Published: 2026-01-14 00:00
In international commercial arbitration, a three-member arbitral tribunal is a fundamental and common form of tribunal composition, designed to safeguard parties’ right to select arbitrators and balance the internal deliberation mechanism of the tribunal. It is also the default choice under Article 11 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (“the Rules”) in the absence of agreement on the number of arbitrators by the parties or prescribed by the Rules. By integrating diverse perspectives, professional expertise, and legal cultures, it provides solid guarantees for the fairness and authority of arbitral awards. Article 13 of the Rules establishes a clear, efficient, and balanced institutional arrangement for the “composition of the three-member arbitral tribunal”. While fully respecting party autonomy – the cornerstone of arbitration, this article effectively prevents procedural deadlocks caused by the passivity or absence of a party through clear procedural rules and the supplementary functions of the Court of Arbitration, ensuring the timely and smooth composition of the arbitral tribunal.
II. The Original Text of Article 13
Article 13. Composition of the Three-Member Arbitral Tribunal
1.Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if the Arbitral Tribunal is composed of three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and notify the Court of Arbitration in writing. The third arbitrator shall be jointly appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to serve as the presiding arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.
If the Claimant or the Respondent consists of multiple parties, they shall jointly appoint an arbitrator through consultation; if the Claimant or the Respondent fail to reach a consensus, they may jointly entrust the Court of Arbitration for appointment.
2.If a party fails to notify the Court of Arbitration and the other party in writing of the arbitrator appointed by it within fourteen (14) days as of the date of receiving the Acceptance Notice, or within the time limit agreed by the parties or determined by the Court of Arbitration, the other party may request the Court of Arbitration to appoint a second arbitrator.
3.If the two arbitrators appointed fail to reach an agreement on the appointment of the presiding arbitrator within seven (7) days as of the date of appointment of the second arbitrator, or within the time limit agreed by the parties or determined by the Court of Arbitration, the Court of Arbitration will appoint the presiding arbitrator in accordance with the method of appointing a sole arbitrator specified in Article 12 of these Rules.
III. Analysis of paragraphs
(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if the Arbitral Tribunal is composed of three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and notify the Court of Arbitration in writing. The third arbitrator shall be jointly appointed by the two arbitrators appointed by the parties to serve as the presiding arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal.
If the Claimant or the Respondent consists of multiple parties, they shall jointly appoint an arbitrator through consultation; if the Claimant or the Respondent fail to reach a consensus, they may jointly entrust the Court of Arbitration for appointment.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph establishes the basic principles and procedures for the composition of a three-member arbitral tribunal, with three core characteristics:
(1)Party Autonomy and Default Rules: The phrase “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” clarifies that party agreements shall prevail, while a complete and operable set of default rules is provided thereafter. This not only respects the parties’ special arrangements but also ensures procedural certainty in the absence of an agreement.
(2)Classic “Party-Party-Arbitrator” Appointment Model: It adopts the internationally recognized appointment method, where the Claimant and the Respondent each appoint one arbitrator, and the two arbitrators then jointly appoint the presiding arbitrator. This model balances the parties’ right to choose and leverages the professionalism of the arbitrators to select the presiding arbitrator. This design avoids the traditional approach of requiring the parties to directly reach a consensus on the presiding arbitrator, which is often difficult to achieve in practice and may lead to procedural delays and additional disputes.
(3)Special Provisions for the Multi-Party Scenarios: For the common complex scenario involving multiple claimants or multiple respondents, it clearly stipulates that such parties “shall jointly appoint an arbitrator through consultation”. This provides clear rule guidance for resolving internal disagreements that may arise in multi-party arbitration and establishes a fallback option for “jointly entrusting the Court of Arbitration for appointment” to effectively prevent internal deadlocks from impeding the progress of the entire arbitration process.
