ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules Interpretation Series 14

I. Introduction

The impartiality and independence of arbitrators constitute the cornerstone of the commercial arbitration system, as well as the fundamental guarantee for arbitral procedural fairness. Complete information disclosure serves as the “first line of defense” in safeguarding this cornerstone. Article 14 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO), consisting of three paragraphs, establishes a comprehensive information disclosure system that runs through the entire arbitration process, with clear rights and responsibilities and definite consequences. This article codifies and continues the information disclosure obligation, and achieves a balance between procedural fairness and procedural efficiency.

II. The Original Text of Article 14

Article 14. Information Disclosure by Arbitrators

1.The arbitrator candidate shall, before accepting the nomination or appointment, disclose in writing to the Court of Arbitration the facts or circumstances that may reasonably affect his/her impartiality and independence. The Court of Arbitration shall notify the parties in writing of relevant information and require the parties to submit written opinions on the necessity of re-appointment of arbitrator within a prescribed time limit. 

If a party fails to apply for the re-appointment of arbitrator within the prescribed time limit, it shall not challenge the arbitrator on the ground of the matters disclosed by the arbitrator.

2.The arbitrator to be nominated or appointed shall sign a declaration of independence, impartiality and sufficient time for case handling.

3.In case of any circumstances that affect the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator arise after the signing of the declaration or during the arbitral proceedings, the arbitrator shall immediately make a written disclosure to the parties, the co-arbitrators and the Court of Arbitration.

III. Analysis of paragraphs

(1) Paragraph 1

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph establishes the initial disclosure obligation of arbitrators before accepting appointment and the supporting procedures, with the following three core characteristics:

(1)Pre-emptive and Mandatory Nature of Disclosure Timing: The obligation arises “before accepting the nomination or appointment”, ensuring that parties can obtain sufficient information at the critical decision-making stage of arbitral tribunal composition. The use of the term “shall” in the provision indicates that this is a mandatory legal obligation for arbitrator candidates, rather than an optional moral initiative, which is reflected in the declaration of acceptance or rejection of the selection of the procedural letter, thereby disclosing to the parties to enhance the transparency of the process.

(2)Institutional Information Transmission and Procedural Management Functions: As the transmitter of information disclosure, the Court of Arbitration is responsible for notifying the parties in writing of relevant information and setting a time limit for parties to raise objections. This reflects the important role of the institution in managing procedures and fixing evidence.

(3)Procedural Consequences of Overdue Objections: The Rules stipulate that if a party fails to apply for re-appointment (i.e., challenge) of the arbitrator regarding the disclosed matters within the prescribed time limit, it shall be deemed to have waived the right to challenge on such ground. This is a system design of great procedural significance, which provides strong protection for the early stability of the arbitral tribunal. While preventing parties from abusing the right to challenge for tactical purposes in the later stages of the procedure, the Arbitration Rules also stipulate the specific circumstances under which the reason for challenge is known or ought to be known in Article 15.

2.Comparative analysis

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 11)i provide for similar preliminary and continuing disclosure obligations but does not explicitly stipulate the ICDPASO-style “procedural consequences of overdue objections” clause. SIAC Rules (Article 20)ii and HKIAC Rules (Article 11)iii both require prospective arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts, but do not explicitly stipulate the effect of overdue objections. ICC Rules (Article 11) iv require prospective arbitrators to disclose “any facts or circumstances which might be of such a nature as to call into question the arbitrator’s independence in the eyes of the parties, as well as any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality”. The disclosure forms and procedures are extremely detailed and subject to strict review by the ICC Court, and its rule text also does not explicitly provide for the “procedural consequences of overdue objections” provision. LCIA Rules (Article 5)v require prospective arbitrators to disclose “any circumstances likely to give rise to any justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence”. SCC Rules (Article 18)vi require arbitrators to disclose circumstances that may affect their impartiality and independence but do not explicitly stipulate the procedural consequences of overdue objections.

A distinctive feature of this paragraph of the ICDPASO Rules is that it forms a closed-loop regulation in a single article, integrating preliminary disclosure, institutional notification, parties’ time-limited challenge on the ground of the proactively disclosed matters by the arbitrators, and the legal consequence of overdue waiver of right to object, with particular prominence in clarity and systematic nature.

