26/02/2026

THURSDAY | FEB 26, 2026

11

When words run ahead of reality

T HERE is a particular kind of disappointment that rarely announces itself loudly. It does not begin with conflict or obvious failure. Instead, it starts with excitement. Opportunities are described convincingly, possibilities sound promising and commitments are offered with confidence that feels reassuring at the time. Most of us want to believe in enthusiasm. Confidence signals competence and decisive language creates comfort in uncertain situations. Yet, experience often teaches a quieter lesson. Words spoken too quickly can carry consequences long after the conversation ends. I was recently reminded of this through a professional engagement that began with strong assurances and ambitious projections. The vision sounded clear, timelines appeared manageable and urgency encouraged swift decisions. Everything suggested forward movement. However, over time, progress slowed and clarity faded. Deliverables that once seemed imminent became uncertain. Nothing dramatic happened. There was no confrontation, only a gradual recognition that enthusiasm had moved ahead of execution. Situations like this occur more often ARTIFICIAL intelligence (AI) is no longer an auxiliary technological resource; it has become a structural component of contemporary legal practice. In international arbitration in particular, AI is reshaping not only procedural efficiency but the epistemological architecture of decision-making. In my recent book, The Practice of Law and International Arbitration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence , I argued that AI must be understood not as a substitute for human judgement but as a cognitive extension of it. From document analysis and predictive modelling to natural language processing and blockchain assisted contracting, AI tools are redefining the operational reality of arbitral proceedings. Yet, efficiency alone cannot justify their integration. The legitimacy of arbitration depends on fairness, transparency and the preservation of procedural guarantees. These themes are further developed in my article, Artificial Intelligence and International Arbitration: Ethical, Procedural and Regulatory Challenges under the New Ciarb Guidelines , published in the Journal of Internet Law (Wolters Kluwer; February 2026) . There, I examine the 2025 Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) Guidelines as a pivotal normative moment in the governance of AI within arbitration. The guidelines recognise the inevitability of technological integration while insisting upon principles of human oversight, accountability, data protection and procedural transparency.

than we admit. Many professionals encounter collaborations where intentions appear genuine but preparation falls short. The real damage in such moments is not merely delayed outcomes; it is the quiet erosion of trust. Every promise creates expectation. Once expectation forms, people begin organising decisions around it – time is allocated, opportunities are adjusted and confidence is extended. When delivery does not match earlier assurances, something subtle changes. People begin listening differently, statements are weighed more carefully and trust becomes conditional rather than natural. Not all over-promising is malicious. In fact, many individuals genuinely believe they will eventually fulfil what they promise. Some fear losing opportunities if they hesitate while others speak from ambition rather than readiness. Enthusiasm becomes a substitute for verification. This is where the line between over promising and scamming begins to blur in perception. A scam involves deliberate deception. Over-promising may arise from optimism or poor judgement. Yet, from the receiving end, the experience can feel surprisingly similar because effort and belief were

