Technology has become the ‘fourth party’ in dispute resolution through the growing field of online dispute resolution (ODR), which includes using a broad spectrum of technologies in negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and everything in between. Furthermore, AI has become a particularly powerful fourth party, and may even become the third party in some situations where AI makes the decision. Accordingly, it is imperative that professionals and policymakers tread cautiously and remain responsible in their use of AI in dispute prevention and resolution. This chapter will discuss foundational considerations around the benefits and risks of AI in dispute resolution, and the regulations as well as ethical guidelines that should remain a top priority when using AI in civil dispute resolution.

In an era in which recycling is becoming almost an obligation that allows us to ensure the preservation of our planet, it is relevant to analyze the interferences between IPRs in the recycling activity. In this sense, it has been considered appropriate to study in this chapter the impact of the protection of artisanal and industrial geographical indications, especially now, when the European Union has adopted a new regulation. In Europe, artisanal and industrial geographical indications will protect porcelain, clothing, jewellery, and a wide variety of products resulting from the cultural heritage of European countries. It will be interesting in this regard to assess the limits that apply to geographical indications as IPRs. In particular, it will be interesting to analyze cases where parts of these protected products are used to create other recycled composite products, as well as the possibility of using recycled products for the creation of the protected products.

The contemporary proliferation of ‘reimagining’ as a cultural practice has evolved from a largely personal or artistic pursuit into a broader societal and technological phenomenon. A diverse range of actors – artists, political actors, corporations, advocacy organizations, and minority communities – now routinely engage in the reworking of popular works, symbols, and culturally significant designs. Against the backdrop of the shift from a linear economic model toward a circular economy, this chapter contends that a substantive recalibration of IP law is required. It argues that reimagining practices should be protected from excessive control by IP rights-holders through both legislative and judicial intervention. In doing so, the chapter contributes to ongoing debates concerning the appropriate equilibrium between exclusive IP rights and the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

In Chapter 4, we contribute to the debate of aligning green transition goals with the incentive structures inherent in IP law, with a focus on design law. Bringing together theoretical and practical perspectives on upcycling in design, we review the state of the art in the scholarly literature and analyze findings from our qualitative research, including interviews with Nordic designers who integrate upcycling into their design and business strategies. We examine the economic incentives and disincentives of design upcycling and assess the competitive advantages and disadvantages of shifting from a linear to a circular approach in design. Against this background, we discuss the extent to which the European design law framework aligns with upcycling as a design and business strategy, including the effects of the scope of protection, the definition of infringement, limitations, and the doctrine of exhaustion. We emphasize that undue legal uncertainty arises from the ineffectiveness of limitations and exceptions, and that horizontal problems result from overlaps between IP rights. Taking stock of challenges and opportunities faced by design upcyclers we propose principles from circular economy that may be infused into design law to counterbalance the economic and legal disincentives that design upcyclers are faced with.

This concluding chapter synthesises insights from across The Cambridge Handbook of AI in Civil Dispute Resolution, offering a forward-looking reflection on the ethical, institutional, and technological dimensions of AI integration in civil justice systems. It traces the evolution of AI in dispute resolution – from rule-based automation in e-commerce to the emergence of agentic AI – and evaluates how foundational principles such as transparency, accountability and human-centred design must guide future developments. Drawing on the book’s thematic parts, the chapter emphasises the importance of hybrid human–AI collaboration, stakeholder-driven system design and robust governance frameworks. It warns against over-reliance on opaque technologies and highlights the need for legal professionals to maintain core skills in empathy, discretion, and communication. Ultimately, the chapter calls for a principled approach to AI adoption that enhances, rather than undermines, fairness and access to justice in both public and private dispute resolution contexts.

This chapter examines the evolution and deployment of AI tools in the delivery of dispute resolution in sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) with particular focus on arbitration. The chapter draws on publicly available original data to argue that there indeed is greater opportunity to deploy AI in arbitration as a tool for efficiency, which may lead to cost and time savings. It also explores the emerging regulation of these tools globally, regionally, and in some SSA countries and concludes that regulation of the use of AI must maintain the right balance of achieving efficiency in the process of arbitration and mitigation of its negative effects.

Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing: using second-hand garments as raw materials for new creations, upcyclers can transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the source material. The productive reuse of garment components in upcycling projects is socially desirable in the light of the overarching policy goal to achieve environmental sustainability. However, the more individual fashion elements are protected by IP rights, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion items may enjoy cumulative copyright, industrial design, and trademark protection. Accordingly, infringement claims may be based on several rights. Seeking to enhance legal certainty for upcyclers in light of the overarching objective to ensure a circular economy, it is thus important to develop horizontal defences that are applicable across different domains of IP law. Against this background, the essay will explain how the referential use concept known from trademark law can be transformed into a cross-cutting defence that dispels concerns about infringement not only in trademark law but also in industrial designs and copyright law.