3.Jurisprudence analysis

(1)Realization of Due Process and Right to Information: The parties’ right to full information before appointing arbitrators is an embodiment of the principle of due process in the stage of arbitral tribunal composition. Through mandatory disclosure and institutional transmission, this paragraph ensures that parties can make informed choices on the basis of information symmetry, which reflects procedural justice.

(2)Procedural Stability and Application of the Principle of Estoppel: The “procedural consequences of overdue objections” provision reflects the value of procedural stability. Based on the jurisprudence of “estoppel”, it prevents parties from adopting a “wait-and-see” speculative strategy, i.e., knowing the existence of disclosed matters but failing to raise objections, and then challenging the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the validity of the award on such ground when the award is unfavorable. This is consistent with the spirit of Article 3 (Waiver of Right to Object) of the ICDPASO Rules, jointly safeguarding the seriousness and efficiency of the procedure.

(3)Connection with the Challenge Procedure: This paragraph is a preliminary procedure and an important supplement to Article 15 (Challenges to Arbitrators). It actually creates a preliminary and simplified window for applying for challenge on “disclosed matters”. If a party fails to act within this window, it loses the right to challenge on the same ground in the formal challenge procedure, thereby enabling the challenge procedure under Article 15 to focus more on newly discovered or undisclosed grounds.

(2) Paragraph 2

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph concretizes the arbitrator’s obligation through the form of a statement, with the following two characteristics:

(1)Formalization and Writing Requirement of the Obligation: The requirement to sign a declaration in writing makes the commitment a traceable procedural document.

(2)Trinity of Undertaking Content: The declaration covers three core elements: “independence”, “impartiality”, and “sufficient time for case handling”. This not only focuses on the relationship between the arbitrator and the parties (independence and impartiality) but also on the arbitrator’s actual ability to perform his/her duties (sufficient time), representing a comprehensive requirement for the arbitrator’s qualifications.

2.Comparative analysis

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 11) require arbitrators to sign a statement on independence and impartiality before being designated. SIAC Rules (Article 20)vii and HKIAC Rules (Article 11) both have similar requirements for signing statements. ICC Rules (Article 11) are known for the detailed standard statement forms, which require arbitrators to fill out and sign with extremely specific content. LCIA Rules (Article 5)viii require arbitrators to make a written commitment to be impartial, independent, and to devote sufficient time. SCC Rules (Article 18) require arbitrators to submit a statement of independence and impartiality.

This paragraph of the ICDPASO Rules is highly consistent with mainstream international practices and constitutes a common and necessary procedural link in international arbitration to ensure arbitrators’ sense of responsibility.

3.Jurisprudence analysis

(1)Establishment of Trust and Expectations: Parties’ trust in the arbitration procedure partly stems from their trust in the arbitrator’s professional ethics and dedication. The act of signing a declaration publicly and formally establishes this trust relationship and sets reasonable expectations for the parties regarding the arbitrator’s conduct.

(2)Preventive Procedural Guarantee: This is a preventive procedural measure aligning with the ICDPASO’s concept of dispute prevention. Through prior written commitment, it aims to prevent potential conflicts of interest and procedural delays at the source, eliminating risks before they arise.

(3) Paragraph 3

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph stipulates the continuing disclosure obligation of arbitrators, representing an extension of the information disclosure system in the time dimension:

(1)Continuity of the Obligation: The disclosure obligation does not terminate after the arbitrator signs the declaration but runs “during the arbitral proceedings”, making it a dynamic and uninterrupted obligation.

(2)Immediacy of Triggering Circumstances: It requires “immediately” disclosure “in case of any circumstances”. This emphasizes the timeliness of disclosure, aiming to resolve potential impartiality crises at the earliest possible time.

(3) Extensiveness of Disclosure Recipients: Disclosure must be made simultaneously to “the parties, the co-arbitrators, and the Court of Arbitration”. This ensures that all participants in the procedure can obtain information synchronously, avoiding delays or distortions in information transmission and maintaining procedural transparency.

2.Comparative analysis

All major international arbitration rules (UNCITRAL, SIAC, HKIAC, ICC, LCIA, SCC) explicitly stipulate the continuing disclosure obligation of arbitrators. This is a universal standard and requirement in international arbitration. The provisions of ICDPASO Arbitration Rules are fully aligned with international best practices in terms of content and rigor.

3.Jurisprudence analysis

(1)Dynamic Maintenance of Procedural Justice: The arbitration procedure is a developing process, and new situations may arise at any time. The continuing disclosure obligation ensures that the procedural justice will not be impaired due to changes in circumstances, representing a dynamic and real-time maintenance of procedural justice.

