgaver, & Clark, 2023; UNCITRAL, 2020).

LEGAL VALIDITY OF AI DECISIONS IN MEDIATION:

The legal effect of an AI-mediated outcome depends on established ADR law. In international arbitration, parties typically delegate decision-making to a tribunal whose award is binding under conventions like the New York Convention. However, many arbitration laws and institutional rules explicitly or implicitly require natural persons as arbitrators (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024). For example, the ADR Institute of Canada notes that although treaties (NY Convention, ICSID) do not expressly forbid AI arbitrators, “many arbitration laws and institutional rules require arbitrators to be natural persons and/or possess human qualities” (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024). By contrast, no major treaty currently addresses AI-mediated arbitration or mediation decisions. In practice, if an arbitrator secretly relies on AI beyond agreed parameters, courts or tribunals could later invalidate the award for procedural irregularity (JAMS ADR, 2024). Indeed, one commentator warns that use of unauthorized AI “could jeopardize the enforceability of an award” under due-process principles (JAMS ADR, 2024). The new EU AI Act even classifies AI use in any “judicial decision” or ADR outcome that produces legal effects as high-risk, imposing strict transparency and oversight requirements (JAMS ADR, 2024).

In mediation, the situation is different. Mediation outcomes are not “awards” but voluntary settlement agreements. Those agreements become legally binding as contracts once signed by the parties (and may be enforceable under the Singapore Convention if international), irrespective of whether a human or an AI “mediated” them. In other words, an AI system could propose terms, but they bind the parties only if the parties agree and sign. There is no known law expressly forbidding an AI from generating a settlement proposal. However, because mediation is typically predicated on party autonomy and consent, any AI must operate with clear party authorization. To date, no country has a specific statute on AI mediators; enforcement would rely on general contract and procedure law. Moreover, the absence of a legal ban is not the same as positive endorsement. In my view, this legal vacuum calls for proactive regulation. Jurisdictions could consider inserting specific provisions in mediation statutes clarifying the permissible scope of AI involvement, especially in sensitive or cross-cultural disputes where trust and human intuition play a crucial role. Hence, AI-driven mediator recommendations are not binding unless parties formally accept them; to be safe, parties should explicitly consent to any AI involvement to ensure a mediated deal later holds up as a valid agreement (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024; JAMS ADR, 2024).

KEY POINTS ON LEGAL STATUS:

– Arbitration vs Mediation: Arbitration awards are legally binding (subject to review), while mediation settlements are binding only as contracts. Using AI as an arbitrator raises questions of consent and statutory authority (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024). AI in mediation must ultimately result in a signed agreement to be enforceable.

– Party Autonomy: Under UNCITRAL and arbitration law, parties control their process. If they agree to AI assistance (e.g., via a clause or procedural order), its output can be incorporated. Without such consent, reliance on AI could violate due process (JAMS ADR, 2024).

– Regulatory Regime: Currently, there is no dedicated “AI in ADR” law. Regulators and courts would likely apply existing rules (e.g., on arbitration tribunals, mediator ethics, contract formation). The EU AI Act’s classification of ADR decisions as high-risk highlights that future regulation may require strict oversight of any AI-mediated outcome (European Commission, 2021; Zilberman, 2023).

– Due Process, Impartiality and Fairness: Even if AI tools are legally permitted, they must respect fundamental ADR principles. Mediation (especially international) demands fairness and neutrality. UNCITRAL’s Technical Notes advise that ODR must be “impartial” and “due process” compliant (UNCITRAL, 2020). In practice, this means each party should have a meaningful chance to present its case and understand how decisions are reached. Human mediators rely on face-to-face dialogue, empathy and adaptive judgment. By contrast, pure AI systems currently lack human empathy and situational awareness. This gap becomes especially problematic in mediation, where emotional sensitivity often guides resolution. One observer notes that leading mediators’ “superpower” is making parties feel heard; mediators build trust and credibility through fairness and emotional intelligence. In this view, “objectivity and fairness play a critical role, but most importantly, emotional intelligence … cannot be underestimated,” and parties tend to accept a solution only if they trust the mediator (Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023). As the same author wryly asks, “Ever heard of a computer showing empathy or emotion?” (Fasolo, 2025). In my view, these qualities are not merely helpful — they are indispensable. The essence of mediation lies in trust-building and emotional validation, which no AI system can replicate. AI lacks consciousness; it cannot read non-verbal cues and is incapable of contextual emotional responsiveness. Delegating mediation to machines, even partially, reduces a fundamentally human process into a mechanical transaction, stripping it of the psychological safety parties often need to resolve conflict.

