Published: 2026-01-14 00:00
I. Introduction
As a special form of arbitral tribunal composition in arbitration proceedings, the sole arbitral tribunal offers significant advantages in simplifying procedures, reducing costs, and enhancing efficiency for special cases, while respecting the principle of party autonomy. Article 12 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) systematically stipulates the “Composition of the Sole-Member Arbitral Tribunal”. On the one hand, it fully respects party autonomy and does not impose default provisions on the application of a sole arbitral tribunal based on certain conditions such as the subject matter of the case. On the other hand, it ensures the efficient and impartial formation of the arbitral tribunal when a sole arbitral tribunal is used to hear a case through clear procedural rules and the auxiliary functions of the Court of Arbitration.
II. The Original Text of Article 12
Article 12. Composition of the Sole-Member Arbitral Tribunal
1.If the parties reach an agreement on the sole-arbitrator arbitration, a party may nominate one or more candidates as the sole arbitrator to the other parties.
2.Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or reasonably extended by the Court of Arbitration, within twenty-one (21) days as of the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings, if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the appointment of the sole arbitrator or upon the application by either party, the Court of Arbitration shall appoint a sole arbitrator for arbitration.
3.Unless the parties agree not to appoint arbitrators from the Panel of Arbitrators or the Court of Arbitration deems it inappropriate to appoint arbitrators from the Panel of Arbitrators, the Court of Arbitration shall appoint a sole arbitrator as soon as possible in accordance with the following procedures:
(a)the Court of Arbitration shall provide the parties with a list of three to five sole arbitrator candidates;
(b)the parties shall, within seven (7) days as of the date of receiving the aforesaid candidate list, appoint one to three sole arbitrator candidates and submit the appointment to the Court of Arbitration;
(c)after the expiration of the aforesaid period, if there is one candidate jointly appointed by the parties, the candidate so appointed shall be the sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the parties; if there are two or more candidates jointly appointed by the parties, the Court of Arbitration shall determine one of them as the sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the parties according to the specific circumstances of the case; if there is no candidate jointly appointed by the parties, the Court of Arbitration will directly appoint a sole arbitrator for the parties outside the candidate list.
4.In making the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Court of Arbitration shall fully consider the suggestions of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case.
III. Analysis of paragraphs
(1) If the parties reach an agreement on the sole-arbitrator arbitration, a party may nominate one or more candidates as the sole arbitrator to the other parties.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph is the most direct reflection of the principle of party autonomy in the stage of forming the arbitral tribunal. Its core characteristics are as follows:
(1) Granting an active right of nomination: It explicitly grants any party the right to “actively nominate candidates to other parties”, instead of the passive situation of waiting for consultations, which encourages active party participation in the construction of the procedure.
(2) Flexibility in the scope of nomination: It allows the nomination of “one or more” candidates that provides the parties with strategic space. Nominating multiple candidates can increase the probability of reaching a consensus and also demonstrate the party’s willingness to cooperate and its range of preferences to the other party, which is a flexible procedural design.
(3) Building a foundation for consultation: The act of nomination itself sets specific issues for consultations among the parties, transforming the abstract task of “selecting an arbitrator” into a discussion on specific candidates, which significantly improves the efficiency of targeted negotiations .
(4) Feasibility under the “one-stop dispute resolution” process for dispute prevention and settlement. In standalone litigation and arbitration proceedings, the process is often conducted against a backdrop of strong adversarial disputes between the parties. Therefore, many arbitration rules do not stipulate the parties' right to active nomination. From the perspective of ICDPASO’s prevention-mediation-arbitration process, parties usually initiate the dispute resolution process with ICDPASO by seeking third-party good offices and consultation, which in itself is a process of trust reconstruction. In this context, the parties' right to nomination is not only an opportunity to rebuild cooperation but also necessary to lay the foundation for jointly addressing issues in the future.