2.Comparative analysis
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Articles 9 and 10)i also adopt the model where each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators then jointly select the presiding arbitrator. For multiple parties, they are required to appoint jointly, otherwise the institution may revoke any appointment already made and appoint or reappoint each of the arbitrators and designate one of them as the presiding arbitrator. SIAC Rules (Article 22, 23) ii adopt the model where each party appoints one arbitrator, and the President appoints the presiding arbitrator. For multiple parties, they are required to appoint jointly. HKIAC Rules (Article 8) iii are similar to the ICDPASO model, both adopt a basic appointment model supplemented by requirements for joint appointment by multiple parties. ICC Rules (Article 12)iv provide that the presiding arbitrator is directly appointed by the ICC Court, rather than jointly selected by the arbitrators appointed by the parties. The ICC Court may also appoint all arbitrators if multiple parties fail to make a joint appointment. LCIA Rules (Articles 5 & 7)v stipulate that the LCIA is responsible for appointing arbitrators, and even if the parties have candidates in mind, such candidates must be confirmed by the LCIA. SCC Rules (Article 17)vi provide that each party shall appoint an equal number of arbitrators and the Board shall appoint the presiding arbitrator. The multiple parties shall jointly appoint an equal number of arbitrators. If either side fails to make such joint appointment, the Board may appoint the entire Arbitral Tribunal.
This paragraph of the ICDPASO Rules adopts a model similar to those of the UNCITRAL and HKIAC Rules – the “arbitrators jointly select the presiding arbitrator” model, which better reflects the parties’ will. Compared with models where institutions play a more dominant role, it grants greater autonomy to the parties and the arbitrators appointed by them.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
(1)Article 13, Paragraph 1 of the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules constitutes the core reflection of the contractual nature of arbitration. Allowing each party to appoint an arbitrator they trust is one of the most distinctive features that distinguishes arbitration from litigation and reflects its contractual essence based on parties’ agreement. This enhances the parties’ acceptance of and confidence in the arbitration process.
(2)This paragraph also establishes a mechanism for procedural fairness and checks and balances. Each party appoints an arbitrator, thereby forming a preliminary checks-and-balances mechanism within the arbitral tribunal and ensuring that the views and positions of both parties are fully considered and represented therein. The subsequent joint appointment of the presiding arbitrator by these two arbitrators aims to form a neutral and collaborative decision-making core, which is conducive to the fairness of the award.
(3)It reflects the guarantee of procedural efficiency and certainty. The clear provisions on the appointment procedure in multi-party situations is a reflection of predicting and solving practical problems. It avoids procedural delays resulting from ambiguous rules, reflects the positive response of modern arbitration rules to complex commercial realities, and, together with Articles 6 (Arbitration of Multiple Contracts) and 7 (Joinder of Additional Parties) of the ICDPASO Rules, establishes a procedural framework for addressing complex arbitration cases.
(2) If a party fails to notify the Court of Arbitration and the other party in writing of the arbitrator appointed by it within fourteen (14) days as of the date of receiving the Acceptance Notice, or within the time limit agreed by the parties or determined by the Court of Arbitration, the other party may request the Court of Arbitration to appoint a second arbitrator.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph serves as a “procedural accelerator” for situations where a party is negligent in exercising its right to appoint an arbitrator, with its core characteristics as follows:
(1)Clear Time Limit and Trigger Conditions: It specifies a clear time limit of “within fourteen (14) days as of the date of receiving the Acceptance Notice”. If a party fails to make the appointment within the time limit, the remedy procedure is triggered.
(2)Reciprocal Remedial Right: It confers upon the other party the right to “request the Court of Arbitration to appoint the second arbitrator”. This is a reciprocal procedural right, preventing one party from gaining a procedural advantage or delaying the procedure through inaction.
(3)Handling of the parties’ failure to perform their obligations within the time limit where they have been duly notified. In practice, there are cases of the parties’ absence of the arbitral proceedings where they have been duly notified as stipulated in Article 31 of the Rules. In such circumstances, the claimant requests the appointment of an arbitrator to fill the vacancy, on the one hand, to urge the parties, especially the claimant, to maintain timely communication with the other party to advance the proceedings as soon as possible, on the other hand, to ensure that the formation process of arbitral tribunal is not hindered due to the non-cooperation of one party.
