ICDPASO商事仲裁规则释义系列：第十三条“三人仲裁庭的组成”

一、引言

在国际商事仲裁中，基于保障当事人选择仲裁员的权利，平衡仲裁庭内部合议机制，三人仲裁庭是基础和常见的仲裁庭组成方式。也是仲裁规则第十一条在规则和当事人未作出特别约定的情况的默认选择。它通过融合多元视角、专业知识和法律文化，为裁决的公正性、权威性提供了坚实保障。国际商事争端预防与解决组织（ICDPASO）《商事仲裁规则》第十三条对“三人仲裁庭的组成”作出了清晰、高效且平衡的制度安排。该条款在充分尊重当事人意思自治这一仲裁基石的同时，通过明确的程序规则和仲裁院的补充性职能，有效防范了因一方当事人消极或缺席而导致的程序僵局，确保了仲裁庭能够及时、顺利地组建。

二、规则原文

第十三条三人仲裁庭的组成

（一）除当事人另有约定外，三人仲裁庭由各方当事人各自指定一名仲裁员，并书面通知仲裁院。第三名仲裁员由当事人指定的两名仲裁员共同选定，担任仲裁庭首席仲裁员。

申请人或被申请人为多个当事人的，应当协商共同选定一名仲裁员；当事人无法达成一致的，可以共同委托仲裁院指定。

（二）当事人自收到受理通知之日起14日内，或者当事人约定或仲裁院确定的期限内，未将其指定的仲裁员书面通知仲裁院和另一方当事人的，另一方当事人可以请求仲裁院指定第二名仲裁员。

（三）自指定第二名仲裁员之日起7日内，或者当事人约定或仲裁院确定的期限内，被指定的两名仲裁员未就首席仲裁员人选达成一致意见的，仲裁院依

照本规则第十二条指定独任仲裁员的方式，指定首席仲裁员。

三、条文解析

（一）除当事人另有约定外，三人仲裁庭由各方当事人各自指定一名仲裁员，并书面通知仲裁院。第三名仲裁员由当事人指定的两名仲裁员共同选定，担任仲裁庭首席仲裁员。

申请人或被申请人为多个当事人的，应当协商共同选定一名仲裁员；当事人无法达成一致的，可以共同委托仲裁院指定。

1.核心特点解析

本款确立了三人仲裁庭组成的基本原则和程序，其核心特点主要有三方面：

（1）当事人意思自治与默认规则。“除当事人另有约定外”明确了当事人协议优先，但紧随其后提供了一套完整、可操作的默认组成规则。这既尊重了当事人的特别安排，又确保了在无约定时的程序确定性。

（2）经典的“当事人-当事人-仲裁员”指定模式。采用了国际通行的指定方式，即由申请人和被申请人各指定一名仲裁员，这两名仲裁员再共同选定首席仲裁员。此模式平衡了双方当事人的选择权，并通过仲裁员间的专业性来产生首席。这一设计避免了传统要求双方当事人直接就首席仲裁员人选达成合意的做法，因后者在实践中往往难以实现，且易导致程序拖延和额外争议。

（3）多方当事人情形的特殊规制。针对申请方或被申请方为多方当事人的常见复杂情况，明确规定多方当事人“应当协商共同选定一名仲裁员”。这为解决多方仲裁中可能出现的内部意见不一致提供了明确的规则指引，并设定了无法达成一致时的后备方案“共同委托仲裁院指定”，有效防止了因内部僵局阻碍整个仲裁程序的推进。

2.比较法视角

UNCITRAL仲裁规则（第9、10条）1同样采用各方指定一名仲裁员，再由被指定的两名仲裁员选定首席的模式。对于多方当事人，要求其共同指定，否则机构可为此撤销任何已作出的指定，然后指定或重新指定每一名仲裁员，并指定其中一人担任首席仲裁员。SIAC规则（第22、23条）2采用各方各指定一名仲裁员，主席指定首席仲裁员的模式。对于多方当事人，要求其共同指定。HKIAC规则（第8条）3与ICDPASO模式相似，均为基础指定模式加多方当事人共同指定要求。ICC规则（第12条）4规定，首席仲裁员由ICC仲裁院直接指定，而非由当事人指定的仲裁员共同选定。ICC仲裁院也可在多方当事人未共同指定的情况下指定全部仲裁员。LCIA规则（第5条 & 第7条）5规定，LCIA负责指定仲裁员，即使当事人已有人选，也需经LCIA确认。SCC规则（第17条）6规定每一方当事人应指定同等人数的仲裁员，并由理事会指定首席仲裁员。多方当事人应各自共同指定同等人数的仲裁员，如果一方未能共同指定，理事会指定整个仲裁庭。

