CNUDMI - A CN.9.1237

United Nations Alcnong {@w General Assembly Distr.: General \ ¥ 4 March 2026

Original: English

United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Fifty-ninth session New York, 24 June-10 July 2026 Report of Working Group II (Dispute Settlement) on the work of its eighty-third session (New York, 16-20 February 2026) Contents Page L Introduction.............. ... ... 2 IL. Organization of the SeSSION. . . ... ... ... ... .. ..ooiiuiiiititiiiiiaaan 3 I Enhancing reliance on arbitral awards in electronic form. .......................... 4

A. Amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration ......... 4

B. Revisions to the Explanatory Note to the MAL .............................. 6

C. Revisions to the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings. . ................... 7

IV. Electronic notices of arbitration................... ... . ... ... 8

V. Colloquium on the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution and the development of procedural guidance on remote hearings in arbitration and the conduct of mediation . . 10

A. Panel 1: Arbitrators and the use of artificial intelligence — impact on recognition and enforcement. .. ... .. ... ... 10

B. Panel 2: Use of artificial intelligence in mediation and remote mediation ......... 12

C. Panel 3: Remote hearings in arbitration: procedural guidance and best practices. . . . 14

D. Discussion of outcomes . ... 15

VI Way forward .. ........... . 15 Annex Draft texts as approved by the Working Group . ...........................o.oo... 17 V.26-02776 (E) 240326 250326 Please recycle ¢A/CN.9/1237 I Introduction

1. At its fifty-seventh session in 2024, the Commission mandated Working Group II to work on the recognition and enforcement of electronic arbitral awards and subsequently, on electronic notices of arbitration.! After a two-day colloquium during

I Introduction

1. At its fifty-seventh session in 2024, the Commission mandated Working Group II to work on the recognition and enforcement of electronic arbitral awards and subsequently, on electronic notices of arbitration.! After a two-day colloquium during the eightieth session of the Working Group (Vienna, 30 September—4 October 2024) to obtain perspectives to assess the issues, the Working Group proceeded with its consideration of the recognition and enforcement of electronic awards and requested that the secretariat compile relevant information received from Member and Observer States on the matter.” At its eighty-first session (New York, 3—7 February 2025), the ‘Working Group continued its deliberations on the recognition and enforcement of electronic awards.’ At its fifty-eighth session in 2025, the Commission expressed its satisfaction with the progress made on this topic.

2. Atits eighty-second session (Vienna, 13—17 October 2025), the Working Group further advanced its work based on the Note by the Secretariat

(A/CN.9/WG.1I/WP.242) and approved the text of the Recommendation regarding the interpretation of the New York Convention,’ and additions to articles 2, 31 and 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments as adopted in 2006 (MAL).® The Working Group requested the secretariat to prepare: (i) with respect to awards in electronic form, a revised version of the relevant parts of the Explanatory Note to the MAL and the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings; (ii) with respect to electronic notices, a provision specifying that notices of arbitration in electronic form were permissible, consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, together with proposals for language addressing issues of delivery and receipt, taking into account relevant UNCITRAL texts, in particular the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (UARs) and the texts on electronic commerce, for consideration for possible inclusion in the MAL; and (iii) additional

principle of non-discrimination, together with proposals for language addressing issues of delivery and receipt, taking into account relevant UNCITRAL texts, in particular the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (UARs) and the texts on electronic commerce, for consideration for possible inclusion in the MAL; and (iii) additional information on the legislative history of article 3 of the MAL (A/CN.9/1236, para. 80).

3. Inaddition, during its fifty-eighth session, the Commission considered a Note by the secretariat containing a progress report on the stocktaking of developments in dispute resolution in the digital economy (A/CN.9/1215), which contained a summary of the progress made in the exploratory work on the topic of the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution, a submission from the Inclusive Global Legal Innovation Platform on Online Dispute Resolution (iGLIP) (A/CN.9/1224), which contained a summary of the progress made in the work carried out by iGLIP on the topic of platform-based dispute resolution and a submission from the Government of Israel regarding exploratory work on remote arbitration and mediation

(A/CN.9/1233). After discussion, the Commission requested the secretariat to continue its exploratory work on the project, in particular: (a) the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution; (b) platform-based dispute resolution, in collaboration with iGLIP; and (c) the development of procedural guidance on remote hearings in arbitration and the conduct of mediation. The Commission also requested that a questionnaire be circulated to States for further input on the aforementioned topics’ and that a colloquium be held during a session of Working Group II regarding the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution and the development of procedural guidance on remote hearings in arbitration and the conduct of mediation, ! Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-ninth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/79/17), 2/21 para. 285. 2 A/CN.9/1193, paras. 64-72.

! Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-ninth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/79/17), 2/21 para. 285. 2 A/CN.9/1193, paras. 64-72. 3 A/CN.9/1200. Official Records of the General Assembly, Eightieth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/80/17), para. 166. 5 A/CN.9/1236, paras. 16, 22, 26 and annex (reflecting approved text of the Recommendation). 6 Ibid., paras. 30, 32, 62, 65 and annex (reflecting approved additions to the MAL). 7 Official Records of the General Assembly, Eightieth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/80/17), para. 237.

V.26-02776A/CN.9/1237

V2602776 to enable the Working Group to formulate a recommendation to the Commission on possible future work.

4. Accordingly, the Working Group continued its deliberations on enhancing reliance on arbitral awards and notices in electronic form and held a one-and-a-halfday colloquium on the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution and remote hearings in arbitration and mediation.

Organization of the session

5. The Working Group, which was composed of all States members of the Commission, held its eighty-third session, at the United Nations Headquarters (New York) from 16 to 20 February 2026, with 16 February (from 3 to 6 p.m.) and 17 February (from 10 am. to 1 p.m. and from 3 to 6 p.m.) being devoted to the

Colloquium.

6. The session was attended by the following States Members of the Working Group: Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Céte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ghana,

Colloquium.

6. The session was attended by the following States Members of the Working Group: Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Céte d’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tiirkiye, Uganda, United States of

America, Viet Nam and Zambia.

7. The session was attended by observers from the following States: Algeria,

Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Cameroon, Croatia, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Guatemala, Indonesia, Norway, Oman, Paraguay, United Republic of Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

8. The session was attended by the following non-member States and entities: State of Palestine.

9. The session was further attended by observers from the following invited

international organizations: (a) Organizations of the United Nations system: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and the World Bank; (b) Intergovernmental organizations: Eurasian Economic Union/Eurasian Economic Commission (EEU/EEC), International Organization for Mediation (IOMED) and Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA); (c) Invited non-governmental organizations: Alumni Association of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (MAA), American Arbitration Association/International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA/ICDR), American Society of International Law (ASIL), ArbitralWomen, Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (APCAM), Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court (BAC/BIAC), Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI), Brazilian Arbitration Committee (CBAr), Center for

American Society of International Law (ASIL), ArbitralWomen, Asia Pacific Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (APCAM), Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court (BAC/BIAC), Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (CEPANI), Brazilian Arbitration Committee (CBAr), Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada (CAMCCBC), Center for International Commercial and Investment Arbitration (CICIA), Center for International Investment and Commercial Arbitration (CIICA), Center for International Legal Studies (CILS), Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIARB), China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Club Espaiol e Iberoamericano del Arbitraje (CEIA), Construction Industry Arbitration Council (CIAC), Forum for International Conciliation and Arbitration (FICA), Georgian International Arbitration Centre (GIAC), German Arbitration Institute (DIS), Institute for Transnational Arbitration (ITA), International Bar Association Arbitration Committee, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), International Insolvency Institute (III), International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), 3A/CN.9/1237 421 I1I. International Women’s Insolvency and Restructuring Confederation (IWIRC), Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA), Latin American Arbitration Association (ALARB), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), Miami International Arbitration Society (MIAS), Milan Chamber of Arbitration, New York City Bar (NYCBAR), New York International Arbitration Center (NYIAC), Scottish Arbitration Centre (SAC), Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Centre (SVAMC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), the Israeli Institute of Commercial Arbitration (IICA) and Venezuela Arbitration Association (AVA).

10. The Working Group elected the following officers:

Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Centre (SVAMC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA), the Israeli Institute of Commercial Arbitration (IICA) and Venezuela Arbitration Association (AVA).

10. The Working Group elected the following officers:

Chair: Mr. Andrés Jana (Chile)

Rapporteur: Ms. Haemin Lee (Republic of Korea)

11. The Working Group had before it the following documents: (a) Annotated provisional agenda (A/CN.9/WG.IVWP.243); and (b) Note by the Secretariat on recognition and enforcement of electronic arbitral awards (A/CN.9/WG.II/'WP.244).

