The panel on “Reimagining Arbitration: Three Bold Ideas”, held during International Arbitration Day at London International Disputes Week (LIDW) 2026, brought together leading practitioners and thought leaders to explore transformative ideas for the future of international arbitration. Moderated by Ms. Caroline Zand-Kortweg, Director of AI and Market Development Europe, Opus 2, the session featured Ms. Mélida Hodgson, Partner, Arnold & Porter, New York, Mr. Andrew T. Clarke, Chairman, Arbitration Sciences Ltd. and Mr. Patrick W. Pearsall, Partner, Gibson Dunn, each presenting a bold proposal aimed at addressing some of arbitration’s most pressing challenges.
Empowering Tribunals to Sanction Counsel Misconduct
Addressing the growing problem of procedural abuse and attacks on arbitral proceedings, Ms. Mélida Hodgson, argued that arbitral tribunals should be expressly empowered to sanction party representatives whose conduct threatens the integrity of arbitration. Drawing on examples ranging from sham arbitrations and fraudulent awards to intimidation of arbitrators, abuse of criminal processes, parallel proceedings and defamatory campaigns, she contended that the arbitration community must acknowledge the existence of a systemic problem rather than dismiss such incidents as isolated occurrences.
Referring to the fake Geneva arbitral award case, the Eldorado arbitration in Brazil, criminal complaints filed against arbitrators, online attacks targeting tribunal members and the wider concerns raised by the P&ID proceedings, Ms. Hodgson argued that such conduct goes far beyond ordinary procedural tactics and directly undermines the legitimacy of arbitration itself. In her view, existing institutional frameworks remain largely focused on procedural fairness and efficiency, while providing insufficient mechanisms to address serious misconduct by party representatives.
According to Ms. Hodgson, arbitral institutions should adopt rules expressly authorising tribunals to impose meaningful sanctions against counsel engaging in reprehensible conduct. Possible measures could include temporary or permanent exclusion from proceedings before an institution, removal from a case, monetary sanctions and referrals to professional disciplinary bodies.
She stated:
“I think tribunals need to be empowered, and I think the main party that can empower them are actually institutions.”
Understanding the Psychology of Persuasion in Arbitration
Challenging traditional assumptions about advocacy, Mr. Andrew T. Clarke suggested that arbitration could benefit from the same data-driven analysis of decision-making that has transformed industries such as marketing, politics and professional sports. Drawing on his experience as an international transactions lawyer at ExxonMobil, he explained that major corporations routinely approach disputes as business decisions, relying on extensive risk assessments, outcome predictions and strategic analysis. However, he questioned whether traditional legal judgment alone is sufficient to accurately assess how decision-makers receive and evaluate arguments.
Tracing the evolution of persuasion from Aristotle’s concepts of ethos, pathos and logos to modern behavioural research, Mr. Clarke argued that arbitration has lagged behind industries such as politics, marketing and professional sports, all of which increasingly rely on data-driven analysis to understand decision-making. Referring to the development of jury science in the United States, he explained how surrogate decision-makers have been used for decades to test arguments, assess witness credibility and evaluate how evidence is likely to be received before a hearing begins.
According to Mr. Clarke, scientific analysis can help parties identify the issues most likely to determine the outcome of a dispute, improve the effectiveness of advocacy, reduce unnecessary complexity and provide clients with a clearer understanding of litigation risk. Better insight into how decision-makers react to evidence, he suggested, could narrow disputes, encourage earlier settlements and improve confidence in arbitral outcomes.
He stated:
“There is potential for significantly improving the quality of the arguments being put forward and the areas in which you focus on by doing scientific analysis.”
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Clarke argued that greater predictability would not only improve case preparation but could also influence behaviour before disputes escalate, encouraging more efficient dispute resolution and better commercial decision-making.
Mandatory AI-Assisted Case Assessment Before Arbitration
Looking to the future of dispute resolution, Mr. Patrick W. Pearsall proposed integrating AI-driven strengths-and-weaknesses assessments into arbitration clauses as a mandatory pre-arbitration step. Drawing parallels with existing multi-tier dispute resolution clauses requiring negotiation or mediation before arbitration, he argued that parties should be contractually required to submit their claims to a joint AI-driven strengths-and-weaknesses assessment before a notice of arbitration can be filed.
He proposed:
“Commercial parties, when drafting their arbitration clauses, build in a mandatory precondition to arbitration requiring each party to run its case through a joint AI-driven strengths and weaknesses assessment before a notice of arbitration can be served.”
Mr. Pearsall emphasised that such systems would not function as arbitral “oracles” delivering definitive answers. Instead, they would generate probability-weighted assessments based on historical case outcomes, settlement trends, procedural data and comparable disputes. Referring to recent industry surveys and institutional guidance, he argued that AI-driven analytics are already becoming deeply embedded in dispute resolution practice and that their use will soon become unavoidable.
He observed:
“In five years’ time, it will not only be 100 per cent. It will be malpractice for you not to use AI in your practise.”
According to Mr. Pearsall, mandatory pre-arbitration AI assessments could deter weak claims, encourage earlier settlement discussions, narrow issues in disputes that proceed to arbitration and improve budgeting and risk management for clients. He argued that arbitration users increasingly expect data-driven risk analysis and that a structured assessment process could reduce unnecessary expenditure before parties commit to lengthy arbitral proceedings.
Addressing concerns relating to due process, confidentiality, bias and reliability, Mr. Pearsall maintained that these risks could be managed through clearly drafted clauses, defined timeframes, independent service providers and human oversight. He further argued that arbitration should move away from the current model where sophisticated parties privately deploy AI tools and instead adopt a framework that allows both sides to benefit from the same analytical process.
Concluding Reflections
The session demonstrated that while international arbitration continues to enjoy broad confidence as a dispute resolution mechanism, its future may depend on its willingness to adapt. Whether through stronger institutional responses to misconduct, greater reliance on behavioural science, or the integration of AI-driven dispute assessment tools, the speakers challenged the arbitration community to reconsider long-standing assumptions about how disputes are managed, argued and resolved. While each proposal was ambitious in its own way, all three shared a common objective: making arbitration more effective, predictable and resilient in an increasingly complex legal and commercial environment.