2.Comparative analysis
ICC Arbitration Rulesi focus more on joint nomination by the parties or direct appointment by the Court of Arbitration, and do not explicitly encourage the unilateral nomination of multiple candidates, reflecting a relatively stronger institutional leadership role. SIACii and HKIAC Arbitration Rulesiii do not explicitly encourage and regulate unilateral nomination procedure. In practice, it mostly relies on the parties’ spontaneous negotiations or direct decision by the institution. LCIA Arbitration Rulesiv provide that 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). SCC Arbitration Rulesv also focus on party agreement or institutional appointment, and do not establish a similar active nomination mechanism.
The innovation of this paragraph in the ICDPASO Rules lies in that it implements the concept of “party-led” from the principle level into specific and operable procedural rights, incorporating a stronger element of party autonomy at the starting point of the composition of the arbitral tribunal.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
Article 12, Paragraph 1 of the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules reflects the procedural extension of the principle of freedom of contract. Arbitration is essentially a dispute resolution method based on the parties’ agreement. This paragraph extends the spirit of freedom of contract to the stage of forming the arbitral tribunal. The parties not only have the right to agree on the form of arbitration but also have the right to actively select candidates to perform the “adjudicative function”, which is one of the fundamental characteristics that distinguishes arbitration from litigation.
This paragraph is also a mechanism to promote procedural efficiency. By granting the parties the right to actively nominate, it aims to encourage the parties to negotiate independently and strive to resolve the issue of forming the arbitral tribunal through cooperation before the institution intervenes. This is in line with the efficiency principle of “allowing the parties to advance the procedure on their own as much as possible”, avoiding unnecessary institutional intervention and the resulting time costs.
This paragraph also satisfies the parties’ expectations of due process. Allowing the parties to nominate candidates they trust enhances the parties’ trust in the fairness of the arbitration procedure. Even if the final candidate is not nominated by them, the existence of this procedural right itself endows the parties with a greater sense of procedural participation and acceptance of the arbitral tribunal.
(2) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties or reasonably extended by the Court of Arbitration, within twenty-one (21) days as of the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings, if the parties fail to reach an agreement on the appointment of the sole arbitrator or upon the application by either party, the Court of Arbitration shall appoint a sole arbitrator for arbitration.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph serves as a “safety valve” and “propeller” to prevent the procedure from falling into a deadlock, with three main core characteristics:
Firstly, there is a clear time constraint, setting a definite time limit of “within twenty-one (21) days as of the date of commencement of the arbitral proceedings”. This provision sets a clear time frame for the parties’ negotiations, establishes a sense of institutional procedural urgency, and prevents the procedure from being delayed indefinitely.
Secondly, there is a dual-trigger mechanism. The conditions for the Court of Arbitration to make an appointment include “the parties fail to reach an agreement” or “upon the application by either party”. The latter is particularly important. It entitles any party to unilaterally initiate the institutional appointment procedure when they believe that negotiations are hopeless or delayed by the other party, which effectively guarantees procedural efficiency. In practice, there are precedents where parties directly apply to the Court of Arbitration for appointment, thereby bypassing the 21-day period to enhance the efficiency of the trail.
Finally, there is the mandatory obligation of the institution. The provision uses the expression “shall appoint”, which means that once the conditions are met, the Court of Arbitration is obligated to make an appointment in a timely manner, ensuring the certainty and predictability of the procedure.
2.Comparative analysis
The statutory time limits under ICC are 30 days from the date when the claimant’s Request for Arbitration has been received by the other party or parties, under SIAC are 21 days from the date of commencement of the arbitration, and under SCC are 10 days. The clear time limit of 21 days in Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules is its prominent feature. This paragraph aligns with mainstream international rule practice, provides a precise and predictable procedural time standard, reducing the uncertainty caused by ambiguous rules and reflecting the precision of rule design.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
Article 12, Paragraph 2 of the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules reflects the integrated value of procedural efficiency and transparency. As a legal proverb goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied”. The clear time limit provision is an embodiment of procedural transparency. It ensures that the arbitration procedure can proceed steadily within a predictable timetable, avoiding the impairment of the efficiency of the entire arbitration procedure due to stagnation in the initial stage.
This paragraph also endows the institutional management function with the basis for the legitimacy. When the parties’ autonomy fails to produce a result, the supplementary management function of the arbitration institution becomes legitimate. This paragraph clarifies the conditions and responsibilities for the institution’s intervention, which is the concretization of the principle of “supporting arbitration” at the institutional rule level, ensuring that the arbitration procedure will not stall due to disagreement among the parties.