12. The Working Group adopted the following agenda:

1. Opening of the session.

2. Election of officers.

3. Adoption of the agenda. 4 Consideration of enhancing reliance on arbitral awards and notices in electronic form.

5. Colloquium on the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution and the development of procedural guidance on remote hearings in arbitration and the conduct of mediation and subsequent discussions by the Working

Group.

6. Adoption of the report.

Enhancing reliance on arbitral awards in electronic form Amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

13. In considering the editorial changes the secretariat had made to the approved texts of the amendments to the MAL, a suggestion was made to include in the text of article 2, paragraphs (g) and (i), the indefinite article “a”, so that the end of each provision would read: “by means of a data message”.

14. Views diverged on whether to include in article 34 a new provision stating that an award shall not be set aside solely on the ground that it was in electronic form. On the one hand, it was stated that such inclusion would enhance consistency with article 35 and offer a clear expression of the principle of non-discrimination between paper-based awards and awards in electronic form. It was observed that the proposed

an award shall not be set aside solely on the ground that it was in electronic form. On the one hand, it was stated that such inclusion would enhance consistency with article 35 and offer a clear expression of the principle of non-discrimination between paper-based awards and awards in electronic form. It was observed that the proposed addition would not modify the existing grounds for setting aside but would merely clarify that the form of the award, in and of itself, did not constitute a ground for setting aside.

15. On the other hand, it was said that electronic form was not listed as a ground for setting aside and that article 34 concerned applications for setting aside as exclusive recourse against an arbitral award to the relevant court or authority in the jurisdiction in which the award was made. It was said that introducing a negative formulation could create confusion, disturb the structure and purpose of article 34, and inadvertently suggest that an award in electronic form might otherwise be relevant as a ground for setting aside. It was also said that articles 34 and 35 served different

V.26-02776A/CN.9/1237

V2602776 purposes, making identical wording unnecessary. It was further said that any clarification, if considered necessary, could instead be made in the Explanatory Note rather than in article 34 itself.

16. In connection with considering the proposed addition to article 34, the Working Group also considered whether it was necessary to retain the word “solely” in such addition and in the approved text of article 35(3). On the one hand, support was expressed for retaining the term on the basis that it reflected the principle of non-discrimination and clarified that the electronic form of an award could not constitute the exclusive ground for setting aside or for refusing recognition and enforcement. It was observed that the word “solely” performed a boundary function and was consistent with language used in UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce.

On the other hand, concern was expressed that the use of the term “solely” could create ambiguity and confusion, including uncertainty as to whether the electronic

enforcement. It was observed that the word “solely” performed a boundary function and was consistent with language used in UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce. On the other hand, concern was expressed that the use of the term “solely” could create ambiguity and confusion, including uncertainty as to whether the electronic form of an award could serve as a basis for setting aside or refusing recognition and enforcement in combination with other grounds. It was therefore suggested that the term be deleted in order to avoid confusion, including from the operative provision of the approved text of the recommendation regarding the interpretation of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). It was further suggested that the term “solely” could be deleted, with this issue instead being addressed in the context of the revisions to article 2. It was also stated that, should the term “solely” be retained, its meaning and purpose should be clarified in the Explanatory Note. It was stated in reply that the text of the law itself should be clear and that no key points should be left strictly to the Explanatory Note.

17. A number of drafting proposals were made, including: « To streamline the sentence by deleting “in electronic form” in the first instance; « To replace “solely” with “whether solely or otherwise”; « To revise the sentence to read: An award shall not be set aside on the ground that it is electronic form, unless the tribunal was not entitled to issue an award in that form; and « To revise the sentence to read: The form of an arbitral award made in accordance with article 31 shall not constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside an award.

18. After discussion, the Working Group agreed not to include the proposed sentence in article 34, to retain the word “solely™ in article 35(3), and delete the first reference to “in electronic form” in article 35(3), which would therefore read: “An award shall not be refused recognition or enforcement solely on the ground that it is in electronic form.”

sentence in article 34, to retain the word “solely™ in article 35(3), and delete the first reference to “in electronic form” in article 35(3), which would therefore read: “An award shall not be refused recognition or enforcement solely on the ground that it is in electronic form.”

