Mohammed Zaheeruddin
College of Law, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Al Ain, United Arab Emirates

4th International Conference – ERAZ 2018 – KNOWLEDGE BASED SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Sofia- Bulgaria, June 7, 2018, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia;  Faculty of Business Studies, Mediterranean University – Podgorica, Montenegro; University of National and World Economy – Sofia, Bulgaria; Faculty of Commercial and Business Studies – Celje, Slovenia; Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance – Belgrade, Serbia, ISBN 978-86-80194-12-7


Arbitration is an efficient method of settlement of disputes between the parties in a speedy manner. The other advantages are that parties to the dispute by agreement choose the arbitrators, arbitration procedure and applicable arbitration rules. The basic requirement in international arbitration is that an arbitrator must be independent and impartial throughout the arbitral proceedings. According to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Arbitration when a person approached in connection with his possible appointment as an arbitrator, he shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. A party to the arbitration may challenge the arbitrator. However, the arbitrator may be challenged only if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. According to the arbitration rules, the challenge shall specify the grounds for the challenge and include corroborating materials to substantiate the challenge. Subject to the applicable arbitration rules, the parties are free to agree on a procedure for challenging an arbitrator. The object of this paper is to examine the grounds for challenge of arbitrators and challenging procedure under different international and institutional arbitration rules with the help of decided cases. 

Key words

International Arbitration, impartiality and independence, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, UNCITRAL Model Law


  1. Allan Redfern and Martin Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 4th edition 2004, Sweet & Maxwell, London, page 247.
  2. Canon I of the Code of Ethics for Arbitrators in Commercial Disputes (2004)  the Code sponsored by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the American Bar Association (ABA).
  3. Chiara Giovannucci Orlandi, Ethics for International Arbitrators, 67 UMKC L. Rev. 93, (1998).
  4. Deng Ruiping a1 and Duan Xiaosong aa1, Promoting Impartiality of International Commercial Arbitrators though Chinese Criminal Law: Arbitration by “Perversion of Law”, 10 BYU Int’l L. & Mgmt. Rev. 109 (2014).
  5. Dr. Ranee K.L. Panjabi, Economic Globalization: The Challenge for Arbitrators, 28 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 173 (1995).
  6. Edward C. Dawson, Speak Now or Hold your Peace: Pre-arbitration Express Waivers of Evident-Partiality Challenges, 65 Am. U.L. Rev. 307 (2013).
  7. Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Volume I, Wolters Kluwer.
  8.  Gary B. Born, International Arbitration Cases and Materials, 2nd edition, 2015, Kluwer Law International BV, the Netherlands, page 146.
  9. IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, 2014.
  10. Judge Dominique Hascher, Salient Issues in International Commercial Arbitration: Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators: 3 Issues, 27 Am. U. Int’l L. Rev. 789 (2012).
  11. Lindsay Melworm, Baised? Prove it: Addressing Arbitrator Bias and the Merits of Implementing Broad Disclosure Standards, 22 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 431 (2014).
  12. Report of the International Commercial Disputes Committee of the New York City Bar Association, 27 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 21 (2016).
  13. Stephen K. Huber, The Role of Arbitrator: Conflicts of Interest, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 915 (2002).
  14. Tibor Varady, John J. Barcelo III, Arthur T. von Mehren, International Commercial Arbitration, A Transnational Perspective, Second Edition, Thomson West, 2003.
  15. UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.
  16. Yearbook Comm. Arb’n 451, Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court of France) 16 March 1999.
  17. Yulia Andreeva, How Challenging is the Challenge, or can U.S. Courts Remove Arbitrators before an Arbitration has come to an End? 19 Am. Rev. Int’l Arb. 127 (2008).


  1. ANR Coal Co. v. Cogentrix of North Corolina, Inc., 173 F.3d 493, 500 (4th Cir.1999).
  2. AT & T  Corporation v. Saudi Cable Co (SCC), [2000] EWCA Civ. 154].
  3. Davenport v. Dimitrijevic, 857 So. 2d 957, 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003).
  4. Desbois v. Industries A.C. Davie Inc., Court of Appeal of Quebec, Canada, 26 April 1990, [1990] CanLII 3619 (QC CA), available on the Internet at
  5. Jivraj v. Hashwani [[2011] UKSC 40.
  6. Locabail(UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Prop.  Ltd [2000] Q.B. 451.
  7. Morelite Construction Corporation v. N.Y.C. District Council Carpenters’ Benefit Funds and Others, 748 F.2d 79, (2d Cir. 1984).
  8. Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 2012).
  9. Sheet Metal Workers etc.  v. Kinney Air Conditioning Co., 756 F.2d 742, 745-46 (9th Cir. 1988).
  10. State of Qatar v. Creighton Ltd (Cayman Islands), 25 Yearbook Comm. Arb’n 451), Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court of France) 16 March 1999.​