This paragraph also establishes a mechanism for the right balance. While safeguarding the right of one party to apply for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, it also takes into account the respect for the parties’ negotiation wishes in special circumstances through the exception of “reasonable extension”, avoiding the injustice that may be caused by the mechanical application of the rules, and reflecting the unity of principle and flexibility.
(3) Unless the parties agree not to appoint arbitrators from the Panel of Arbitrators or the Court of Arbitration deems it inappropriate to appoint arbitrators from the Panel of Arbitrators, the Court of Arbitration shall appoint a sole arbitrator as soon as possible in accordance with the following procedures:
(a)the Court of Arbitration shall provide the parties with a list of three to five sole arbitrator candidates;
(b)the parties shall, within seven (7) days as of the date of receiving the aforesaid candidate list, appoint one to three sole arbitrator candidates and submit the appointment to the Court of Arbitration;
(c)after the expiration of the aforesaid period, if there is one candidate jointly appointed by the parties, the candidate so appointed shall be the sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the parties; if there are two or more candidates jointly appointed by the parties, the Court of Arbitration shall determine one of them as the sole arbitrator jointly appointed by the parties according to the specific circumstances of the case; if there is no candidate jointly appointed by the parties, the Court of Arbitration will directly appoint a sole arbitrator for the parties outside the candidate list.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph stipulates the “structured consultation” or “panel matching” procedure for the Court of Arbitration to appoint a sole arbitrator, which is the essence of its institutional design.
(1) Hierarchical and structured procedure: In the absence of agreement between the parties, this procedure is not a simple institutional appointment, but still grants the parties a second opportunity for autonomy, including three stages: “provision of a list → party selection → institutional matching/determination”, which organically combines institutional appointment with party selection.
(2) Maximum respect for the parties’ will: The core logic is to allow the parties to “jointly appoint” an arbitrator by their own selection as much as possible through rule design. Only when the parties fail to naturally select a single candidate through full autonomy of will, the institution exercises the final determining power or the power to appoint outside the list as a fallback mechanism to ensure the continuation of the arbitration procedure.
(3) Progressive matching rules: According to the overlap of the parties’ selections, three progressive processing methods are set: if there is only one overlap, the candidate is automatically elected; if there are two or more overlaps, the institution determines the candidate at its discretion; if there is no overlap, the institution appoints a candidate outside the list. This set of rules is like a “decision tree”, with rigorous logic and clear direction. On the basis of maximizing respect for the parties’ autonomy, it ensures that the arbitration procedure can continue in various cases through rule design.
2.Comparative analysis
ICC Arbitration Rules do not adopt the list procedure at all. The Court of ICC makes direct appointments, and the candidates nominated by the parties also need to be confirmed by it, giving the institution the greater discretion. Although SIAC/HKIAC Arbitration Rules stipulate that a list may be provided, they do not set it as a default and structured mandatory procedure, with a high degree of flexibility in specific operations. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules vi explicitly provide that in making the appointment, the appointing authority shall use the following list-procedure, unless the parties agree that the list-procedure should not be used or unless the appointing authority determines in its discretion that the use of the list-procedure is not appropriate for the case.
Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules takes the list procedure as the “default rule” for appointing a sole arbitrator (unless the parties agree not to appoint arbitrators from the Panel or the Court of Arbitration deems it inappropriate), which is quite distinctive among international arbitration rules. According to this provision, the parties have procedural rights to select an arbitrator by autonomy of will twice. Only when the two selections fail to reach an agreement, the Court of Arbitration exercises the fallback management function to ensure the continuation of the arbitration procedure, which systematically and institutionally safeguards the parties’ participation in the institutional appointment process.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
(1) The generation mechanism of “quasi-consensus”: Even when the parties are unable to reach an agreement on their own, this procedure still seeks to unearth and confirm the parties’ “potential consensus”. When both parties select the same candidate, this is regarded as a “joint appointment”; when there are multiple overlapping selections, the institution determines the candidate from the overlapping ones, which is also a respect for the parties’ range of preference . This design aims to approach the parties’ consensus as much as possible and maximize the maintenance of the contractual nature of arbitration.
