Remote Conflict Resolution

💡 Compromise machine 🚀 A large language model (LLM) can help groups to reach a consensus by producing statements that are clearer and fairer than those written by humans. A chatbot-like AI tool developed by Google DeepMind has shown promise in helping people with opposing views find common ground. In an experiment with online discussion groups, the AI, named the "Habermas Machine" after philosopher Jürgen Habermas, synthesized diverging opinions and produced summaries that participants preferred over those written by human mediators. The AI was designed to foster compromise by incorporating multiple perspectives into a unified statement. In the study, 439 UK residents were grouped into small teams and discussed various public policy issues. Their opinions were fed into the AI, which generated overarching summaries that reflected the entire group's viewpoints. Participants were able to rank and critique the AI's statements, which were then refined into a final version. In a comparison, participants rated the AI's summaries as more representative, fairer, and clearer than those written by human mediators. External reviewers agreed, also giving higher marks to the AI's summaries. The research extended to a larger, demographically representative virtual citizens' assembly. This showed that after interacting with the AI, group agreement on controversial topics improved. The AI-mediated approach was not only time-efficient but also excelled in incorporating dissenting voices, making it more scalable than traditional methods. The experiment focused on four research questions: 1️⃣ Does AI-mediated deliberation help people find common ground? 2️⃣ Does AI-mediated deliberation leave groups less divided? 3️⃣ Does the AI mediator represent all viewpoints equally? 4️⃣ Can AI mediation support deliberation in a citizens’ assembly? While the study highlights the potential for AI to assist in democratic deliberations, it also underscores the importance of ensuring representative participation and fostering good-faith contributions. If properly implemented, tools like the Habermas Machine could significantly enhance collective decision-making across various domains, including policy debates and conflict resolution. By facilitating compromise and promoting inclusive dialogue, the AI offers a promising solution to foster collective action in an increasingly divided world. Do the risks outweigh the benefits? It depends on the context and safeguards in place. The benefits are compelling, especially in terms of efficiency and fairness. However, the risks, particularly around ensuring representative participation and preventing manipulation, are real and significant. I would love to hear your thoughts! #AI #LLMs

✌ 𝐎𝐍 𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐁𝐈𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍: 𝑪𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑵𝒆𝒘 𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒏𝒖𝒆𝒔 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝑩𝒓𝒆𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑴𝒂𝒏�� 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔!   The emergence of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) has made possible technical as well as legal advancements in the context of arbitration. ODR platforms contribute majorly to the management of the proceedings, including virtual hearings.   Virtual arbitration speedily evolved with the advent of techno-legal tools. ODR is ensuring cost savings due to the elimination of logistics to a great extent.   While it offers many advantages, it also raises various legal and procedural issues. Many parties prefer physical means of proceedings. Due to technical glitches, interruptions, and potential security breaches during virtual proceedings,   𝐑𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:   Many consider that ODR causes a technological disparity between the parties, Those who can deploy sophisticated technology get an advantage out of it. Fears are there about the misuse of sensitive information and documents shared. People also fear that confidentiality will be compromised in ODR.   It is true that establishing the authenticity of documents and evidence that are presented virtually is very difficult. Questions on the integrity of the evidence, including issues related to tampering and custody were reported. The credibility of witnesses when they testified remotely has been challenged.   Arbitrators' bias is another major complaint. Independence and impartiality of the arbitrators in virtual arbitrations have been raised, as the tribunal sits elsewhere.   In addition, the ODR is creating a potential dispute on the issue of the seat of arbitration. The selection of the seat not only designates the physical location but also establishes the legal jurisdiction., which in turn dictates the procedural rules and legal framework that will apply in the arbitration process.   Unlike traditional arbitration, where a physical place or jurisdiction can help in determining the seat, the virtual nature of online arbitration makes it difficult as there will be no specific geographical location. This situation raises complex legal and practical questions about the seat of online arbitration.   Under the principle of party autonomy parties can mutually decide the jurisdiction that will govern their arbitration. If parties agree to the seat of arbitration in the agreement itself there will be no issue.   If there is no prior agreement between the parties regarding the seat of arbitration, the arbitral tribunal, or the ODR platform shall determine the seat before the commencement of the arbitration.   If there is confusion with the seat of arbitration chosen by the parties, the doctrine of the most significant relationship may be followed. It is better if the parties include provisions for ODR within their arbitration clause.   #Professionels #India #arbitration #ODR #Seat

Breaking New Ground in RAG: CARE-RAG Framework Tackles Knowledge Conflicts Head-On Retrieval-Augmented Generation has transformed how LLMs access external knowledge, but a critical challenge remains: what happens when retrieved content conflicts with the model's internal knowledge? Researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and collaborating institutions have developed an innovative solution. >> The Core Problem Traditional RAG systems struggle when faced with contradictory evidence sources. Internal LLM knowledge can conflict with retrieved documents, and retrieved passages themselves may contain outdated or contradictory information. This creates a "black-box" synthesis problem where models must navigate conflicting signals without explicit conflict resolution mechanisms. >> CARE-RAG: A Four-Stage Technical Architecture The proposed CARE-RAG framework introduces a systematic approach through four distinct stages: Stage 1: Parameter Record Comparison The system first elicits diverse internal perspectives from the LLM through iterative prompting. This captures the model's parameter-aware evidence by systematically generating multiple viewpoints, reducing internal hallucinations and establishing a comprehensive baseline of the model's internal knowledge state. Stage 2: Retrieval Result Refinement  Raw retrieved documents undergo fine-grained refinement to produce context-aware evidence. This process removes irrelevant noise and redundant content while preserving salient factual claims, optimizing token usage and enhancing robustness within computational constraints. Stage 3: Conflict-Driven Summarization A specialized conflict detection module, distilled from DeepSeek-v3 into a compact LLaMA-3.2-3B model, performs cross-validation between parameter-aware and context-aware evidence. The system generates binary conflict flags and detailed rationales, enabling transparent conflict identification and reasoning. Stage 4: Synthesis and Generation The final stage integrates all evidence sources along with conflict reports to generate reliable responses. When conflicts are detected, the system explicitly addresses discrepancies and attempts reconciliation, while non-conflicting scenarios leverage external evidence with internal knowledge providing confirmatory support. >> Technical Innovation Under the Hood The framework's conflict detection mechanism operates through supervised fine-tuning on annotated conflict datasets, enabling efficient semantic analysis during inference. The iterative parameter elicitation process systematically explores the model's internal knowledge space, while the refinement stage employs instruction-based prompting for structured evidence distillation.

On December 28, 2023, SEBI released an updated (as on 20 December 2023) Master circular on Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) to provide clarity on certain aspects. The ODR portal is aimed at giving investors a less time-consuming, cost-effective platform to initiate arbitration proceedings against intermediaries. Online arbitration process and arbitrator's fees are now clarified in the updated circular. Key highlights of the circular are: 1. The Market Participant against whom the investor/client pursues the online arbitration shall participate in the arbitration process. Accordingly, within 10 days of the initiation of the online arbitration by the investor/client, the Market Participant shall make the deposit of 100% of the admissible claim value with the relevant MII and make the payment of the fees as applicable for online arbitration. Non-adherence of the foregoing by the Market Participant may result in action 2. The market participants plan to pursue online arbitration then they will have to inform the ODR institution within 10 days of the conclusion of the conciliation process of its intent to do so. Further, within 5 days of this intimation, market participants will have to deposit 100 per cent of the admissible claim value with the relevant MII and make the payment of fees for online arbitration for initiating the online arbitration. 3. SEBI has modified the slab of ‘above Rs 50 lakh’ for the fee of arbitration process as 'Above Rs 50 lakh-Rs 1 crore'. 4. Inclusion of Banker to an Issue and Self-Certified Syndicate Bank and Merchant Bankers under Schedule A Specified intermediaries and regulated entities list 5. Inclusion of Commodities Clearing Corporations and ESG Ratings Providers and their clients under Schedule B. #SEBI #online #dispute #resolution #mastercircular #ODRportal #intermediaries #arbitration #conciliation