19. It was questioned whether the deletion of the phrase “in writing” in article 35(1) was necessary. It was argued that “in writing” did not mean a paper document but included documents in electronic form, as reflected in option I, article 7. It was stated that deleting “in writing” could create confusion, particularly if the deletion was interpreted as permitting oral applications. The proposed deletion was also seen as problematic for those States that had adopted the MAL and might need to delete this phrase “in writing” from their legislation.

20. It was argued in response that the definition of “in writing” in option I, article 7 would apply only if that option was enacted and that article IV of the New York Convention did not contain a writing requirement. It was said that retaining “in writing” could therefore be seen as imposing an additional requirement, whereas removing it could promote a more flexible approach, consistent with the objective of the MAL, and more closely align with the wording of the Convention. It was also noted that applications for recognition and enforcement or setting aside were governed by domestic procedural law.

5/21A/CN.9/1237 6/21

21. After discussion, the Working Group agreed to retain the phrase “in writing,” as it had long formed part of the text, with the understanding that it included communications in electronic form.

Revisions to the Explanatory Note to the MAL

22. Regarding the revisions to the Explanatory Note, the following proposal was submitted and discussed: New 5. The revision of the Model Law adopted in [202x] aims to enhance clarity and legal certainty by making explicit what the Model Law, as currently formulated, already accommodates, namely the use of arbitral awards in

submitted and discussed: New 5. The revision of the Model Law adopted in [202x] aims to enhance clarity and legal certainty by making explicit what the Model Law, as currently formulated, already accommodates, namely the use of arbitral awards in electronic form, particularly in relation to their recognition and enforcement [, as well as regarding notices of arbitration [and written communications] in electronic form). It includes amendments to articles 2, [3], 31[, 34] and 35. The revision drew inspiration from UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce, such as the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (New York, 2005) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) and incorporates the principle of nondiscrimination, which provides that a document should not be denied validity, legal effect or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in electronic form. The principle of non-discrimination does not preclude the application of laws that may deny an award][, a notice of arbitration, or a communication] validity, legal effect, or enforceability on other grounds, nor is it concerned with or does it predetermine the requirements based upon which validity, legal effect, or enforceability must be accorded. The revision thus does not address the criteria, such as accessibility, authentication, and integrity, based upon which awards [.notices of arbitration and communications] in electronic form may be considered the functional equivalent of a paper-based document, and instead leaves such matters to the national laws and practices in the relevant jurisdiction.

23. Regarding new 5, it was suggested that: In the first sentence, the words “as currently formulated” should be deleted and for clarification replaced with the MAL as amended in 2006; References to “notices™ should be deleted, as they were considered covered by “written communication,” although it was noted that the MAL refers to notices of arbitration separately; In the second sentence, a reference to article 7 should be included. with the reference to article 34 deleted; the reference to the principle of

References to “notices™ should be deleted, as they were considered covered by “written communication,” although it was noted that the MAL refers to notices of arbitration separately; In the second sentence, a reference to article 7 should be included. with the reference to article 34 deleted; the reference to the principle of non-discrimination should be made only in the context of enforcement; new paragraphs 5 and 7 could be merged; and “communication” should be replaced with “written communication”; and « In the third sentence, the word “incorporates™ should be deleted.

24. Regarding new 6, it was said that the first bullet point should be split into two and that the references to (i) the deletion of the words “in writing” and (ii) article 34 should be deleted.

25. Regarding new 7, it was suggested to include a specification that some jurisdictions may have specific requirements to consider an award to be in an electronic form.

26. After discussion and as in the annex, the Working Group agreed to new 7 and new, after paragraph 54 as proposed in paragraph 7 of A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.244 and agreed to the following for new 5 and new 6: New 5. The revision of the Model Law adopted in [202x] aims to enhance clarity and legal certainty by making explicit what the Model Law 1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006, already accommodated, namely the use of

V.26-02776A/CN.9/1237

V2602776 arbitral awards in electronic form, particularly in relation to their recognition and enforcement[, as well as regarding notices of arbitration [and written communications] in electronic form]. It includes amendments to articles 2, [3], 7,31 and 35. The revision drew inspiration from UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce, such as the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (New York, 2005) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996), and incorporates the