(2) Restraint and guidance of institutional discretion: The role of the Court of Arbitration in this procedure is first and foremost a “facilitator” who provides and aggregates opinions. Its management function is activated only when necessary (if there are multiple overlaps or no overlaps), and is restricted by the “specific circumstances of the case”. This reflects the restraint in the exercise of institutional power and the guidance rather than supplanting of the parties’ autonomy.
(3) Rebalancing procedural justice and efficiency: Although the list procedure has a few more steps than direct institutional appointment, the total time is still controllable due to the clear 7-day selection period. By slightly increasing the procedural complexity, it gains the parties’ higher acceptance of the composition of the arbitral tribunal and a sense of procedural justice, which makes it a more refined and modern balancing act.
(4) In making the appointment of a sole arbitrator, the Court of Arbitration shall fully consider the suggestions of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph is a principled guidance and constraint on the Court of Arbitration when exercising the power of direct appointment.
(1) Mandatory nature of consideration elements: The provision uses the expression “shall fully consider”, which indicates that when making a direct appointment, the Court of Arbitration is under a legal obligation to actively consider the suggestions of the partiesand the specific circumstances of the case.
(2) Concretization of consideration content: “The suggestions of the parties” include any oral or written opinions and preferences put forward by the parties in the entire process; “specific circumstances of the case” cover the professional field, complexity, amount in dispute, nationality of the parties, seat of arbitration, required language and other relevant factors.
(3) Connection to the preceding procedure: This paragraph is particularly applicable to the situation of “appointment from outside the candidate list” in Paragraph 3, ensuring that even when there is no overlap in the parties’ selections, the institution’s appointment can reflect the participation of the procedure and the particularity of the individual case.
2.Comparative analysis
Most other major institutional rules implicitly contain similar requirements, but ICDPASO Rules emphasize them in the text with clear and independent clauses. This reflects the greater focus of the ICDPASO Rules on ensuring the transparency and predictability of the appointment procedure.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
This clause reflects the deepening of the due process principle. Due process not only requires the arbitrators themselves to be independent and impartial but also requires the procedure for appointing arbitrators to be fair. Requiring the institution to fully consider the parties’ opinions when making an appointment is an embodiment of safeguarding the parties’ “right to be heard” in the stage of forming the arbitral tribunal, enhancing the legitimacy of the entire procedure.
This paragraph is also a protection of the parties’ reliance interests. The parties have invested time, money, and trust in the arbitration procedure. Requiring the Court of Arbitration to consider their suggestions is a protection of the reliance interests formed by the parties’ procedural participation, helping to improve the parties’ participation, trust, and satisfaction with 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, marks the comprehensive integration of China’s arbitration system with international advanced practices. Article 12 of the ICDPASO Rules shows a high degree of alignment and synergy with this Law.
1.Strong resonance with the principle of party autonomy: The New Arbitration Law strengthens party autonomy throughout. Paragraphs 1 (active nomination) and 3 (list selection) of Article 12 of the ICDPASO Rules are the vivid practical application and institutional development of this principle in the stage of forming the arbitral tribunal, providing Chinese parties with procedural tools that fully reflect their wishes when participating in international arbitration.
2.Direct response to the legislative objective of “improving arbitration efficiency”: The New Arbitration Law clearly takes “fair, prompt” arbitration of disputes as its legislative purpose. The 21-day time limit and mandatory appointment obligation in Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the ICDPASO Rules, as well as the clear time limit system of the entire set of rules, are the procedural fulfillment of the “prompt” objective, which can effectively prevent procedural delays and conform to the value pursuit of efficiency in the New Arbitration Law.
3.Clear guidance on the “standardization of institutional responsibilities”: The New Arbitration Law puts forward higher requirements for the responsibilities and standards of conduct of arbitration institutions. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 12 of the ICDPASO Rules detail the procedures, standards, and consideration factors for the Court of Arbitration when appointing arbitrators, setting clear boundaries and positive guidance for the exercise of power by the institution, which is fully consistent with the spirit of the New Arbitration Law emphasizing institutional responsibility and standardized operation.