Principles to Uphold:

– Transparency: AI’s “black box” nature can undermine parties’ ability to scrutinize outcomes. Guidelines suggest disclosing AI use when it affects decisions (Draper, 2019). Parties should understand how the AI arrived at its recommendations and have the opportunity to challenge or override them.

– Human Oversight: Experts agree AI should aid, not replace, human judgment (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023). For instance, a leading law firm advises that arbitrators (and mediators) must review all AI outputs: AI tools can analyze data, but a human must assess context, catch errors, and ensure cultural or emotional factors are considered (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023). Unchecked AI decisions risk procedural unfairness and may later be deemed invalid (JAMS ADR, 2024).

– Impartiality: In theory, AI (absent bias) could be indifferent to parties. In reality, training data and algorithms can embed subtle biases or preferences (Eftekhar, 2025). Ensuring AI neutrality requires carefully curated data and oversight. Practitioners must verify that AI’s logic is free from undue favoritism toward any side or outcome.

– Confidentiality and Security: Mediation is often confidential. Using AI tools requires strict data protection (especially if third-party servers process private information) (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023). Any AI platform must be vetted to prevent leaks of sensitive information (e.g., using on-premises models rather than public ChatGPT). Breaches of confidentiality could breach mediator ethics rules and erode party confidence.

DUE PROCESS RISKS:

Delegating facets of mediation to AI raises due process concerns akin to arbitration. One commentator cautions that novel AI use “could give rise to due process violations or a claim of irregularity” if parties are caught off-guard (JAMS ADR, 2024). For example, if an AI delivers a proposed settlement without allowing parties to fully argue their case, or if one party had no role in training data, a party might object to enforcement. Maintaining procedural fairness means parties should consent to the AI’s role and retain final control over accepting its recommendations (JAMS ADR, 2024; ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023).

BIAS AND LEGITIMACY OF AI IN MEDIATION:

AI’s potential biases present a serious ethical challenge to ADR legitimacy. By design, machine-learning systems reflect the data they are trained on. If historical case data or heuristic rules contain any gender, racial, or cultural bias, an AI mediator will simply mirror those biases. The ADR Institute of Canada warns: “If there is bias in the input, there is going to be bias in the output.” (Eftekhar, 2025). Likewise, International Mediation experts have raised alarms about “cognitive, linguistic, age, and gender biases” embedded in AI algorithms (Fasolo, 2025). Parties who suspect an AI is programmed unfairly (or trained on skewed data) may refuse to accept its conclusions, undermining trust in the process (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023). This problem is not merely technical, as it strikes at the heart of legitimacy. Unlike human bias, which is subject to ethical scrutiny and corrective feedback in real time, algorithmic bias is often invisible and unaccountable. Worse, once embedded in opaque models, such bias can silently skew outcomes across cases without the parties’ knowledge. In my view, relying on AI tools with hidden or untraceable bias risks systemic unfairness and delegitimizes the very outcomes meant to promote resolution.

At the same time, AI could reduce certain human biases (e.g., fatigue or inconsistent emotion-driven decisions) if properly managed. Studies in ADR suggest that AI can provide a “neutral perspective” by uniformly analyzing facts (Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023). However, scholars caution that algorithmic fairness is not automatic. For instance, AI ethicists note that even “provably fair” algorithms can perpetuate hidden biases (Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023). Any algorithm that arbitrarily weighs certain factors (like historical verdicts) inherently favors some outcomes. Moreover, large language models are known to “hallucinate” or fabricate information (JAMS ADR, 2024), raising additional fairness issues if not fact-checked.

