Who decides: appointing and challenging the tribunal

The parties choose, within the rules

Who decides an arbitration is, first of all, for the parties. The agreement, and the rules it adopts, set how many arbitrators there are, usually one or three, and how they are chosen: each side may name one, the parties may agree a sole arbitrator, or they draw from a roster the institution keeps. The ICDR Procedures, the LCIA Rules and the SIAC Rules each carry a default for all of this, so a case never stalls for want of a method.^1,2,3

When the method fails, a default appoints

If the parties’ method does not produce a tribunal, someone has to step in. Under the Federal Arbitration Act section 5 a court appoints the arbitrator where the agreement’s method breaks down or a party does not use it. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law an appointing authority, a court or the body the rules name, does the same (article 11). Institutional rules give the institution that role, which is why a case under a rulebook can be constituted even when one side will not engage.^4,6

The duty to disclose

Before anyone is appointed, they have to disclose. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law article 12 a person approached about an appointment must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and an arbitrator must keep disclosing such circumstances throughout the case. Disclosure is continuous, not a one-off at the start, and the institution records what was disclosed and when.⁶

Challenging an arbitrator

A party who thinks an arbitrator cannot sit impartially may challenge them, but only on set grounds. Under the Model Law article 12 an arbitrator may be challenged only where circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, or where they lack a qualification the parties agreed. The window is short: article 13 gives a party fifteen days from learning of the constitution of the tribunal, or of the circumstance, to bring the challenge, and the institution or the tribunal decides it under the rules. A party cannot challenge its own appointee except for something it learns afterwards.⁶

Getting this right protects the award

Appointment is not just an opening formality; it is one of the things a court checks at the end. Evident partiality in the arbitrators is a ground to vacate an award under the Federal Arbitration Act section 10, and a tribunal not constituted as the parties agreed is a ground to set an award aside under the Model Law article 34. A clean, recorded appointment is part of what makes an award survive enforcement and challenge.^5,6

Who decides is a rulebook question. The parties choose within the method, the institution appoints where that fails, and a challenge turns on one test: justifiable doubts about independence.

Why appointment is administration

Running the appointment is steady, repeatable work: keeping a roster, clearing conflicts, confirming the arbitrator, recording disclosures and charging a fixed fee for each step, the way arbitrateAD prices a notice of challenge at AED 3,500 and acting as appointing authority at AED 11,500. It is the same pattern as administering a case on your own rulebook, applied to the single question of who decides.^1,7