(2)Connection with the Replacement Procedure: New issues discovered during the continuing disclosure may constitute the circumstances of the replacement of the arbitrator (Article 16). For example, if the newly disclosed circumstances give rise to reasonable doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality among the parties and they apply for a challenge, or if the arbitrator becomes “unable to perform his/her duties” legally or factually, the replacement procedure stipulated in Article 16 may be initiated. This paragraph and Article 16 jointly form a complete solution for addressing sudden conflicts of interest in the arbitration procedure.

IV. Analysis of Integration and Applicability with the New Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China

The new Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “New Arbitration Law”), revised on September 12, 2025, has significantly strengthened the requirements and supervision regarding the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. Article 14 of the ICDPASO Rules demonstrates forward-looking alignment and synergy with the in-depth reforms of this Law.

(1)Aligning and Refining the Disclosure Obligation under the New Arbitration Law: The New Arbitration Law explicitly stipulates the arbitrator’s disclosure obligation. ix Article 14 of the ICDPASO Rules not only fully responds to this requirement but also constructs a refined procedural framework through three paragraphs, clarifying the timing (preliminary and in-process), standard (reasonable doubt), form (written), recipients (the Court of Arbitration, parties), and legal consequences (procedural consequences of overdue objections) of disclosure, providing highly operable guidance for arbitrators and parties.

(2)Enhancing the Credibility of Arbitration Pursued by the New Arbitration Law: One of the core concepts of the New Arbitration Law is to enhance the credibility and internationalization level of arbitration. The high standards and strict requirements reflected in Article 14 of the ICDPASO Rules are fully consistent with the general practices of international commercial arbitration, and emphasize the rigor of procedure through the “procedural consequences of overdue objections” clause. This helps to strengthen the confidence of domestic and foreign parties in choosing ICDPASO as the arbitration institution, enhancing the international image and competitiveness of arbitration in the Chinese jurisdiction.

(3)Contribution of the “Procedural Consequences of Overdue Objections” Mechanism to Balancing “Efficiency and Justice” under the New Arbitration Law: The New Arbitration Law emphasizes the “fair and prompt” resolution of disputes. The “procedural consequences of overdue objections” rule in Article 14, Paragraph 1 of the ICDPASO Rules is an excellent embodiment of the timeliness value. It effectively curbs tactical challenge applications intended to maliciously delay the procedure, protects the arbitration procedure from improper interference, and ensures the efficient advancement of dispute resolution, which is highly consistent with the value orientation of the new Law.

(4)Providing Clear Behavioral Guidelines for Arbitrators: Arbitrators from all over the world can clearly understand the boundaries of their obligations from this article, thereby avoiding ethical risks arising from ambiguous rules.

(5)Providing Stable Procedural Expectations for Parties: Parties clearly understand the process of information disclosure, their own rights (e.g., the time limit for raising objections), and consequences (waiver due to delay), facilitating them to better plan arbitration strategies and reducing procedural uncertainty.

(6)Providing Powerful Management Tools for the Court of Arbitration: The Court of Arbitration can efficiently handle matters related to information disclosure in accordance with these clear rules. Especially when disputes arise among parties regarding whether a challenge is justified, this article provides a clear rule basis for the Court of Arbitration to make decisions.

V. Conclusion

Through a three-tiered design of “preliminary mandatory disclosure and procedural consequences of overdue objections”, “signing a declaration to make active commitments”, and “in-process continuing and immediate disclosure”, Article 14 of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules constructs a rigorous and dynamic “protective net” for the impartiality of arbitrators. Closely connected with Article 15 (Challenge) and Article 16 (Replacement), it jointly forms an organic rule system ensuring the legitimate composition of the arbitral tribunal. In comparison with mainstream international rules, the procedural wisdom embodied in its “procedural consequences of overdue objections” clause is particularly prominent. More importantly, this article not only deeply aligns with the spirit and provisions of the New Arbitration Law of China but also makes important contributions to enhancing the credibility and efficiency of the international arbitration platform through its forward-looking, systematic, and operable rule design, reflecting the modernization and internationalization characteristics of the ICDPASO Rules.

i. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules art. 11(2021), which provides that: “Article 11 When a person is approached in connection with his or her possible appointment as an arbitrator, he or she shall disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, from the time of his or her appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings, shall without delay disclose any such circumstances to the parties and the other arbitrators unless they have already been informed by him or her of these circumstances.”

