KRIZA LEGITIMITETA U INVESTICIONOJ ARBITRAŽI: VEŠTAČKA INTELIGENCIJA KAO POTENCIJALNI SPASILAC
Abstract
Sveobuhvatni uticaj veštačke inteligencije (VI) nije izuzeo ni arbitražu. Zainteresovane strane već nastoje ne samo da izuče trenutne posledice upotrebe veštačke inteligencije u arbitraži nego i da diskutuju o njenoj budućoj upotrebi. U raspravi se često može čuti o mogućnosti da VI u nekoj doglednoj budućnosti zameni čoveka u ulozi arbitra. Fokus ovog rada je na VI u kontekstu investicione arbitraže. Ovaj vid rešavanja sporova između država i investitora se suočava sa nizom kritika zbog svojih navodnih nedostataka. Cilj ovog članka je da ispita mogućnost upotrebe VI u budućnosti sa ciljem da se otklone navodni nedostaci zbog kojih danas mnogi govore o egzistencijalnoj krizi investicione arbitraže, ili krizi legitimiteta. U svetlu svega navedenog, ovaj rad prvo analizira doprinos kako ljudskog, tako i drugih faktora koji su doveli do krize legitimiteta. Zatim, rad ispituje podobnost VI da deluje u ulozi arbitra. Zaključci ovog rada će ne samo postaviti osnovne postulate za upotrebu VI u investicionoj arbitraži nego će dati i spekulativni stav o tome da li će VI na kraju iz korena izmeniti celi sistem investicione arbitraže.
References
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Aayor, A., 2018, Gods and Robots: Myths, Machines and Ancient Dreams of Technology, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
2. Alteras N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., Lamppos, V., 2016, Predicting Judicial Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Natural Language Processing Perspective, PeerJ Computer Science, Vol. 2.
3. Arato, J., Brown, C., Ortino, F., 2020, Parsing and Managing Inconsistency in Investor–State Dispute Settlement, The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 21, No. 2–3, pp. 336–373.
4. Bernardini, P., 2017, Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: The Need to Balance Both Parties’ Interests, ICSID Review, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 38–57.
5. Cabrera, J., Moral Damages in Investment Arbitration and Public International Law, in: Laird, I. A., Weiler, T. J. (eds.), 2010, Investment Treaty Arbitration and International Law – Vol. 3.
6. Cáceres, E., 2008, EXPERTIUS: A Mexican Judicial Decision-Support System in the Field of Family Law, Conference Paper, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Florence, Italy, 10–13 December.
7. Cheng, T.-H., Trisotto, R., 2008, Reasons and Reasoning in Investment Treaty Arbitration, Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 409–434.
8. Deli, M. B., Transparency in the Arbitral Procedure, in: Gattin, A., Tanzi, A., Fontanelli, F., 2018, General Principles of Law and International Investment Arbitration, International Investment Law Series – Vol. 12, Leiden, Brill–Nijhoff.
9. Dietz, T., Dotzauer, M., Cohen, E. S., 2019, The Legitimacy Crisis of Investor–State Arbitration and the New EU Investment Court System, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 749–772.
10. Donahue, L., 2018, A Primer on Using Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 3 January.
11. Donaubauer, J., Neumayer, E., Nunnenkamp, P., 2018, Winning or losing in investor-to-state dispute resolution: The role of arbitrator bias and experience, Review of International Economics, Vol. 26, No. 4.
12. Egli, G., 2007, Don’t Get Bit: Addressing ICSID’s Inconsistent Application of Most-Favored-Nation Clauses to Dispute Resolution Provisions, Pepperdine Law Review,Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 1045–1084.
13. Engle, R., 2002, Party Autonomy in International Arbitration: Where Uniformity Gives Way to Predictability, Transnat’l Law, Vol. 15. No. 2, pp. 323–356.
14. Fabian, S., 2020, Artificial Intelligence and the Law: Will Judges Runs on Punchcards?, Common Law Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 4–6.