7,31 and 35. The revision drew inspiration from UNCITRAL texts on electronic commerce, such as the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (New York, 2005) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996), and incorporates the principle of non-discrimination, which provides that a document should not be denied validity, legal effect or enforceability solely on the ground that it is in electronic form. The principle of non-discrimination does not preclude the application of laws that may deny an award][, a notice of arbitration, or a written communication] validity, legal effect, or enforceability on other grounds, nor is it concerned with or does it predetermine the requirements based upon which validity, legal effect, or enforceability must be accorded. The revision thus does not address the criteria, such as accessibility, authentication, and integrity, based upon which awards[, notices of arbitration and written communications] in electronic form may be considered the functional equivalent of a paper-based document, and instead leaves such matters to the national laws and practices in the relevant jurisdiction. New 6. Specifically, the amendments to the Model Law adopted in [202x] are as follows: « Article 2, subparagraphs (g) to (i): clarify that the terms “arbitral award” or “award” include an award in electronic form. <L « Article 7, option 1, paragraph 4: the definitions of “data message” and “electronic communication” have been amended and relocated to article 2. « Article 31, paragraph 5: provides that an award may be made in electronic form where the parties agree or, in the absence of agreement, where neither party objects. The sequencing makes it clear that any objection must be raised before the award is made. « Article 35, paragraph 3: clarifies that an award in electronic form shall not be refused recognition or enforcement solely because it is in electronic form. Revisions to the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings

party objects. The sequencing makes it clear that any objection must be raised before the award is made. « Article 35, paragraph 3: clarifies that an award in electronic form shall not be refused recognition or enforcement solely because it is in electronic form. Revisions to the Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings

27. In considering the proposed addition to the Notes in paragraph 14 of A/CN.9/WG.IVWP.244, it was emphasized that the Notes were intended for practitioners who needed to be mindful of different applicable legal regimes and requirements, and that the Notes should not be linked to any particular legal framework. It was cautioned that the text should not appear to favour awards in a particular form.

28. Concerns were raised regarding the first sentence of the second paragraph, in particular with respect to the phrase beginning with “in light of the requirements”. It was explained that the reference to “originality” could be problematic, as the absence of a paper form did not necessarily imply a lack of originality or written form.

Alternative drafting proposals included revising to “in light of their interpretation of the requirements ...”, replacing the entire phrase with “for various reasons” or deleting the entire phrase.

29. Regarding the proposed footnote 1, it was said that the last two sentences should be incorporated into the main text to better provide that useful information to practitioners, or at least that the footnote should provide a comprehensive picture of the issues at stake. It was observed that references in the Notes were minimal and that any reference to the MAL should be concise. Concern was expressed that including

7/21A/CN.9/1237 8/21

IV. extensive explanations in footnotes could create imbalances or raise questions as to why similar explanations were not provided elsewhere in the Notes.

30. Additional drafting suggestions were: (i) to include the phrase “with modern advances in technology” after the word “but” in the first sentence of the first paragraph; (ii) to add in the second paragraph, after “wet-ink signatures,” a reference

30. Additional drafting suggestions were: (i) to include the phrase “with modern advances in technology” after the word “but” in the first sentence of the first paragraph; (ii) to add in the second paragraph, after “wet-ink signatures,” a reference to “specific requirements regarding electronic signatures™.

31. After discussion, the Working Group agreed to the text, as found in the annex.

32. The Working Group further agreed that the particular note should be entitled Paper or electronic form of awards, inserted after Note 20 (from which “form” should be deleted from its title) and become Note 21, with the subsequent note renumbered accordingly.

Electronic notices of arbitration

33. At the outset, it was said that issues relating to delivery were addressed in domestic procedural law and should not be regulated in the MAL. It was further observed that, with respect to electronic communications, there were differences in practice among jurisdictions. Accordingly, it was suggested that any new addition, such as the proposed (1 bis) in paragraph 24 of A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.244, should remain at the level of principle, simply clarifying that electronic communications were permissible, without getting into details.

34. The following alternative for (1 bis) was proposed: “For purposes of paragraph 1, delivery includes transmission by electronic communication that provides a record of sending to an electronic address (1) designated by the addressee for this purpose, or (2) in the case of communications other than notices of arbitration, as authorized by the tribunal.” It was explained that this proposal removed language that could be interpreted as deeming receipt upon delivery and was modelled on article 2, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (UARSs). It was observed that the use of an electronic address “designated by the addressee for this purpose” was an important safeguard, particularly with respect to the notice of arbitration, which formally initiated the proceedings and triggered procedural timelines.

35. Regarding the omission of the word “specifically” in the proposal, it was stated

electronic address “designated by the addressee for this purpose” was a