ICDPASO此款采取了与UNCITRAL、HKIAC相近的、更体现当事人意愿的“仲裁员共选首席”模式，相较于机构主导性更强的模式，赋予了当事人及当事人选定的仲裁员更大的自主空间。

3.法理性分析

（1）ICDPASO仲裁规则第十三条第一款是仲裁契约性的核心体现。允许各方当事人指定一名自己信任的仲裁员，是仲裁区别于诉讼、体现其基于当事人合意的契约本质的最显著特征之一。这增强了当事人对仲裁程序的接受度和信心。

（2）本款同样建立了程序公正与制衡机制。双方各自指定仲裁员，构成了仲裁庭内部的初步制衡结构，确保了双方的观点和立场都能在仲裁庭内部得到充分理解和代表。随后由这两位仲裁员共同选定首席，旨在形成一个中立、协作的决策核心，有利于裁决的公正性。

（3）体现了程序效率与确定性的保障。对多方当事人情形下的指定程序进行明确规定，是预判并解决实践难题的体现。它避免了因规则模糊导致的程序拖延，体现了现代仲裁规则对复杂商业现实的积极回应，与ICDPASO规则第六条（多份合同的仲裁）、第七条（追加当事人）等条款共同构建了处理复杂仲裁案件的程序体系。

（二）当事人自收到受理通知之日起14日内，或者当事人约定或仲裁院确定的期限内，未将其指定的仲裁员书面通知仲裁院和另一方当事人的，另一方当事人可以请求仲裁院指定第二名仲裁员。

1.核心特点解析

本款是针对一方当事人怠于行使指定权而设置的“程序加速器”，其核心在于：

（1）明确的期限与触发条件。设定了“收到受理通知之日起14日内”的明确期限。一方逾期未指定，即触发救济程序。

（2）对等救济权利。赋予另一方当事人“请求仲裁院指定第二名仲裁员”的权利。这是一种对等的程序权利，防止一方通过不作为获得程序优势或拖延程序。

（3）当事人在适当通知的情况下逾期不履行义务的处理。实践中存在规则第三十一条规定的适当通知的情况下，当事人缺席仲裁程序的情况，此时通过申请人请求指定仲裁员来填补空缺，一方面敦促当事人尤其是申请人及时和对方保持沟通以便尽快推进程序，另外一方面确保仲裁庭组建程序不因一方的不配合而无法继续推进。

2.比较法视角

UNCITRAL仲裁规则（第9条）规定指定期限内未指定，由指定机构代为指定。时限通常为30日。SIAC规则（第22条）规定主席在当事人未在规定期限内指定时指定，时限通常为14日。HKIAC规则（第8条）规定，委员会在当事人未按期指定时指定，时限通常为15日。ICC规则（第12条）规定由仲裁院直接指定，未明确规定因一方未指定而由另一方申请触发的机制。LCIA规则（第7条）规定仅LCIA有权指定仲裁员。SCC规则（第17条）规定委员会在当事人未能在规定时限内指定时指定，未明确时限，不涉及由一方申请指定另一方仲裁员的情形。

ICDPASO此款的特色在于其明确的期限（14日）和清晰的可触发机制（另一方当事人请求），相对于“合理期限”的表述或由机构依职权直接指定的模式更具可操作性和可预测性，为当事人提供了明确的程序预期。

3.法理性分析

（1）程序安定性与效率原则。本款规定通过施加明确的期限，督促当事人积极行使权利、履行程序义务，是程序安定性和效率原则的直接体现。它防止了因程序启动阶段的拖延损害仲裁“高效”解决争议的核心价值。

（2）正当程序与权利平衡。在一方当事人放弃其指定权时，由仲裁院代为指定，而非由另一方代为选择，保障了仲裁庭组成的基本公正。这既是对怠于行使权利一方的程序性制裁，也是对积极方程序权利的救济，同时确保了被指定仲裁员的中立性，符合正当程序的要求。

（3）支持仲裁原则的制度化。本款是“支持仲裁”原则在仲裁庭组建环节的具体化。当当事人自治无法推进程序时，仲裁机构的补充性管理职能及时介入，确保仲裁协议得以执行，避免了因程序问题导致争端解决机制落空。

（三）自指定第二名仲裁员之日起7日内，或者当事人约定或仲裁院确定的期限内，被指定的两名仲裁员未就首席仲裁员人选达成一致意见的，仲裁院依照本规则第十二条指定独任仲裁员的方式，指定首席仲裁员。