📢 Thrilled to share that my latest article has just been published in the CIArb Journal – Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Volume 91, Issue 2 (2025). Titled “AI Meets Mediation: Shaping the Future of Dispute Resolution in a Digital World,” the piece explores how AI is transforming the landscape of commercial mediation through tools like predictive analytics, virtual platforms, and automated document review. While these technologies bring unprecedented efficiency and cost-effectiveness, they also raise critical ethical concerns — from algorithmic bias to the risks of eroding the human touch at the heart of mediation. Drawing on practical examples, I reflect on the impact of AI on time, cost, and outcome quality — and on how we must balance innovation with responsibility to build trust in AI-assisted dispute resolution. You can read the full article here via Kluwer Law Online:  https://lnkd.in/db5zJUxs Thank you to the editorial board and CIArb for the opportunity to contribute to such a timely edition. #InternationalArbitration #Mediation #AIinLaw #DigitalJustice #CIArb #KluwerArbitration #LegalTech #DisputeResolution

In 2025, while much of the world still relies on outdated diplomatic playbooks, Africa is rewriting the architecture of conflict resolution through digital peacebuilding. From blockchain-verified testimonies in Rwanda to SMS-driven early warning systems in Nigeria, a quiet revolution is underwayone that blends cultural wisdom with cutting-edge innovation. It is about redefining reconciliation, amplifying community voices, and proving that sustainable peace can be scaled with creativity and courage. The data speaks volumes: 📈 340% growth in mobile-mediated conflict resolution since 2020 📊 45% higher compliance rates in digitally facilitated peace agreements 📲 280% surge in community participation through mobile platforms Africa is not just a case study—it is a global blueprint. For policymakers, investors, and development leaders, the lesson is clear: the future of peace is digital, local, and African-led. Read my full article here 👉 below #DigitalPeace #AfricaInnovation #ConflictResolution #PeaceBuilding #TechForGood #ImpactInvesting #SustainableDevelopment #TechPolicy 💡 Do you believe Africa’s digital peace innovations can reshape global conflict resolution? I’d love to hear your perspective below.

🌍 Rebuilding Trust Post-Conflict: The Role of Technology in Fostering Transparency 🤝 In the aftermath of conflict, restoring citizens' trust is paramount. Around the world, innovative tools and technologies are being leveraged to ensure transparency, accountability, and open governance. Here’s how: 🔹 Open Data Platforms– Governments and NGOs are using open data portals to share real-time information on reconstruction efforts, budgets, and aid distribution. This helps citizens track progress and hold leaders accountable. 🔹 Blockchain for Aid Transparency– Blockchain ensures that humanitarian aid reaches its intended recipients by creating tamper-proof records of transactions. No more "lost" funds! 🔹 AI & Satellite Imaging– AI-powered analysis of satellite images monitors infrastructure rebuilding, tracks displacement, and detects unauthorized activities in post-conflict zones. 🔹 Citizen Feedback Apps– Mobile apps allow citizens to report issues, request services, and rate government responses—ensuring their voices are heard. 🔹 Digital Identity Systems– Secure digital IDs help verify beneficiaries for aid, voting, and public services while reducing fraud. Technology isn’t just a tool—it’s a bridge to trust. When citizens can see, verify, and engage, societies heal faster. 💡 What other tech-driven solutions have you seen making an impact in post-conflict recovery? Share below! 👇 #Transparency #TechForGood #PostConflictRecovery #Governance #Innovation

The existing Indian Securities Market is governed under the aegis of stock exchanges and depositories, i.e. Market Infrastructure Institutions (MII’s). The Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) vide its regulation dated 31st July 2023 issued a Circular which was pursuant to the SEBI (Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023. Vide this circular, the SEBI aims to establish an Online Dispute Resolution Portal (“ODR Portal”). Each MII will empanel one/more ODR institutions that can have time-bound arbitration and conciliation as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). A three-tier system has been provided for redressal of grievances. Those are:  (i) In case of a dispute, any concerned investor may file a complaint before the Marketing participant itself. (ii) In the failure of the redressal by the participant, the investor can use the SEBI’s Complaint Redressal System (“SCORES”) portal in accordance with the process. (iii) The investor can use the ODR portal by the MII’s as the next resort, in case of non-redressal of grievance.  A 15-day notice to the other side is mandatory before instituting proceedings through ODR. Technical rules are established to have a system of uploading Documents, and status updates for the ongoing proceedings from the ODR Institutions. The ODR Institution may appoint an independent Conciliator from their panel within 5 days of reference of a complaint. The Conciliator is supposed to reach to a conclusion by amicable settlement within 21 Calendar days (extendable to 10 calendar days) upon their appointment. In case the Conciliation proceedings fail to reach a conclusion, the Conciliator may ascertain the claim value and notify the parties, ODR Institution, and the MII’s of the same. Any party may continue with online arbitration facility by the ODR Institutions upon payment of the concerned arbitration fees by both parties.  If the total value of the Claim is Rs. 30,00,000 or more, a three-member arbitration panel should be instituted. Whereas, if the claim is of Rs. 1,00,000 or less, a document-only arbitration can be conducted. However, withdrawal shall not be permitted once the arbitrator has been appointed. Award should be fulfilled within 15 days of the award being passed. Furthermore, any challenge to the award of arbitration should be as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Parties may face consequences in the case of non-fulfilment of the award passed by the arbitrator, such as freezing of the demataccount, suspension of business activities, and the cancellation of their registration. The matters that are appealable before the Securities and Appellate Tribunal lie outside the purview of this portal. ODR system aims to facilitate a speedy redressal system along with providing several measures for monetary security of investors. Tanay Musale : ANB Legal- India   #sebi #securities #investors

