ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules Interpretation Series:Article 15 “Challenges to Arbitrators”

I. Introduction

The impartiality and independence of arbitrators are the cornerstone of the arbitration system, and the arbitrator disclosure and challenge system serves as a crucial procedural safeguard to uphold this cornerstone. It is an important mechanism designed to ensure the procedural fairness of the arbitral tribunal’s composition and the independence of decision-making, thereby guaranteeing the legitimacy of awards. Article 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the International Commercial Dispute Prevention and Settlement Organization (ICDPASO) has established a systematic and clear regulatory framework around “Challenges to Arbitrators”. It not only provides parties with a legitimate channel to apply for the challenge of arbitrators but also prevents the abuse of the right to challenge by clarifying the application conditions, time limits, procedures, and consequences. This article is closely linked to the information disclosure system under Article 14 and the replacement procedure under Article 16, jointly constructing a complete regulatory framework for ensuring the proper composition of the arbitral tribunal. It ensures the stability and efficiency of the arbitration process and strives to maintain a dynamic balance between procedural fairness and procedural efficiency.

II. The Original Text of Article 15

Article 15. Challenges to Arbitrators

1. If the parties have reasonable doubts about the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator, they may apply for challenges in writing, with specific reasons and corresponding evidence provided.

Either party can apply for challenges to the arbitrator appointed by it only based on the facts or circumstances known after the appointment.

2. The parties shall apply for challenges before the first session; if the reason for the challenge application is known after the first session, the application may be submitted within fourteen (14) days as of the date of knowing or ought to know the reason for challenges.

In case of a hearing by written submissions, a party shall submit the application within seven (7) days as of the date when it knows or ought to know the reason for challenges.

3. The Court of Arbitration shall promptly forward the challenge application to other parties and members of the Arbitral Tribunal, and the arbitrator challenged, other parties and members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall submit their written opinions within the time limit prescribed by the Court of Arbitration.

The Court of Arbitration shall make a decision on the challenge application as soon as possible after the expiration of the aforesaid time limit.

4. If one party applies for challenge to an arbitrator, and the other parties agree, or the arbitrator challenged recuses himself/herself voluntarily from the Arbitral Tribunal, the arbitrator challenged will no longer be an arbitrator of the case. The foregoing circumstance shall not be deemed as the reason for applying for challenges.

5. If the representative entrusted by a party and the arbitrator constitute a situation of challenges after the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal, the said party has no right to apply for challenges, provided that, it shall not affect the right of other parties to apply for challenges.

III. Analysis of paragraphs

(1) Paragraph 1

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph establishes the basic rules for initiating the challenge procedure and clarifies the substantive requirements and restrictions on the right to challenge.

(1) Substantive standard for application: The core criterion is “having reasonable doubts about the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator”. “Reasonable doubts” shall not be based on subjectivity but on objectively existing facts or circumstances, with a basis for the judgment of a reasonable person, preventing parties from arbitrarily initiating a challenge merely due to subjective dissatisfaction.

(2) Formal and evidentiary requirements for application: The application for challenge must be made in “writing, with specific reasons and corresponding evidence provided”. This ensures the seriousness and reviewability of the application, preventing the procedure from being arbitrarily initiated or used as a delaying tactic, reflecting the rigor of the procedure.

(3) Restriction on applying for the challenge of arbitrators appointed by one’s own party: It is explicitly stipulated that “either party can apply for challenges to the arbitrator appointed by it based on the facts or circumstances known after the appointment”. This restriction embodies the principle of estoppel. Parties shall exercise reasonable due diligence when appointing arbitrators. If they were aware of relevant facts at the time of appointment but intentionally failed to raise objections, and later raise objections based on such prior facts out of concern that the arbitrator may rule unfavorably, such actions are not intended to uphold the arbitrator’s independence. Thus, the rule limits the scope of grounds for challenging arbitrators appointed by the party itself. Considering the difficulty of proving subjective intent, adducing evidence for this content is often challenging in practice. However, this paragraph does not exclude circumstances where the arbitrator is removed from office based on relevant facts.

