Choosing an arbitrator

Start with the appointment procedure

Begin with the parties’ agreement, the applicable law and, in institutional arbitration, the institution’s rules. The parties may identify an individual or agree on a method of selection. For a panel, their respective roles in constituting the tribunal matter.

Qualifications and circumstances

Consider statutory requirements, agreed qualifications, the language of the proceedings, relevant legal knowledge and availability. Expertise in the subject matter should be considered alongside the ability to devote sufficient time.

Circumstances that could create justifiable doubts about independence or impartiality are a separate issue. Relationships with parties, representatives or the subject matter may be relevant. Disclosure helps parties evaluate a candidate.

Appointment and later developments

Acceptance of an appointment, communication arrangements and the terms of participation should be recorded clearly. Questions of challenge or replacement follow the applicable law and procedure.

Selecting an appropriate specialist and lawfully constituting the tribunal are connected tasks.

Qualifications and appointment

Statutory basis: Articles 10–11 of 382-FZ and Articles 10–11 of Law 5338-1. Check tribunal size, agreed qualifications and appointment mechanisms. Domestic-law requirements for the sole arbitrator’s or chair’s legal education are subject to Article 11 qualifications; they are not an identical degree requirement for every panel member.

Where an agreed mechanism does not resolve appointment, the statute provides access to the competent court. For a three-member tribunal Article 11(3) of 382-FZ sets one-month appointment periods. Institutional appointments and permissible exclusions of court intervention require examination of the agreement and law.

Disclosure and challenges

Statutory basis: Articles 12–15 and 46 of 382-FZ. Circumstances potentially raising justified doubts must be disclosed promptly in writing throughout the proceedings. Absent a different agreed procedure, a reasoned challenge is due within 15 days of learning of the tribunal or relevant circumstance; court review following rejection is available within one month, subject to statutory exceptions.

Case law: Supreme Court 21 November 2022, 304-ES22-6536 restored referral to arbitration: speculative institutional connections did not establish a defective clause. It did not decide a particular arbitrator’s challenge. Constitutional Court 30-P of 18 November 2014 also requires attention to actual independence circumstances and predates the reform.

Foreign practice: disclosure and arbitrator challenges

In Sun Yang, Swiss Federal Tribunal4A_318/2020, the court examined the CAS chair’s posts discovered after the award. It assessed objectively justified doubts and the reasonable opportunity to discover disqualification grounds earlier. It annulled the award and disqualified the chair without redetermining the sports dispute.

Reviewing open information at appointment and responding to new circumstances support an assessment of independence. The judgment did not establish an unlimited obligation to monitor social media continuously. Swiss extraordinary-review rules and their applicable edition require separate assessment; the historical deadlines are not universal challenge periods.

In Halliburton v Chubb, the UK Supreme Court found a failure to disclose related appointments but upheld refusal of removal. Disclosure and the sufficiency of removal grounds involve distinct questions and assessment dates. Section 2 of the Arbitration Act 2025 subsequently enacted section 23A, including circumstances of which an arbitrator ought reasonably to be aware; transition and commencement on 1 August 2025 require separate consideration.

In the AIFC Court decision of 29 July 2026, academic and professional connections were examined factually and did not themselves substantiate the alleged bias. This was a first-instance decision in the special AIFC framework, not general guidance from Kazakhstan’s Supreme Court. Across the three examples, compare actual relationships, availability of information, timing of objections and the applicable judicial remedy.

Naming an arbitrator and providing a fallback

Naming an arbitrator in advance is a choice, not a general condition of an agreement’s validity. Consider the number of arbitrators, appointment and replacement if a person declines or cannot act. Applicable rules and statutory Articles 10–11 supply a mechanism where none is agreed. The starting statutory number in both Russian domestic and international frameworks is three, not one. See the practical agreement guide for a comparison and examples.

Selecting arbitrators across countries

Age, education, experience, agreed qualifications and fallback appointing authority depend on the applicable statute and rules. Russian requirements do not automatically apply elsewhere. Domestic and international regimes are distinguished below.