its use in a manner that enhances procedural integrity rather than dilutes it. At the forthcoming conference Litigation and International Arbitration in the Age of AI on March 26, hosted by the Global Academy for Future Governance – a globally operating consultancy organisation with over 850 experts and 360 partners from 100 countries around the world – and its event’s supporters, these issues will be addressed from a multidisciplinary perspective, examining legality, authenticity, morality, trust and compliance in the digital era. The conference will particularly emphasise professional responsibility, confidentiality and data protecting whilst dwelling on judicial attitudes towards AI-assisted lawyering. It will contextualise how predictive analysis and generative technologies can find their space in the courtroom, in a manner that is ethical yet futuristic. The future of arbitration will not be decided by technology alone. It will depend on whether we succeed in aligning innovation with the foundational values of justice. AI can accelerate proceedings, expand access to justice and improve analytical rigour but only if governed by coherent ethical and regulatory frameworks grounded in human responsibility. The age of AI is not the end of human adjudication; it is a test of its resilience. DrFernando Messias is a lawyer, arbitrator and mediator based in Lisbon, Portugal. He specialises in international arbitration, international trade law, corporate strategy and competition law, with extensive experience in complex cross-border sometimes without equivalent precision. Every assurance becomes part of professional identity. Over time, people are remembered not for how convincingly they spoke but for how reliably outcomes followed. Those who sustain long-term credibility often share one quiet habit; they resist the urge to impress immediately. Instead, they allow delivery to establish confidence naturally. At its core, mindful communication is an act of responsibility. Every sentence we release shapes expectations in another person’s mind. Once formed, those expectations become part of a relationship. And relationships, whether personal or professional, are ultimately built on a simple principle: people remember who delivered when it mattered. Sometimes the most powerful safeguard for trust is not stronger negotiation or sharper strategy; it is the quiet discipline of ensuring that our words never run ahead of our reality. DrPraveena Rajendra is the author of Mindprint: Engineering Inner Power released for Growth, Purpose and Regeneration. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com

invested based on words that proved unreliable. Professional credibility depends less on intention and more on consistency. Reputation forms quietly through repeated alignment between speech and action. The question, then, is simple but important. What should we do before we speak or commit? First, pause long enough to evaluate capability. Excitement often pushes immediate agreement but responsible professionals assess whether they truly possess the expertise, systems or support required to deliver. Second, examine capacity honestly. Many commitments fail not because people lack skill but because they underestimate time, competing priorities or operational complexity. Third, replace certainty with clarity. Instead of promising outcomes, outline processes. Saying “this is what I can realistically deliver and when” builds far stronger confidence than bold guarantees. Finally, allow space to say, “Let me review this before confirming”. Surprisingly, measured responses increase trust because they signal accountability rather than hesitation. In engineering and design, no structure is built without calculation. Yet, in human interaction, words are

H

E

T

M

D

I

N

N

M I

D

B

Y

A

D

R

R

D

N

P

E

R

J

A

A

V

R

E

E

A

N

“At its core, mindful communication is an act of responsibility. Every sentence we release shapes expectations in another person’s mind. Once formed, those expectations become part of a relationship.

COMMENT by Dr Fernando Messias Litigation and international arbitration in the age of AI

The future of arbitration will not be decided by technology alone. It will depend on whether we succeed in aligning innovation with the foundational values of justice. – REUTERSPIC

Moreover, the regulatory landscape is evolving unevenly across jurisdictions. While the European Union advances a risk-based regulatory framework for AI and institutions such as Ciarb provide soft law guidance, other regions remain at the policy or strategy stage. This regulatory asymmetry creates additional complexity for international disputes involving multiple legal cultures and technological standards. Cross-border enforceability of awards may, in future, intersect with questions of algorithmic integrity and procedural transparency. The debate, therefore, is not whether AI should be used in international arbitration; it already is. The true question is how to structure

are shaped by systems whose internal logic may not be entirely transparent? Who bears responsibility when algorithmic tools materially affect legal reasoning? Beyond efficiency, AI is also transforming the cognitive environment in which arbitration operates. Predictive systems can identify patterns in awards, litigation outcomes and judicial behaviour, potentially influencing strategic choices long before a hearing begins. While this enhances analytical precision, it may also generate new asymmetries between technologically equipped parties and those with limited digital resources. In this sense, AI not only accelerates arbitration but subtly reshapes its balance of power.

The central tension is therefore clear: How can arbitral institutions and practitioners harness AI’s capacity to optimise evidence review, procedural management and decision support, without undermining party autonomy, equality of arms and the right to be heard? AI-assisted arbitration introduces a fourth structural actor into proceedings: the algorithm. When algorithms assist in identifying relevant documents, modelling reasoning pathways or supporting drafting functions, they influence outcomes – even if indirectly. This raises questions that go beyond technical compliance. Can an award remain fully legitimate if essential analytical steps

disputes and commercial negotiations. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com