1.核心特点解析

本款解决了首席仲裁员选任这一三人仲裁庭组成中的最后也是最为关键的一环，其核心在于：

（1）明确的协商期限。给予当事人指定的两名仲裁员“自指定第二名仲裁员之日起7日内”的期限以达成一致，体现了对效率的追求。

（2）程序的高度制度化与衔接性。在两名仲裁员未能按期达成一致时，仲裁院并非自由裁量，而是“依照本规则第十二条指定独任仲裁员的方式，指定首席仲裁员”。这意味着将启用第十二条第三款的双轨制名单法（List Procedure），形成一个高度结构化、透明化的指定程序。

（3）意思自治的再强调。名单法程序本质上是将选择首席仲裁员的权利在一定程度上交回到了当事人手中。仲裁院提供名单，由各方当事人（而非仲裁员）再从中选择，最终根据选择的重合情况确定人选。这极大地增强了当事人对首席仲裁员选任程序的参与感和影响力。

2.比较法视角

UNCITRAL仲裁规则（第9条）规定两名仲裁员未能在约定时间内选定首席，由指定机构使用名单法或其他方式指定。

SIAC规则（第22条）规定主席在考虑各方建议后指定首席。

HKIAC规则（第8条）规定首席仲裁员由已产生的两位仲裁员提名。若未能在第二位仲裁员被确认或指定后30日内作出提名，HKIAC应指定首席仲裁员。ICC规则（第12条）规定首席仲裁员由ICC仲裁院直接指定，不采用名单法。LCIA规则（第8条）规定首席仲裁员由LCIA指定。SCC规则（第17条）规定首席仲裁员由理事会指定。

ICDPASO此款的显著特点在于其明确地链接了第十二条的名单法程序。这与UNCITRAL规则精神一致，与完全由机构裁量指定的模式对比，ICDPASO规则赋予了当事人更直接、更制度化的参与权利。

3.法理性分析

（1）最大化当事人合意的再次努力。即使在仲裁员层面无法就首席人选达成一致，规则仍通过名单法程序，为当事人创造了又一次达成“潜在合意”的机会。这深刻地体现了ICDPASO仲裁规则对当事人意思自治原则的执着追求，力求在程序的每一个关键环节都渗透当事人的共同意志。

（2）机构裁量权的规范与透明化行使。要求仲裁院依照第十二条的程序指定，实质上是将机构的自由裁量权装入“结构化程序”的笼子。名单法及其匹配规则，使得首席仲裁员的最终产生过程有章可循、高度透明，有效避免了机构指定可能带来的主观性和不透明性质疑，增强了程序公正性。

（3）规则体系的内在协调与效率。本款与第十二条（独任仲裁庭的组成）的巧妙衔接，体现了规则体系设计的精巧与经济性。它复用了一套已被证明行之有效的指定机制，减少了规则的复杂性，同时为当事人和仲裁员提供了统一、熟悉的程序体验，提升了整体程序效率。

四、与中国新修仲裁法接轨和适配性

2025年9月12日修订的《中华人民共和国仲裁法》（以下简称“新修《仲裁法》”）致力于构建更加现代化、国际化的仲裁制度，ICDPASO规则第十三条与该法的精神和具体规定呈现出深度的契合性与协同效应。

（一）深化当事人意思自治，与新法精神同频共振

新修《仲裁法》全面强化当事人意思自治原则。ICDPASO第十三条第一款以当事人选择为默认规则，第三款通过名单法让当事人深度参与首席仲裁员的选任，正是对该原则的彻底贯彻。这为当事人在国际仲裁中充分表达其意愿、选择其信任的裁判者提供了坚实的程序保障。

（二）明确程序时限，响应新法对效率的追求

新修《仲裁法》将“公正、及时”解决纠纷作为立法目的。ICDPASO第十三条第二款的“14日”指定期限、第三款的“7日”协商期限，构成了一个清晰、紧凑的仲裁庭组建时间表，能有效防止程序拖延，与中国新修《仲裁法》对“及时”的价值追求高度一致。

（三）规范机构职责，契合新修仲裁法对机构建设要求

新修《仲裁法》对仲裁机构的规范化和专业化建设提出了更高要求。ICDPASO规则中仲裁院的职能定位——尊重当事人选择为前提，在出现僵局时依明确规则及时补位（第二款），并以高度结构化的程序行使指定权（第三款）——完美契合了这一要求。这为仲裁机构如何行使程序管理权提供了范本，体现了程序正当性。

