Choice of arbitrators:
Unlike court proceedings, in which generally parties have no input into the choice of judge for their case, the parties to an arbitration usually appoint, nominate, or at least have some input into the selection of the arbitrator(s). Most developed arbitration laws require that all of the arbitrators be impartial. However, a party can use its choice or input into the selection process to help ensure that, as far as possible, the tribunal will understand the commercial context, the relevant issues, and the party’s procedural preferences. The parties may agree upon certain criteria for the arbitrators, or for the presiding arbitrator, although they should take care not to narrow the field so far that there are difficulties in identifying potential candidates. In arbitrations with more than one party on either side, or where other parties might be joined in to the proceedings, maintaining the parties’ right to choose the arbitrators (rather than simply delegating the choice to an institution) can be particularly challenging. For example, if one party has the right to select an arbitrator but two parties on the other side cannot agree upon a joint selection, the latter could claim that they were not being treated equally. Careful consideration as to the means of appointing the arbitrators is therefore required in such multi-party scenarios.
Section 11 Appointment of Arbitrators:
(9) In the case of appointment of sole or third arbitrator in an international commercial arbitration, 2[the Supreme Court or the person or institution designated by that Court] may appoint an arbitrator of a nationality other than the nationalities of the parties where the parties belong to different nationalities.