2. Comparative Analysis

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules (Article 26) similarly stipulate that an arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. It also requires parties to challenge its nominated arbitrator only for reasons of which the party becomes aware after the appointment has been made, which aligns with the spirit of the “post-appointment knowledge” provision under ICDPASO.1

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Rules (Article 11) provide that a party may challenge an arbitrator based on “justifiable doubts”. For arbitrators designated by the party or in whose appointment it has participated, it similarly requires that challenge can only be raised “for reasons of which it becomes aware after the designation has been made”.2

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules (Article 10) grant the LCIA Court broad discretionary power to revoke an arbitrator’s appointment on its own initiative upon the written request of all other members of the arbitral tribunal or the written objection of any party. A party may apply for a challenge on valid grounds but may only object to an arbitrator nominated or involved in the appointment by the party itself based on objection grounds known after the LCIA Court’s appointment of the arbitrator.3

The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Rules (Article 19) stipulate that a party may challenge any arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts and may challenge an arbitrator it has appointed or in whose appointment it has participated, only for reasons it become aware of after the appointment was made.4

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 12) provide that a party may challenge an arbitrator if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence. It similarly stipulates that a party may challenge the arbitrator appointed by it only for reasons of which it becomes aware after the appointment has been made.5

The ICC Rules (Article 14) emphasize that a challenge of an arbitrator, whether for an alleged lack of impartiality or independence, or otherwise, shall be made by the submission to the Secretariat of a written statement specifying the facts and circumstances on which the challenge is based. These Rules do not explicitly limit the time when the party becomes aware of the grounds for challenging an arbitrator appointed by the party itself.6

Consistent with mainstream international rules, this paragraph of ICDPASO adopts the “reasonable doubt” standard and specially sets restrictions on the challenge of arbitrators appointed by one’s own party. It not only respects the parties’ right to challenge but also prevents the abuse of rights to delay the procedure through the time limit restriction of “known after the appointment”, balancing procedural fairness and procedural stability.

3. Jurisprudence Analysis

(1) Embodiment of the Due Process Principle: Allowing parties to challenge the impartiality and independence of arbitrators constitutes the core of due process. By requiring the application to be made in writing, supported by specific reasons and corresponding evidence, this paragraph ensures the seriousness and regularity of the challenge application, preventing arbitrary disruptions to the procedure.

(2) Implementation of the Estoppel Principle: The restriction on challenging arbitrators appointed by a party itself essentially reflects the application of the good faith and estoppel principles in arbitration proceedings. A party shall act in good faith and exercise reasonable due diligence when appointing an arbitrator; if it was aware of facts potentially affecting the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence at the time of appointment but intentionally failed to raise objections, it shall be precluded from invoking such facts to apply for the arbitrator’s challenge thereafter.

(3) Reasonable Allocation of the Burden of Proof: Requiring the applicant to provide corresponding evidence aligns with the fundamental evidentiary principle of “he who claims must prove”. This provision prevents the abuse of the right to challenge, protects the legitimate rights and interests of the challenged arbitrator, and ensures procedural fairness.

(2) Paragraph 2

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph clarifies the time node for submitting an application for challenge, serving as a key design to prevent procedural delays.

(1) Differentiated time limits based on hearing methods: Targeting two distinct hearing methods — “hearing with oral proceedings” and “hearing by written submissions”—differentiated application time limits are set. For cases heard with oral proceedings, the general time limit is “before the first session”; if the reason for challenge application is known after the first session, the time limit is “within 14 days”. For cases heard by written submissions, a unified time limit of “within 7 days as of the date when the party knows or ought to know the reason for challenges” is stipulated. This differentiation aligns with the procedural characteristics of different hearing methods: hearings by written submissions emphasize efficiency, hence the more compact time limit.

(2) Clear starting point of the time limit: Taking “the date of knowing or ought to know the reason for challenges” as the starting point balances the parties’ right to know and procedural efficiency. The provision of “ought to know” requires parties to exercise reasonable duty of care, prohibiting arbitrary delay in submitting applications and ensuring the timely progress of the procedure.

(3) Mandatory nature of the time limit: No circumstances for extending the time limit are explicitly stipulated, reflecting the mandatory requirement of the time limit. Parties must strictly comply with the time limit provisions; failure to submit the application within the time limit may be deemed as waiving the right to challenge, maintaining the stability and predictability of the arbitration procedure.

2. Comparative Analysis

The SIAC Rules (Article 27) require that an application for challenge be submitted within 15 days from the date of receiving the notice of appointment of the challenged arbitrator or within 15 days from the date that the reasons became known or should have reasonably been known to that party.7

The HKIAC Rules (Article 11) require that a party shall send notice of its challenge within 15 days after the confirmation or appointment of that arbitrator has been communicated to the challenging party or within 15 days after that party became aware of the relevant circumstances.8

The ICC Rules (Article 14) require that for a challenge to be admissible, it must be submitted by a party either within 30 days from receipt by that party of the notification of the appointment or confirmation of the arbitrator, or within 30 days from the date when the party making the challenge was informed of the facts and circumstances on which the challenge is based if such date is subsequent to the receipt of such notification.9

The LCIA Rules (Article 10) require that a challenge shall be raised within 14 days of the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal or (if later) within 14 days of becoming aware of any of the relevant grounds.10

The SCC Rules (Article 19) require that a party shall submit a written statement to the Secretariat within 15 days from the date the circumstances giving rise to the challenge became known to the party.11

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 13) stipulate that a party that intends to challenge an arbitrator shall send notice of its challenge within 15 days after it has been notified of the appointment of the challenged arbitrator, or within 15 days after the circumstances mentioned in articles 11 and 12 became known to that party.12

The distinctive feature of this paragraph of ICDPASO lies in the precise time limits set according to different hearing methods, especially the shorter time limit specially stipulated for cases heard by written submissions, which is more in line with the demand for procedural efficiency. Meanwhile, the clear time limit standards provide parties with clear procedural guidance.

3. Jurisprudence Analysis

(1) Safeguard of the Procedural Efficiency Principle: Clear time limit provisions constitute the core safeguard for procedural efficiency, preventing parties from obstructing the progress of arbitration by delaying the submission of challenge applications. Allowing parties to raise challenges at any stage of the procedure may invalidate the proceedings already conducted, resulting in a waste of time and resources, which is inconsistent with the arbitration value goal of resolving disputes efficiently.

(2) Balance Between Parties’ Right to Know and Procedural Stability: Calculating the time limit from “the date of knowing or ought to know the reason for challenges” not only guarantees parties a reasonable period to exercise their right to apply after learning of the infringement of their rights but also prevents applicants from waiting and observing to raise challenges for speculative purposes at a later stage of the procedure through time limit restrictions, thereby safeguarding the stability of the arbitral tribunal’s composition and the progress of the procedure.

(3) Alignment with Different Hearing Methods: Setting a shorter time limit for written submissions reflects the rule design’s consideration of differences in case hearing methods, which is consistent with the emphasis on efficiency value under different procedural paths.

(3) Paragraph 3

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph stipulates the review procedure for applications for challenge, reflecting the openness and fairness of the procedure.

(1) Procedural Transparency: It requires the Court of Arbitration to “promptly” forward the application for challenge to the other parties, members of the Arbitral Tribunal, and the challenged arbitrator. This ensures that all relevant parties can promptly understand the content of the application and prepare to exercise their right to present statements and defenses.

(2) The Court of Arbitration’s Decision-Making Obligation and Efficiency Requirement: It is explicitly stipulated that “the Court of Arbitration shall make a decision on the challenge application as soon as possible after the expiration of the aforesaid time limit”. This gives the court of arbitration clear recusal decision power and emphasizes the efficiency to prevent the challenge matter from being prolonged indefinitely.