五、结语

ICDPASO《商事仲裁规则》第十三条通过三款环环相扣的规定，构建了一套兼具契约精神、程序效率与制度公正的三人仲裁庭组成机制。它始于对当事人意思自治的经典诠释（第一款），辅以针对程序惰性的高效矫正机制（第二款），并最终以高度制度化、参与性的方式攻克首席仲裁员选任这一难题（第三款）。在与国际主要仲裁规则的比较中，其明确的期限、结构化的名单法以及对当事人参与的高度尊重，构成了其鲜明的制度竞争力。尤为重要的是，该条款与新中国《仲裁法》在理念、规则与实践层面均展现出深度的适配性，为将ICDPASO打造成为一个深受信任的国际争端解决平台奠定了坚实的规则基础。

1.Article 9

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, each party shall appoint one arbitrator. The two arbitrators thus appointed shall choose the third arbitrator who will act as the presiding arbitrator of the arbitral tribunal.

If within 30 days after the receipt of a party’s notification of the appointment of an arbitrator the other party has not notified the first party of the arbitrator it has appointed, the first party may request the appointing authority to appoint the second arbitrator.

If within 30 days after the appointment of the second arbitrator the two arbitrators have not agreed on the choice of the presiding arbitrator, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the appointing authority in the same way as a sole arbitrator would be appointed under article 8.

Article 10

For the purposes of article 9, paragraph 1, where three arbitrators are to be appointed and there are multiple parties as claimant or as respondent, unless the parties have agreed to another method of appointment of arbitrators, the multiple parties jointly, whether as claimant or as respondent, shall appoint an arbitrator.

In the event of any failure to constitute the arbitral tribunal under these Rules, the appointing authority shall, at the request of any party, constitute the arbitral tribunal and, in doing so, may revoke any appointment already made and appoint or reappoint each of the arbitrators and designate one of them as the presiding arbitrator. 

2. 22. Three Arbitrators

22.1 Where three arbitrators are to be appointed, the Claimant shall nominate an arbitrator within 14 days from the date of commencement of the arbitration or within the period of time otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, and the Respondent shall nominate an arbitrator within 14 days of the receipt of the Claimant’s nomination of an arbitrator or within the period of time otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar.22.2 If a party fails to nominate an arbitrator within the timelines under Rule 22.1, the President shall appoint an arbitrator on its behalf.22.3 The presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the President, unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for the nomination of the presiding arbitrator or if such agreed procedure does not result in a nomination of the presiding arbitrator within the period agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar.

23. Multi-Party Appointment of Three Arbitrators

23.1 Where there are more than two parties to the arbitration and three arbitrators are to be appointed, the Claimant(s) shall jointly nominate an arbitrator and the Respondent(s) shall jointly nominate an arbitrator within 28 days from the date of commencement of the arbitration or within the period of time otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar. The presiding arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with Rule 22.3.23.2 In the absence of joint nominations from both the Claimant(s) and the Respondent(s) having been made within 28 days from the date of commencement of the arbitration or within the period otherwise agreed by the parties or set by the Registrar, the President shall appoint all three arbitrators and designate the presiding arbitrator.

3. Article 8 – Appointment of Three Arbitrators

8.1 Where a dispute between two parties is referred to three arbitrators, the arbitral tribunal shall be constituted as follows, unless the parties have agreed otherwise:(a) where the parties have agreed before the arbitration commences that the dispute shall be referred to three arbitrators, each party shall designate in the Notice of Arbitration and the Answer to the Notice of Arbitration, respectively, one arbitrator. If either party fails to designate an arbitrator, HKIAC shall appoint the arbitrator.(b) where the parties have agreed after the arbitration commences to refer the dispute to three arbitrators, the Claimant shall designate an arbitrator within 15 days from the date of that agreement, and the Respondent shall designate an arbitrator within 15 days from receiving notice of the Claimant’s designation. If a party fails to designate an arbitrator, HKIAC shall appoint the arbitrator.(c) where the parties have not agreed upon the number of arbitrators and HKIAC has decided that the dispute shall be referred to three arbitrators, the Claimant shall designate an arbitrator within 15 days from receipt of HKIAC's decision, and the Respondent shall designate an arbitrator within 15 days from receiving notice of the Claimant’s designation. If a party fails to designate an arbitrator, HKIAC shall appoint the arbitrator.(d) the two arbitrators so appointed shall designate a third arbitrator, who shall act as the presiding arbitrator. Failing such designation within 30 days from the confirmation or appointment of the second arbitrator, HKIAC shall appoint the presiding arbitrator.