Mitigation Measures: – Bias Auditing: New toolkits (e.g., by Bellamy et al.) aim to test and correct AI bias before deployment (Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023). In ADR, such tools could scan an AI’s recommendations for signs of unfair patterns (e.g., consistently favoring businesses over individuals). – Party Control of Data: Parties could negotiate which data an AI uses. For example, excluding irrelevant sensitive attributes (like race or nationality) from input can reduce some biases. – Guidelines and Regulation: Emerging best practices (e.g., SVAMC’s AI guidelines) emphasize that users must understand AI limitations, retrain models if biased, and keep a human “in the loop” to override unjust results (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023).
If AI bias is not managed, the very legitimacy of mediation suffers. One mediator notes that perceptions of fairness are crucial: parties are more likely to abide by a settlement if they believe the process was fair (Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023). Conversely, a tainted AI decision–even if technically “sound” – may not be regarded as just or trustworthy. Thus, ensuring algorithmic transparency and fairness is not just an ethical ideal but a practical necessity for enforceable, durable outcomes (Fasolo, 2025; Cao, Cheung, & Li, 2023).

CONCLUSION:

AI promises to transform mediation by offering data-driven insights and efficiency, but it cannot erase the need for core human values. Legally, AI-mediated outcomes can be binding only under the same conditions as any settlement: party consent and formalization (no special “AI exception” yet exists). In fact, most laws still assume human neutrals (Norton Rose Fulbright, 2024), so practitioners should tread carefully when introducing AI into binding decision processes (JAMS ADR, 2024). Equally important are the ethical dimensions: international ADR standards demand fairness, impartiality, and accountability (UNCITRAL, 2020). AI systems must be overseen by humans to ensure they apply sound legal reasoning and remain neutral (ADR Institute of Canada, Inc., 2023; Eftekhar, 2025). Finally, unmitigated algorithmic bias poses a clear threat to legitimacy; parties must trust that AI is not surreptitiously favoring one side. In sum, the law currently looks at AI as a tool, not a substitute – its outputs can bind only to the extent that parties accept them and due process is preserved (JAMS ADR, 2024; UNCITRAL, 2020). Ongoing developments (SVAMC/IBA/UNCITRAL guidelines, new regulations) aim to close the gap between technology and legal norms. Until then, the safest course is a “human-centric” approach: use AI to assist mediation but let human mediators and parties retain ultimate control over the fairness and validity of the settlement. Ultimately, mediation’s legitimacy derives not from speed or efficiency, but from meaningful human engagement. AI may assist with administrative efficiency, but allowing it to shape, suggest, or direct settlement terms distorts the very nature of consensual dispute resolution. If the goal is not just resolution but “just” resolution, then AI must remain firmly subordinate to human mediators as tools, not agents.

REFERENCES:

ADR Institute of Canada, Inc. (2023). Utilizing AI-powered tools in arbitration.

Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., Nagar, S., Ramamurthy, K. N., Richards, J., Saha, D., Sattigeri, P., Singh, M., Varshney, K. R., & Zhang, Y. (2018). AI Fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting, understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias. arXiv.

Burn, G., Morel de Westgaver, C., & Clark, V. (2023). AI in international arbitration: The rise of machine learning (2023 arbitration survey). Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

Cao, N., Cheung, S.-O., & Li, K. (2023). Perceptive biases in construction mediation: Evidence and application of artificial intelligence. Buildings, 13(10), Article 2460.

Draper, C. (2019). The pull of unbiased AI mediators. International Journal on Online Dispute Resolution, 6(1), 116–136.

Eftekhar, R. (2025, March 25). The legal framework applicable to using AI by an arbitral tribunal. DailyJus.

European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM/2021/206 final).

Fasolo, N. (2025, April 23). The future of mediation: AI, funding, and global trends. DailyJus.

JAMS ADR. (2024, January 31). The use of AI in ADR: Balancing potential and pitfalls. JAMS ADR Insights.

Norton Rose Fulbright. (2024). New frontiers: Regulating artificial intelligence in international arbitration.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2006). UNCITRAL model law on international commercial arbitration 1985: With amendments as adopted in 2006.

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2019). United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention on Mediation).

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. (2020). Technical notes on online dispute resolution.

Zilberman, L. M. (2023, November 10). Will AI mediators soon replace humans? The simple answer is no. The Daily Journal.