2. Comparative Analysis

The SIAC Rules (Article 28) stipulate that the SIAC Court shall make a decision on the challenge after considering the views of the parties, the challenged arbitrator, and any appointed arbitrators.13

The HKIAC Rules (Article 11) stipulate that the notice of challenge shall be communicated to HKIAC, all other parties, the challenged arbitrator, and any other members of the arbitral tribunal. The notice of challenge shall state the reasons for the challenge, and HKIAC shall decide on the challenge.14

The ICC Rules (Article 14) explicitly provide that the ICC Court shall decide on the admissibility and, at the same time, if necessary, on the merits of a challenge after the Secretariat has afforded an opportunity for the arbitrator concerned, the other party or parties and any other members of the arbitral tribunal to comment in writing within a suitable period of time. Such comments shall be communicated to the parties and to the arbitrators.15

The LCIA Rules (Article 10) stipulate that the LCIA Court has the power to accept or reject the nomination of arbitrators and decide on the challenge or replacement of arbitrators during the arbitration process. Its procedure is relatively flexible but will notify all parties and consider relevant opinions.16

The SCC Rules (Article 19) stipulate that the Board shall decide on the application for challenge. Before making the decision, it will usually listen to the opinions of all parties and the arbitrator.17

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 13) stipulate that within 15 days from the date of the notice of challenge, if all parties do not agree to the challenge or the challenged arbitrator does not withdraw, the party making the challenge may elect to pursue it. In that case, within 30 days from the date of the notice of challenge, it shall seek a decision on the challenge by the appointing authority.18

Consistent with the core spirit of the rules of other mainstream institutions, this paragraph of ICDPASO empowers the institution/Court of Arbitration to exercise the final decision-making power and guarantees the procedural rights of all relevant parties. Its distinctive feature lies in emphasizing the timeliness of procedural progress through words such as “promptly” and “as soon as possible”, which is consistent with ICDPASO Rules’ overall concept of pursuing efficient dispute resolution.

3. Jurisprudence Analysis

(1) Embodiment of the Procedural Participation Principle: The principle of procedural participation requires that all parties with an interest in the outcome of the procedure be afforded the opportunity to participate and express their opinions. This paragraph endows the challenged arbitrator, other parties, and members of the Arbitral Tribunal with the right to present their views, ensuring they can fully articulate their positions and refute objections—directly embodying the procedural participation principle and safeguarding procedural fairness.

(2) The Court of Arbitration’s Neutral Review Obligation: As an independent procedural administration body, the Court of Arbitration is responsible for reviewing and deciding on challenge applications, acting as a neutral adjudicator. By promptly forwarding the application, soliciting opinions from all relevant parties, and rendering a decision as soon as possible, the Court fulfills its neutral review obligation, ensuring the objectivity and authority of the decision. The obligation to decide “as soon as possible” prevents the challenge procedure from becoming a bottleneck for case delay, thus maintaining the efficiency of the overall process.

(3) Embodiment of the Procedural Transparency Principle: The process of forwarding the challenge application, soliciting opinions, and rendering a decision reflects the legitimate transparency of the procedure. A fair and transparent procedure enhances parties’ trust in the arbitration outcome, avoids behind-the-scenes manipulations, and upholds the credibility of the arbitration system.

(4) Paragraph 4

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph stipulates the special handling circumstances and legal consequences of applications for challenge.

(1) Two special circumstances for the validity of the challenge: It is explicitly stipulated that in the two circumstances where “the other parties agree” or “the arbitrator challenged recuses himself/herself voluntarily from the Arbitral Tribunal”, the arbitrator shall no longer serve as an arbitrator in the case. In these two circumstances, there is no need for the Court of Arbitration to conduct a substantive determination on whether the ground for the challenge is valid, reflecting the parties’ autonomy of will and the arbitrator’s professional ethics.

