Originally from A Practical Guide to International Arbitration - Second Edition 

Preview Page

Introduction  

To safeguard the integrity of the arbitral process, sometimes a party will deem it necessary to try to remove one or more arbitrators from the tribunal. The process is analogous to seeking the disqualification or recusal of a judge in domestic court.  

Successful challenges are rare. It is not easy to reverse the arbitral appointment process. Given the formalities of appointment, it makes sense that a party may not simply elect, without more, to remove an arbitrator from the tribunal once the proceeding is underway. Formal challenge procedures are necessary. Those procedures, as with most matters in arbitration, are rooted in the arbitration agreement between the parties. In particular, the relevant procedures governing a challenge may be found in the applicable arbitration rules chosen by the parties or, alternatively, in the legal framework of the arbitral seat selected by the parties.   

Of critical importance, the challenging party must justify the request on substantive grounds relating to the arbitrator’s disposition or qualifications to decide the dispute. That party shoulders a heavy burden.  Successful challenges often target an arbitrator’s unethical action, misconduct, bias, conflict of interest, or failure to comply with the applicable arbitration agreement. In essence, a challenge against an arbitrator must demonstrate that the arbitrator being challenged is not sufficiently independent, impartial, or otherwise suitable to decide the dispute.  In cases where justifiable doubts do exist as to independence or impartiality of the arbitrator in question, it is only proper that an unfit arbitrator be removed from the tribunal for the integrity of the proceeding.   

When a party does decide to challenge an arbitrator, that party must act promptly. The clock generally starts ticking from the time the party had notice or should have reasonably known about the facts serving as the basis for the challenge.  Failure to act promptly could result in a finding of waiver.