2.Comparative analysis
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 9) stipulate that if no appointment is made within the specified time limit, the appointing authority shall make the appointment on behalf of the party. The time limit is typically 30 days. SIAC Rules (Article 22) stipulate that the President appoints the arbitrator when the party fails to appoint with in the specified time limit, which is typically 14 days. HKIAC Rules (Article 8) stipulate that the commission appoints the arbitrator when the party fails to make the appointment within the time limit, which is typically 15 days. ICC Rules (Article 12) stipulate that the ICC Court makes direct appointments, with no clear mechanism triggered by one party’s application due to the other party’s failure to appoint. LCIA Rules (Article 7) stipulate that only LCIA Court is empowered to appoint arbitrators. SCC Rules (Article 17) stipulate that where a party fails to appoint any arbitrator within the stipulated time period, the Board shall make the appointment, without a clear time limit and with no scenario where one party applies for the appointment of the other party’s arbitrator.
A distinctive feature of this paragraph in the ICDPASO Rules lies in its clear time limit (14 days) and explicit trigger mechanism (a request by the other party). Compared to the expression of “reasonable time limit” or the model where the institution makes direct appointments ex officio, it is more operable and predictable, providing the parties with clear procedural expectations.
3. Jurisprudence Analysis
(1) Principle of Procedural Stability and Efficiency: The provisions of this paragraph urge the parties to actively exercise their rights and fulfill their procedural obligations by imposing a clear time limit, which constitutes a direct reflection of the principles of procedural stability and efficiency. It prevents the undermining of the core value of arbitration in resolving disputes“efficiently” due to delays in the initial stage of the procedure.
(2) Due Process and Balance of Rights: Where a party waives its right to appoint an arbitrator, the Court of Arbitration appoints the arbitrator on its behalf rather than allowing the other party to make the selection. This ensures the basic fairness of the composition of the arbitral tribunal. It is not only a procedural sanction for the party that is negligent in exercising its rights, but also a remedy for the procedural rights of the active party. At the same time, it ensures the neutrality of the appointed arbitrator, complying with the requirements of due process.
(3) Institutionalization of the Principle of Pro-Arbitration: This paragraph is the materialization of the “Pro-Arbitration” principle in the composition of the arbitral tribunal. When party autonomy fails to advance the procedure, the supplementary administrative function of the arbitration institution intervenes in a timely manner to ensure the enforcement of the arbitration agreement and avoid the failure of the dispute resolution mechanism due to procedural issues.
(3) If the two arbitrators appointed fail to reach an agreement on the appointment of the presiding arbitrator within seven (7) days as of the date of appointment of the second arbitrator, or within the time limit agreed by the parties or determined by the Court of Arbitration, the Court of Arbitration will appoint the presiding arbitrator in accordance with the method of appointing a sole arbitrator specified in Article 12 of these Rules.
1. Analysis of Core Characteristics
This paragraph addresses the final and most critical step in the composition of a three-member arbitral tribunal – the selection of the presiding arbitrator – with its core characteristics as follows:
(1)Clear Negotiation Period: It grants the two arbitrators appointed by the parties a period of “seven (7) days as of the date of appointment of the second arbitrator” to reach an agreement, reflecting the pursuit of efficiency.
(2)Highly Institutionalized and Linked Procedure: Where the two arbitrators fail to reach an agreement within the time limit, the Court of Arbitration does not exercise discretionary power; instead, it “appoints the presiding arbitrator in accordance with the method for appointing a sole arbitrator specified in Article 12 of these Rules”. This means that the dual-track List Procedure (as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 12) will be activated, forming a highly structured and transparent appointment procedure.
(3)Reinforcement of Party Autonomy: The List Procedure essentially returns the right to select the presiding arbitrator to the parties to a certain extent. The Court of Arbitration provides a list, from which the parties (rather than the arbitrators) make selections, and the final candidate is determined based on the overlap of selections. This greatly enhances the parties’ sense of participation and influence in the selection process of the presiding arbitrator.
2.Comparative analysis
UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 9) stipulate that where the two arbitrators fail to select the presiding arbitrator within the agreed time limit, the appointing authority shall appoint the presiding arbitrator using the List Procedure or other methods. SIAC Rules (Article 22) stipulate that the President appoints the presiding arbitrator after considering the suggestions of the parties. HKIAC Rules (Article 8) stipulate that 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. ICC Rules (Article 12) stipulate that the presiding arbitrator is directly appointed by the ICC Court, without using the List Procedure. LCIA Rules (Article 8) stipulate that the presiding arbitrator is appointed by the LCIA, without using the List Procedure. SCC Rules (Article 17) stipulate that the presiding arbitrator is appointed by the Board.