The chapter examines the adjudication of AI-related disputes as well as the application of AI-driven technologies in international commercial courts (ICommCs), a relatively new adjudication forum. It argues that ICommCs are well-suited for resolving digital technology disputes due to their publicness, transparency, and capacity to develop jurisprudence for the digital economy – advantages that set them apart from ADR and ODR mechanisms. Their international nature also aligns with the transnational character of digital disputes. Additionally, ICommCs are ideal for integrating AI-driven innovations in dispute resolution, as they are more agile and adaptable than other forums, particularly ordinary domestic courts. Their specialised judges, manageable caseloads, and ability to swiftly address emerging technological challenges further enhance their suitability.

Chapter 4 considers a variety of legal theories that have been applied to protect the rights of wildlife. In recent years, the protection of wildlife has been enhanced by extending gains secured in strategic litigation to protect the rights of nature in Latin America. Beyond the cases that leveraged rights of nature, however, many of the creative theories seeking to protect the rights of wildlife in captivity, such as habeas corpus, have not been successful in courts in the United States, whereas a few such cases outside the United States have been successful. The obstacle in most of these cases is the courts’ reluctance to interpret the term “person” to extend to non-human animals. The chapter lays a foundation to explore the troubling dichotomy of how the law is more ambitious in protecting non-human elements of nature through a variety of legal mechanisms, addressed in Chapter 5, than it is in protecting non-human animals, addressed in the cases in Chapter 4.

This chapter examines the early integration of generative AI (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, into judicial workflows. Unlike traditional rule-based decision-support systems, GenAI adopts a bottom-up approach, generating insights from vast datasets to assist real-time decision-making. While offering speed and improved access to information, these tools also present challenges that require careful understanding by their users. Using the recent case of a Dutch judge who employed ChatGPT to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the chapter illustrates how GenAI is already being used in courtrooms. The value of GenAI lies in supporting, not replacing, human judgement. Yet without a clear grasp of how these systems work, including their limitations and potential biases, judges risk relying on opaque or flawed outputs. The ‘black box’ nature of LLMs complicates their responsible use and raises concerns about the balance between efficiency and discretion. The chapter argues that effective integration of GenAI depends not primarily on regulation, but on judicial education and critical awareness of the technology’s capacities and constraints.

This dispute concerns the United States' compliance with the adopted recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Ripe Olives from Spain. The European Union claims that the United States has failed to comply with the adopted findings of the panel report concerning the incompatibility of Section 771B of the US Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 771B) "as such" and "as applied" in the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order of 1 August 2018 on ripe olives from Spain, with Article VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994) and Article 10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).

Chapter 1 introduces the plight of future generations, wildlife, and natural resources as voiceless communities that are disproportionately vulnerable in the face of the climate crisis. It explores the troubling gridlock in international climate diplomacy and recent backsliding of ambition in domestic environmental law in the United States and Europe. It also recognizes that a shift towards an ecocentric governance paradigm is underway in many nations, which would provide greater protection for these voiceless communities. Despite this recent progress, the chapter acknowledges that much work remains in this transition.

Private dispute resolution mechanisms – such as arbitration, mediation, and negotiation – are often criticised for high costs, lengthy proceedings, and inconsistent outcomes. Simultaneously, confidence in traditional courts is declining amid rising litigation expenses, delays, and concerns over impartiality, highlighting the need for more efficient and equitable resolution methods. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising tools to address these challenges. AI enhances case preparation through natural language processing (NLP), which organises documents, extracts key insights, and supports evidence analysis. Predictive analytics help anticipate outcomes based on past decisions, aiding strategic planning. AI also enables automation in routine case management, accelerating resolution and reducing costs. Generative AI further alleviates administrative burdens, enabling legal professionals to focus on complex legal reasoning and client interactions. This chapter examines how AI is reshaping private dispute resolution, with a focus on current applications, emerging innovations, and future developments. While AI cannot replace human judgement in complex disputes, it plays a vital role in streamlining procedures, promoting fairness, and improving user satisfaction.

In governing the development and deployment of AI across the European Member States, the EU AI Act tries to bring together two very different visions of AI. The first sees AI as a powerful tool that can be made less risky to the health, safety, and fundamental rights of European consumers if it adheres to a series of technical requirements. The second sees AI as a systems technology whose governance requires a nuanced understanding of its transformative effects on the values, fundamental rights, and power relations that characterise society. This chapter uses these two perspectives on AI as a lens through which to reflect on the implications of the EU AI Act for the justice sector. It analyses the extent to which the Act’s provisions and safeguards are aligned with emerging ethical guidelines for the use of AI in the administration of justice and discusses whether it can be expected to effectively address core ethical concerns about the use of AI in the justice sector. This analysis demonstrates the limitations of the ‘tool’ perspective that dominates the AI Act and reveals the considerable discretion it gives judicial authorities to guide the integration of AI as a societally transformative systems technology into the justice sector.