8.2 Where there are more than two parties to the arbitration and the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, the arbitral tribunal shall be constituted as follows, unless the parties have agreed otherwise:(a) the Claimant or group of Claimants shall designate an arbitrator and the Respondent or group of Respondents shall designate an arbitrator in accordance with the procedure in Article 8.1(a), (b) or (c), as applicable;(b) if the parties have designated arbitrators in accordance with Article 8.2(a), the procedure in Article 8.1(d) shall apply to the designation of the presiding arbitrator;(c) in the event of any failure to designate arbitrators under Article 8.2(a) or if the parties do not all agree that they represent two separate sides (as Claimant and Respondent respectively) for the purposes of designating arbitrators, HKIAC may appoint all members of the arbitral tribunal with or without regard to any party’s designation.

8.3 Where the parties have agreed on a different procedure for designating three arbitrators and such procedure does not result in the designation of an arbitrator within a time limit agreed by the parties or set by HKIAC, HKIAC shall appoint the arbitrator.

4. ARTICLE 12 Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal - Three Arbitrators

4 Where the parties have agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by three arbitrators, each party shall nominate in the Request and the Answer, respectively, one arbitrator for confirmation. If a party fails to nominate an arbitrator, the appointment shall be made by the Court.

5 Where the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, the third arbitrator, who will act as president of the arbitral tribunal, shall be appointed by the Court, unless the parties have agreed upon another procedure for such appointment, in which case the nomination will be subject to confirmation pursuant to Article 13. Should such procedure not result in a nomination within 30 days from the confirmation or appointment of the co-arbitrators or any other time limit agreed by the parties or fixed by the Court, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the Court.

6 Where there are multiple claimants or multiple respondents, and where the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, the multiple claimants, jointly, and the multiple respondents, jointly, shall nominate an arbitrator for confirmation pursuant to Article 13.

7 Where an additional party has been joined (Article 7(1)), and where the dispute is to be referred to three arbitrators, the additional party may, jointly with the claimant(s) or with the respondent(s), nominate an arbitrator for confirmation pursuant to Article 13 and subject to Article 7(5).

8 In the absence of a joint nomination pursuant to Articles 12(6) or 12(7) and where all parties are unable to agree to a method for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the Court may appoint each member of the arbitral tribunal and shall designate one of them to act as president. In such cases, the Court shall be at liberty to choose any person it regards as suitable to act as arbitrator, applying Article 13 when it considers this appropriate.

9 Notwithstanding any agreement by the parties on the method of constitution of the arbitral tribunal, in exceptional circumstances the Court may appoint each member of the arbitral tribunal to avoid a significant risk of unequal treatment and unfairness that may affect the validity of the award.

5. 5.7 No party or third person may appoint any arbitrator under the Arbitration Agreement: the LCIA Court alone is empowered to appoint arbitrators (albeit taking into account any written agreement or joint nomination by the parties or nomination by the other candidates or arbitrators).

Article 7 Party and Other Nominations

7.1 If the parties have agreed howsoever that any arbitrator is to be appointed by one or more of them or by any third person (other than the LCIA Court), that agreement shall be treated under the Arbitration Agreement as an agreement to nominate an arbitrator for all purposes. Such nominee may only be appointed by the LCIA Court as arbitrator subject to that nominee’s compliance with Articles 5.3 to 5.5; and the LCIA Court shall refuse to appoint any nominee if it determines that the nominee is not so compliant or is otherwise unsuitable.7.2 Where the parties have howsoever agreed that the Claimant or the Respondent or any third person (other than the LCIA Court) is to nominate an arbitrator and such nomination is not made within time (in the Request, Response or otherwise), the LCIA Court may appoint an arbitrator notwithstanding the absence of a nomination. The LCIA Court may, but shall not be obliged to, take into consideration any late nomination.7.3 In the absence of written agreement between the Parties, no party may unilaterally nominate a sole arbitrator or presiding arbitrator.

6. Article 17 Appointment of arbitrators

(4) Where the Arbitral Tribunal is to consist of more than one arbitrator, each party shall appoint an equal number of arbitrators and the Board shall appoint the chairperson. Where a party fails to appoint any arbitrator within the stipulated time period, the Board shall make the appointment.

(5) Where there are multiple claimants or respondents and the Arbitral Tribunal is to consist of more than one arbitrator, the multiple claimants, jointly, and the multiple respondents, jointly, shall appoint an equal number of arbitrators. If either side fails to make such joint appointment, the Board may appoint the entire Arbitral Tribunal.