15. Forrest, K.B., 2021, COMPAS: Case Study of an AI Risk Assessment Tool, When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, Singapore, World Scientific Publishing, pp. 65–83.
16. Franck, S. D., 2009, Development and Outcomes of Investment Treaty Arbitration, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 435–489.
17. Gagnon, V. N., 1966, Legal Reasoning in Judicial Decision Making, Portia Law Journal, Vol. 2.
18. Gaukrodger, D., Gordon, K., 2012/03, Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A Scoping Paper for the Investment Policy Community, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, OECD Publishing.
19. Gicquello, M., Artificial Intelligence in International Arbitration, in: Schultz, T., Ortino, F. (eds.), 2020, The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration Part IV, Chapter 25, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
20. Giorgetti, C., 2014, Litigating International Investment Disputes: A Practitioner’s Guide, Leiden, Brill–Nijhoff.
21. Gordley, J., 1984, Legal Reasoning: An Introduction, California Law Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 138–177.
22. Harten, G. van, 2012, Arbitrator Behaviour in Asymmetrical Adjudication: An Empirical Study of Investment Treaty Arbitration, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 211–268.
23. Ishikawa, T., 2010, Third Party Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 02.
24. Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J. II, Blackman, J., 2017, A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States, PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 04.
25. Kim, J. W., Winnington-Ingram, L. M., 2021, Investment Court System Under EU Trade and Investment Agreements: Addressing Criticisms of ISDS and Creating New Challenges, Global Trade and Customs Journal, Vol. 16, No. 5.
26. Khor, M., A Summary of Public Concerns on Investment Treaties and Investor–State Dispute Settlement, in: Mohamadieh, K., Ka-Min, L. (eds.) 2015, Investment Treaties: Views and Experiences from Developing Countries, Geneva, The South Centre, pp. 1–16.
27. Kleinheisterkamp, J., 2015, Investment Treaty Law and the Fear for Sovereignty: Transnational Challenges and Solutions, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 5, pp. 793– 825.
28. Knahr, C., Reinisch, A., 2007, Transparency versus Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration - The Biwater Gauff Compromise, Law & Practice of International Courts & Tribunals, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 97–118.
29. Knieper, J., 2021, UNCITRAL’s Working Group III Discussion on Dispute Prevention, University of St.. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 455–465.
30. Laborde, G., 2010, The Case for Host State Claims in Investment Arbitration, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, Vol. 1, No. 1.
31. Langford, M., Potestà, M., Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Behn, D., 2020, Special Issue: UNCITRAL and Investment Arbitration Reform: Matching Concerns and Solutions, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 21, No. 2–3, pp. 167–187.
32. Lindquist, D. H., Dautaj, Y., 2021, AI in International Arbitration: Need for the Human Touch, Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 1, pp. 39–64.
33. Maupin, J. A., 2011, MFN-based Jurisdiction in Investor–State Arbitration: Is There Any Hope for a Consistent Approach?, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 157–190.
34. Miller, T., 2019, Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences, Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 267, pp. 1–38.
35. Pinsolle, P., 2000, The Annulment of ICSID Arbitral Awards, Journal of World Investment, Vol. 1.
36. Rafique, M., Why Artificial Intelligence Is a Compatible Match for Arbitration, in: Brekoulakis, S., (ed.), 2022, Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Kluwer Law International, Vol. 88, No. 2
37. Russell, S., Norvig, P., 2010, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd ed. London: Pearson.
38. Scherer, M., 2019, Artificial Intelligence and Legal Decision-Making: The Wide Open? Study on the Example of International Arbitration, Queen Mary School Law Legal Studies Research Paper 318/2019, SSRN, (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3392669).>
39. Scherer, M., 2019, International Arbitration 3.0 – How Artificial Arbitration Will Change Dispute Resolution, Austrian Yearbook of International Arbitration.
40. Schill, S., 2017, Reforming Investor–State Dispute Settlement: A Comparative and International Constitutional Law Framework, Journal of International Economic Law, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 649–672.