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL MEDIATION There’s no denying it, technology is the next gold mine. And in that gold mine, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the richest seam. AI is now transforming industries including the ADR space. Mediation, often seen as a deeply human, face-to-face process, is not immune to this change. In fact, global mediation now stands at the edge of a powerful shift, one where AI could make resolution faster, more accessible, and more informed than ever before. But like gold mining itself, AI’s promise comes with both opportunity and responsibility. The tools are powerful, but how we use them will determine will determine the results we get. Mediation has always been about people. It’s about helping parties in conflict find common ground, maintain relationships, and avoid the adversarial grind of litigation. Everywhere in the world, mediators are guided by universal principles: neutrality, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and respect. Yet, the world mediators operate in has changed. Disputes today are often cross-border, multi-cultural, and digitally driven. A business disagreement may involve partners from different continents of the world. Traditional mediation models can struggle with handling these uniqueness seamlessly, that’s where AI offers a compelling edge. Why AI is the “Next Gold” for Mediation Across the globe, mediators are discovering that AI is not just a tool for efficiency, it’s a tool for expansion. It can: • Break barriers of distance and language : AI translation tools make it possible for mediators in one country to seamlessly work with parties halfway across the world. • Accelerate case preparation: AI can summarise documents, flag key issues, and even highlight potential points of agreement before sessions begin. • Increase access to justice: Online dispute resolution platforms means that small-value disputes (once abandoned because of cost) can now be resolved quickly and affordably. • Support informed decision-making : Data analysis can give mediators insights into patterns, helping them better understand the dynamics of similar disputes. Now, the question is no longer whether AI will enter mediation , it already has. The question is: how do we use it ethically? Mediation’s foundation is trust. Parties open up because they believe in the process and the person guiding it. Introducing AI into the mix without careful thought could fracture that trust. Some of the key ethical concerns include: • Confidentiality : Will sensitive information remain secure if processed by AI tools hosted online? • Bias: If AI is trained on biased data, could it unintentionally skew suggestions or solutions? • Transparency : Will parties understand how an AI-assisted recommendation was generated? • Human Control: Does AI support the mediator’s judgment, or silently replace it? #Fotefa #AI #AIandMediation #Mediation #Smartwork #DisputeResolution #GlobalMediation #ADR

I’m excited about the AI tools emerging around early case valuation, estimating likely settlement ranges well before a case reaches a courtroom. Popular LLMs and AI tools are already being used by clients, lawyers, and self-represented parties to assess exposure, damages, and “what a case is worth,” as they prepare for mediation. Recently published research and testing offer good reminders of current limitations. Even under controlled conditions, identical case inputs can produce meaningfully different legal conclusions from the same AI system. Same facts, same framing; different weighting of risk, exposure, and “reasonable” outcomes. For those using these tools, here are a few ways to make them more useful: – Decompose the task. Look at liability, damages, and risk separately instead of collapsing everything into one long prompt. – Run the query multiple times so you can spot inconsistencies and you don’t get wedded to the most persuasive-sounding answer. – Keep humans central. Professional judgment is the safeguard against low-quality analysis and fabricated responses that sound confident. AI may help inform valuation in a case. But like every tool in mediation, it works best when it supports the participants’ own careful thinking. I'm curious what others are seeing in practice. See: Same Question, Different Answers: What 12,000 Tests Reveal About AI and Legal Notice, National Law Review