The following blog has been authored by Vertika Kashyap, first-year student at Chanakya National Law University, and the winner in the CNLU Fresher’s Blog Writing Competition 2025-26.

“An arbitrator’s integrity is the quiet anchor of legitimacy — without it, even the most flawless process drifts onto sceptical shores.”

– Michael Hwang

Picture yourself walking to one of the most important and decisive day of your life: where a judgement is being pronounced that directly affects one of the most significant tenets of your life. There is one question that undoubtedly rises and gnaws you: will the judgement not be impeded by the biases of the judge? Will it be free from all the external factors at play? The same case corresponds with international commercial arbitration, which is the destination for many people to turn to beyond reaching jurisdictional courts. but what truly ensures that the people making the decisions at the ICA are free from bias, influence, or hidden loyalties?

That very question was thrust into the spotlight in 2019, when the UK Supreme Court delivered its ruling in Halliburton v. Chubb. The case wasn’t about the substance of the dispute at all — it was about trust. Specifically, whether an arbitrator’s failure to disclose that they were working on other, related cases could make people doubt their impartiality. The decision sent ripples through the arbitration community, reminding everyone that in this field, perception of fairness is just as critical as fairness itself.

In 2019, the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Halliburton v. Chubb sent shockwaves through the arbitration community. The case didn’t centre on the core merits of the dispute but on a simple question: would an arbitrator’s failure to disclose simultaneous appointments cast doubt on their impartiality? The aftermath was immediate. Law firms rushed to revise disclosure protocols arbitral organizations tightened regulations, and arbitrators worldwide became aware that the perception of bias was just as harmful as actual bias. This publicized confrontation shows why neutrality, independence, and impartiality are the arbitral holy trinity that is frequently invoked in concert, but each defending a separate flank of justice.

“Neutrality is the lack of affiliation with either side’s national or cultural domain, frequently operationalised by preventing arbitrators from belonging to a party’s nationality” under regimes such as UNCITRAL or ICC Rules.

Independence requires independence from financial, professional, or personal associations that may influence decision-making ; the “structural firewall” referred to in the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest.

Impartiality is a state of mind of the arbitrator, independent of predispositions, whether hidden in unconscious bias or latent in conscious form. As Gary Born points out, it is the most difficult to establish and the simplest to destroy.

When all such principles coincide, arbitration is able to inspire confidence beyond borders. When one fails, even the strongest award is open to being unravelled on challenge.

In high-stakes international commercial arbitration, perception is as powerful as the law itself. A 2018 Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey found that 54% of respondents placed “neutrality” as the single most significant attribute of an arbitral forum even above enforceability of awards. In transnational disputes where parties commonly hail from disparate legal traditions and cultural milieus, the selection of a “neutral” adjudicator and seat is not merely procedural but it is abecedarian.

Neutrality accomplishes two interconnected functions:

  1. Sparing legitimacy — Parties place faith in arbitration exactly because it assures a ruling untainted by the presupposed prejudices of a “home court advantage.” In the absence of neutrality, the process risks forfeiting its relative advantage over litigation.
  2. Reducing enforcement friction — A decision made under a shadow of perceived bias will be vulnerable to challenge under Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention (1958), where violations of due process are reasons for refusal of enforcement.

But neutrality is a thin reed. It is not sufficient that arbitrators refrain from real bias; they must also refrain from apparent bias. As crisply described in R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, “justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” In arbitration, this is compounded that once faith is lost, the very purpose parties came to the forum might disintegrate.

This is the reason institutions such as the ICC and LCIA maintain rigid guidelines regarding the nationality of arbitrators, disclosure of previous appointments, and even pre-appointment.

Independence is about the substance that supports the arbitrator. It concerns the absence of any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could exert any kind of pressure on the decision-making process.

The 2014 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration define independence as freedom from “past or present relationships, direct or indirect, with any of the parties or their counsel” that could reasonably call into question the arbitrator’s objectivity. This is not merely theoretical—statistics from the LCIA 2021 Annual Casework Report show that a noteworthy portion of arbitrator challenges globally involve alleged conflicts of interest, in which most of them arose  from undisclosed repeat appointments or prior advisory work.

Independence is important for three reasons.

  1. Preventing undue influence — there may be even subconscious loyalty to a prior client or employer and that could influence judgment.
  2. Reducing the risk of exceptional challenge — UNICTAL model law, art. 12(2) allows removal of an arbitrator when “the circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts” about independence.
  3. Protecting enforceability — a tribunal with a stain on its integrity can result in the annulment of an award at the seat of arbitration or refusal of enforcement abroad.

It is a global trend, seen in the current updates to the ICC, SIAC and HK law, towards disclosure of all potentially relevant relationships and some institutions now require periodic disclosures during proceedings.

For, after all, the legitimacy of arbitration does not depend on the varnish applied to its awards, but on the steadfast premise that the scales were held by hands unafraid, unchained, and untouched. An if that tenet is lost, no procedure, no matter how precious, could re-instate it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *