The SCC Arbitration Institute has joined fifteen of the world’s leading arbitration and dispute resolution institutions in submitting a coordinated response to the European Commission’s targeted consultation on draft guidelines governing the classification of high-risk AI systems under the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) (“EU AI Act”).

The joint letter, signed on 23 July 2026, urges the European Commission to refine its draft guidelines before they are finalised, specifically in how arbitral institutions are treated relative to “ADR bodies” under Annex III, point 8(a) of the EU AI Act, and the characterisation of investment dispute bodies.

A coalition of global institutions

The letter was submitted jointly on behalf of the following institutions:

• CAM – Milan Chamber of Arbitration
• CEPANI – Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation
• Delos Dispute Resolution
• DIS – German Arbitration Institute
• ICC International Court of Arbitration & International Centre for ADR
• ICSID – International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
• International Centre for Dispute Resolution – American Arbitration Association
• LCIA – London Court of International Arbitration
• NAI – Netherlands Arbitration Institute
• SCC Arbitration Institute
• Swiss Arbitration Centre
• The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators – CIArb
• The Danish Institute of Arbitration
• The Finland Arbitration Institute
• The Permanent Arbitration Court at the Croatian Chamber of Economy – The PAC CCE
• VIAC – Vienna International Arbitral Centre

The letter was signed by Caroline Falconer, Secretary General of the SCC Arbitration Institute, alongside the senior representatives of each co-signing institution.

Background: The EU AI Act and dispute resolution

The EU AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, introduces a risk-based regulatory framework for AI systems across all sectors. Under Annex III, point 8(a), AI systems intended to be used by “ADR bodies” in alternative dispute resolution are classified as high-risk where: (i) the outcome of those proceedings produces legal effects for the parties; and (ii) the intended purpose of the system is to assist the ADR body in “researching and interpreting facts and the law and in applying the law to a concrete set of facts”. The EU AI Act’s high-risk requirements under Annex III are due to apply from 2 December 2027.

The European Commission’s draft guidelines on Article 6 classification have, for the first time, sought to provide practical guidance on how these provisions apply to commercial arbitration. However, the signatory institutions consider that the draft guidelines, in their current form, risk creating significant confusion about who in the arbitration process bears regulatory responsibility, and why.

The institutions’ request to the European Commission

The joint letter makes two concrete requests:

First, that the European Commission clarify that, where the high-risk classification under Annex III, point 8(a) is engaged in the context of alternative dispute resolution, the obligations attach to the AI system used by or on behalf of the arbitral tribunal in the exercise of its adjudicative function and not to AI systems used by arbitral institutions for administrative and organisational purposes.

Second, that the European Commission revisit and correct the characterisation of investment dispute bodies in paragraph 429 of the draft guidelines.

The administrative role of arbitral institutions

The joint letter sets out a fundamental distinction at the heart of the institutions’ concerns. International arbitration is a consensual process in which disputes are resolved by an independent arbitral tribunal, not by the institution administering the case. As the letter explains, arbitral institutions “administer proceedings (e.g., receiving the request for arbitration, assisting with the constitution of the tribunal, managing the costs of the arbitration, and safeguarding the integrity and efficiency of the process) thereby rendering administrative and organisational services to the parties and to the arbitral tribunal. They do not decide the merits of the dispute.”

The institutions argue that paragraph 429 of the draft guidelines, which includes “commercial arbitration institutions” within the notion of ADR bodies for the purposes of the high-risk classification, risks attaching regulatory obligations to the wrong actor. It is the arbitral tribunal, not the institution, that exercises the adjudicative function and renders the award binding on the parties.

Analogy to judicial administration

The letter draws a direct analogy with the treatment of judicial administration under the draft guidelines. Paragraphs 411-412 of the draft guidelines provide that institutions responsible for the “management, governance, and support of the judiciary, rather than for the adjudication of cases themselves” fall outside the scope of the EU AI Act. The signatory institutions respectfully submit that the same carve-out should apply to arbitral institutions, whose function is directly analogous. This reading is also consistent with Recital 61 of the EU AI Act, which excludes from high-risk classification AI systems used solely for “ancillary administrative activities that do not affect the actual administration of justice in individual cases.”

Investment dispute bodies: A further concern

The letter also raises a second concern regarding the characterisation of “investment dispute bodies” in paragraph 429 of the draft guidelines, which describes them as resolving disputes “between businesses”. The signatory institutions note that this description is inaccurate as a matter of practice: investment tribunals typically resolve disputes between investors and host States, not between two businesses. The institutions ask the European Commission to revisit this characterisation to ensure the guidelines reflect the nature of investment arbitration.

Significance for the arbitration community

The joint submission represents a significant and unified intervention from the international arbitration community. With the high-risk AI obligations under Annex III of the EU AI Act due to apply from December 2027, the guidelines currently being finalised will determine the practical compliance landscape for institutions, practitioners, and parties.

A misattribution of high-risk obligations to arbitral institutions, which do not exercise adjudicative functions and whose use of AI is confined to administrative and organisational purposes, would create disproportionate regulatory burdens and risk obscuring where genuine accountability for AI-assisted decision-making in arbitration should rest: with the arbitral tribunal.

The SCC Arbitration Institute remains committed to engaging constructively with EU institutions and policymakers on questions that affect the sound administration of international dispute resolution.

Further information

You find the letter here.