41. Shirlow, E., Caron, D. D., The Multiple Forms of Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: Their Implications, and Their Limits,in: Schultz, T., Ortino, F. (eds), 2020, The Oxford Handbook of International Arbitration, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Soukupova, J., 2021, AI-Based Legal Technology: A Critical Assessment of the Current Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 279–300.
43. Sourdin, T., 2018, Judge v. Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making, UNSW Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 1114–1133.
44. Surden, H., 2019, Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview, Georgia State University Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 1306–1337.
45. UNCTAD, Investor–State Disputes: Prevention and Alternatives to Arbitration, UNCTAD Series on International Investment Policies for Development, New York–Geneva, UN.
46. Waqar, M., 2021, The Use of AI in Arbitral Proceedings, SSRN (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3931233).>
47. Webber, S., 2020, Demystifying Moral Damages in International Investment Arbitration, The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, Vol. 19, No. 3.
LEGISLATIVE SOURCES
1. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part, 2016.
2. ICSID Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (effective as of 10 April 2006)
3. International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Convention, 1965
4. UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor–State Arbitration (effective as of 1 April 2014)
5. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
CASE LAW
1. Chemtura Corporation v. Government of Canada, Ad Hoc Arb (2010).
2. ICC, Dow Chemical France, The Dow Chemical Co. and others v. ISOVER Saint Gobain, Case No. 4131, Interim Award of 23 Sep. 1982, reported in 9 Y.B. COM. ARB. (1984).
3. ICJ, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), 2004, ICJ Reports 12
4. ICSID, Salini Costruttori S.p.A. and Italstrade S.p.A. v. Kingdom of Morocco, Case No. ARB/00/4.
5. ICSID, Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, Case No. ARB/07/26.
INTERNET SOURCES
1. Baidu, 2021, From health care to infrastructure, how AI is changing the world for the better, MIT Technology Review, 20 August, (https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/20/1032358/from-health-care-to-infrastructure-how-ai-is-changing-the-world-for-the-better/).>
2. CARA A.I, (https://casetext.com/cara-info) >
3. Hogan, M., Whitmore, G., 2015, The Top 20 Artificial Intelligence Films - in Pictures, The Guardian, 8 January, (https://www.theguardian.com/culture/gallery/2015/jan/08/the-top-20-artificial-intelligence-films-in-pictures).>
4. Johnson, L., Sachs, L.E., 2019, Inconsistency’s Many Forms in Investor–State Dispute Settlement and Implications for Reform, (https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/sustainable_investment_staffpubs/32 lang="EN-IN">).
5. Kini, A., 2020, Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession: An “Intelligent” Way Ahead?, Bar and Bench – Indian Legal News, 3 June, (https://www.barandbench.com/columns/artificial-intelligence-and-legal-profession-an-intelligent-way-ahead,).>
6. Kira Company, What is Kira, (https://kirasystems.com/how-kira-works/, 25. 5. 2023).
7. Lex Machina, What we do, (https://lexmachina.com/about/).>
8. Mahnoor, W., 2021, The Use of AI in Arbitral Proceedings, (https://ssrn.com/abstract=3931233, 16 November 2021).
9. Sharma, M.S., 2019, Hindu Epics Are Full of AI, Robots. Legend Has It That They Guarded Buddha’s Relics, The Times of India, 31 March (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/all-that-matters/hindu-epics-are-full-of-ai-robots-legend-has-it-that-they-guarded-buddhas-relics/articleshow/68648962.cms name="_Hlk135927420">).
10. UNCITRAL, 2022, Possible Reform of Investor–State dispute settlement (ISDS): Appellate Mechanism, 17 November. (https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/wp_224-e.pdf).>
11. Yu, R., Spina Ali, G, 2019, What's Inside the Black Box? AI Challenges for Lawyers and Researchers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-information-management/article/whatsinside-the-black-box-ai-challenges-for-lawyers-andresearchers/8A547878999427F7222C3CEFC3CE5E01#article).>