A notable feature of this paragraph in the ICDPASO Rules is its explicit linkage to the List Procedure under Article 12. This is consistent with the spirit of the UNCITRAL Rules. Compared to models where institutions exercise discretionary appointment power, the ICDPASO Rules grant the parties more direct and institutionalized participation rights.
3.Jurisprudence analysis
(1)Maximizing Party Consent Through Successive Mechanisms. Even where the arbitrators fail to reach an agreement on the candidate for the presiding arbitrator, the Rules still create another opportunity for the parties to achieve “potential consent” through the List Procedure. This profoundly reflects the ICDPASO Arbitration Rules’ persistent pursuit of the principle of party autonomy, striving to integrate the parties’ joint will into every key link of the procedure.
(2)Standardized and Transparent Exercise of Institutional Discretion. Requiring the Court of Arbitration to make the appointment in accordance with the procedure under Article 12 essentially places the institution’s discretionary power within the framework of a “structured procedure”. The List Procedure and its matching rules make the final selection process of the presiding arbitrator rule-based and highly transparent, effectively avoiding doubts about subjectivity and opacity that may arise from institutional appointments and enhancing procedural fairness.
(3)Internal Coordination and Efficiency of the Rule System. The prudent linkage between this paragraph and Article 12 (Composition of the Sole-Member Arbitral Tribunal) reflects the sophistication and economy of the rule system design. It reuses a proven effective appointment mechanism, reducing the complexity of the Rules, while providing the parties and arbitrators with a unified and familiar procedural experience, improving overall procedural efficiency.
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, is committed to building a more modern and international arbitration system. Article 13 of the ICDPASO Rules demonstrates a high degree of alignment and synergy with the spirit and specific provisions of this Law.
(1) Deepening Party Autonomy and Aligning with the Spirit of the New Arbitration Law
The New Arbitration Law comprehensively enhances the principle of party autonomy. Article 13, Paragraph 1of the ICDPASO Rules takes party selection as the default rule, while Paragraph 3 enables the parties to participate extensively in the selection of the presiding arbitrator through the List Procedure. This is a thorough implementation of this principle, providing solid procedural guarantees for the parties to fully express their will and select arbitrators they trust in international arbitration.
(2) Clarifying Procedural Time Limits, Responding to the New Arbitration Law’s Pursuit of Efficiency
The New Arbitration Law takes “fair, prompt” dispute resolution as its legislative purpose. The 14-day appointment time limit in Paragraph 2 and the 7-day negotiation time limit under Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the ICDPASO Rules establish a clear and rigorous timeline for the composition of the arbitral tribunal. This can effectively prevent procedural delays and is highly consistent with the New Arbitration Law’s pursuit of the value of “timeliness”.
(3) Standardizing Institutional Responsibilities, Conforming to the New Arbitration Law’s Requirements for Institutional Development
The New Arbitration Law imposes higher requirements on the standardization and professionalization of arbitration institutions. The functional positioning of the Court of Arbitration under the ICDPASO Rules – taking respect for party selection as the premise, promptly filling vacancies in accordance with clear rules when deadlocks arise (Paragraph 2), and exercising appointment power through a highly structured procedure (Paragraph 3) – is fully consistent with these requirements. It provides a model for how arbitration institutions should exercise procedural management powers, embodying procedural legitimacy.
i. UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules art. 9, 10(2021), which provides that: “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.”
ii. SIAC Rules art. 22, 23(2025), which provides that: “22. Three Arbitrators22.1 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.
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.”
iii. HKIAC Rules art. 8(2024), which provides that: “Article 8 – Appointment of Three Arbitrators8.1 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.”
iv. ICC Arbitration Rules art. 12(2021), which provides that: “ARTICLE 12 Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal - Three Arbitrators4 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.”
v. LCIA Rules art. 5, 7(2020), which provides that: “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 Nominations7.1 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.”
vi. SCC Rules art. 17(2023), which provides that: “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.”