V. Conclusion
Through the sophisticated design of the mechanism for composition of the sole-member arbitral tribunal, Article 12 of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules constructs a hierarchical and interlocking procedural framework. It starts with the full empowerment of party autonomy (Paragraph 1), is supplemented by clear ex post facto and institutional guarantees to prevent deadlocks (Paragraph 2), is deepened by a structured appointment procedure that maximizes respect for the parties’ will (Paragraph 3), and finally ends with reasonable constraints on institutional discretion (Paragraph 4). This design not only demonstrates its sophistication and balance in comparison with major international arbitration rules, but also is deeply rooted in the contractual nature of arbitration and the jurisprudential basis of procedural justice. Meanwhile, it is highly consistent with the spirit of revision and specific provisions of the New Arbitration Law, providing international commercial entities with a modern dispute resolution tool that combines international perspective, procedural justice, efficiency, and convenience.
i.ICC Arbitration Rules art. 12(2021), which provides that: “ARTICLE 12 Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal Sole Arbitrator Where the parties have agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by a sole arbitrator, they may, by agreement, nominate the sole arbitrator for confirmation. If the parties fail to nominate a sole arbitrator within 30 days from the date when the claimant’s Request for Arbitration has been received by the other party or parties, or within such additional time as may be allowed by the Secretariat, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the Court.”
ii.SIAC Rules art. 21(2025), which provides that: “21. Sole Arbitrator 21.1 Where a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the parties may jointly nominate the sole arbitrator within 21 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. 21.2 If the parties are not able to jointly nominate the sole arbitrator within 21 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 President shall appoint the sole arbitrator.”
iii.HKIAC Rules art. 7(2024), which provides that: “Article 7 – Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator 7.1 Unless the parties have agreed otherwise: (a) where the parties have agreed before the arbitration commences that the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, they shall jointly designate the sole arbitrator within 30 days from the date the Notice of Arbitration was received by the Respondent. (b) where the parties have agreed after the arbitration commences to refer the dispute to a sole arbitrator, they shall jointly designate the sole arbitrator within 15 days from the date of that agreement. (c) where the parties have not agreed upon the number of arbitrators and HKIAC has decided that the dispute shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, the parties shall jointly designate the sole arbitrator within 15 days from the date HKIAC’s decision was received by the last of them. 7.2 If the parties fail to designate the sole arbitrator within the applicable time limit, HKIAC shall appoint the sole arbitrator. 7.3 Where the parties have agreed on a different procedure for designating the sole arbitrator and such procedure does not result in a designation within a time limit agreed by the parties or set by HKIAC, HKIAC shall appoint the sole arbitrator.”
iv.LCIA Rules art. 5(2020), which provides that: “5.8 A sole arbitrator shall be appointed unless the parties have agreed in writing otherwise or the LCIA Court determines that in the circumstances a three-member tribunal is appropriate (or, exceptionally, more than three).”
v.SCC Rules art. 17(2023), which provides that: “Article 17 Appointment of arbitrators (3) Where the Arbitral Tribunal is to consist of a sole arbitrator, the parties shall be given ten days to jointly appoint the arbitrator. If the parties fail to appoint the arbitrator within this time, the Board shall make the appointment.”
vi.UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules art. 8, 10(2021), which provides that: “Article 8 2 The appointing authority shall appoint the sole arbitrator as promptly as possible. In making the appointment, the appointing authority shall use the following list-procedure, unless the parties agree that the list-procedure should not be used or unless the appointing authority determines in its discretion that the use of the list-procedure is not appropriate for the case:
(a)The appointing authority shall communicate to each of the parties an identical list containing at least three names; (b) Within 15 days after the receipt of this list, each party may return the list to the appointing authority after having deleted the name or names to which it objects and numbered the remaining names on the list in the order of its preference; (c) After the expiration of the above period of time the appointing authority shall appoint the sole arbitrator from among the names approved on the lists returned to it and in accordance with the order of preference indicated by the parties; (d) If for any reason the appointment cannot be made according to this procedure, the appointing authority may exercise its discretion in appointing the sole arbitrator.”