ii. SIAC Rules art. 20(2025), which provides that: “20.2 Prior to their appointment, prospective arbitrators shall disclose in writing to the Registrar any circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence and indicate if they do not possess any qualifications agreed by the parties. 20.3 After their appointment, arbitrators have a continuing obligation to immediately disclose in writing to the Registrar, the parties, and the other arbitrators any circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.”

iii. HKIAC Rules art. 11(2024), which provides that: “11.4 Before confirmation or appointment, a prospective arbitrator shall (a) sign a statement confirming his or her availability to decide the dispute and his or her impartiality and independence; and (b) disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. An arbitrator, once confirmed or appointed and throughout the arbitration, shall disclose without delay any such circumstances to the parties unless they have already been informed by him or her of these circumstances.”

iv. ICC Arbitration Rules art. 11(2021), which provides that: “ARTICLE 11 General Provisions 2 Before appointment or confirmation, a prospective arbitrator shall sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence. The prospective arbitrator shall disclose in writing to the Secretariat any facts or circumstances which might be of such a nature as to call into question the arbitrator’s independence in the eyes of the parties, as well as any circumstances that could give rise to reasonable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. The Secretariat shall provide such information to the parties in writing and fix a time limit for any comments from them. 3 An arbitrator shall immediately disclose in writing to the Secretariat and to the parties any facts or circumstances of a similar nature to those referred to in Article 11(2) concerning the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence which may arise during the arbitration.”

v. LCIA Rules art. 5(2020), which provides that: “5.5 Each arbitrator shall assume a continuing duty, until the arbitration is finally concluded, forthwith to disclose in writing any circumstances becoming known to that arbitrator after the date of his or her written declaration (under Article 5.4) which are likely to give rise in the mind of any party to any justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence, to be delivered to the LCIA Court, any other members of the Arbitral Tribunal and all parties in the arbitration.”

vi. SCC Rules art. 18(2023), which provides that: “Article 18 Impartiality, independence, and availability (1) Every arbitrator must be impartial and independent. (2) Before being appointed, a prospective arbitrator shall disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the prospective arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. (3) Once appointed, an arbitrator shall submit to the Secretariat a signed statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence, disclosing any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. The Secretariat shall send a copy of the statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence to the parties and the other arbitrators. (4) An arbitrator shall immediately inform the parties and the other arbitrators in writing if any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence arise during the course of the arbitration.”

vii. SIAC Rules art. 20(2025), which provides that: “20. Disclosure 20.1 All arbitrators appointed under these Rules shall be and shall remain at all times independent and impartial, and conduct themselves in accordance with these Rules, SIAC’s Code of Ethics and the Practice Notes for the time being in force. All arbitrators appointed under these Rules must sign a Statement of Acceptance, Independence, Impartiality, and Availability.”

viii. LCIA Rules art. 5(2020), which provides that: “5.4 Before appointment by the LCIA Court, each arbitrator candidate shall furnish to the Registrar (upon the latter’s request) a brief written summary of his or her qualifications and professional positions (past and present); the candidate shall also agree in writing fee rates conforming to the Schedule of Costs; the candidate shall sign a written declaration stating: (i) whether there are any circumstances currently known to the candidate which are likely to give rise in the mind of any party to any justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence and, if so, specifying in full such circumstances in the declaration; and (ii) whether the candidate is ready, willing and able to devote sufficient time, diligence and industry to ensure the expeditious and efficient conduct of the arbitration. The candidate shall promptly furnish such agreement and declaration to the Registrar.”

ix. Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the 9th Session of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress on August 31, 1994; amended for the first time according to the Decision to Amend Certain Laws adopted at the 10th Session of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People's Congress on August 27, 2009; amended for the second time according to the Decision to Amend Eight Laws Including the Judges Law of the People's Republic of China adopted at the 29th Session of the Twelfth National People's Congress on September 1, 2017; and revised at the 17th Session of the Standing Committee of the Fourteenth National People's Congress on September 12, 2025) Article 45, which provides that: “If an arbitrator falls under any circumstance that may cause the parties to reasonably doubt his or her independence or impartiality, the arbitrator shall disclose the circumstance in writing to the arbitration institution in a timely manner. The arbitration institution shall notify the parties in writing of the arbitrators’ written disclosures and the composition of the arbitration tribunal.”