(2) Clarity of legal consequences: It is emphasized that “the foregoing circumstance shall not be deemed as the reason for applying for challenges”. This provision is crucial, which avoids presuming that the arbitrator has circumstances affecting impartiality and independence due to the arbitrator’s withdrawal, protects the arbitrator’s reputation, and prevents parties from using the arbitrator’s voluntary withdrawal as a basis for challenging the award subsequently, maintaining the stability of the award.

2. Comparative Analysis

Most international arbitration institutions have similar provisions in their rules, allowing parties to replace arbitrators when they reach an agreement and allowing arbitrators to voluntarily withdraw for various reasons. For example:

The SIAC Rules (Article 27) stipulate that if all other parties agree or the arbitrator voluntarily withdraws from the office, no further review by the SIAC Court is required, and the arbitrator shall no longer hold office.19

The HKIAC Rules (Article 11) stipulate that if the arbitrator resigns or the parties agree to the challenge under the relevant paragraph, no acceptance of the validity of any ground shall be implied.20

The ICC Rules (Article 15) stipulate that an arbitrator shall be replaced upon acceptance by the Court of the arbitrator’s resignation, upon acceptance by the Court of a challenge, or upon acceptance by the Court of a request of all the parties.21

The LCIA Rules (Article 10) stipulate that the LCIA Court has the discretion to replace arbitrators, and arbitrators may also resign. If a challenged arbitrator resigns in writing before the LCIA Court makes a decision, it shall not be deemed as admitting any part of the written statement.22

The SCC Rules (Article 19) stipulate that if the other party agrees to the objection, the arbitrator shall resign.23

The UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (Article 13) stipulate that if the arbitrator to be challenged withdraws or the parties unanimously agree to the challenge, the arbitrator shall withdraw, but neither case implies the validity of the ground for the challenge.24

The innovative aspect of this paragraph of ICDPASO lies in explicitly excluding the presumption of the validity of the ground for the challenge. It not only respects the parties’ consensus and the arbitrator’s voluntary choice but also protects the legitimate rights and interests of the arbitrator, eliminates potential disputes in practice, provides clear guidance for parties and subsequent court reviews that may be involved, reflecting the comprehensiveness of the rule design.

3. Jurisprudence Analysis

(1) Embodiment of the Party Autonomy Principle: The circumstance where “the other parties agree” to the challenge reflects the application of the party autonomy principle in the challenge procedure. By reaching a consensus to secure the arbitrator’s withdrawal, the parties achieve the outcome without relying on the Court of Arbitration’s review, simplifying the procedure and enhancing efficiency.

(2) Safeguard of Arbitrators’ Professional Ethics: That “the arbitrator challenged recuses himself/herself voluntarily from the Arbitral Tribunal” demonstrates the arbitrator’s professional self-discipline. Even if the challenge grounds are unproven, the arbitrator voluntarily withdraws from the tribunal to uphold procedural fairness and parties’ trust, which constitutes respect for the arbitration system. Clarifying that such a circumstance does not mean the challenge grounds are valid protects the arbitrator’s reputation.

(3) Clear Legal Consequences to Prevent Subsequent Disputes: Excluding the presumption that the challenge grounds are valid avoids parties challenging the fairness of the award in subsequent proceedings on the basis that the arbitrator was challenged and withdrew. This ensures the stability and authority of the award, reducing unnecessary procedural delays.

(5) Paragraph 5

1. Analysis of Core Characteristics

This paragraph stipulates the restriction on the right to challenge when the party itself causes the circumstance requiring challenge.

(1) Circumstance for the restriction on the right: Targeting the circumstance where “the representative entrusted by a party and the arbitrator constitute a situation of challenges after the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal”, the party’s right to apply for challenge is restricted. This provision arises from the fact that the party’s own act has led to the circumstance requiring challenge, and the party shall bear the corresponding procedural consequences. It prevents parties from deliberately appointing representatives to create circumstances requiring challenge and delay the procedure.

(2) Relativity of the restriction on the right: It is explicitly stipulated that this “shall not affect the right of other parties to apply for challenges”. Although the party that created the circumstance requiring challenge has no right to apply for the challenge, the legitimate rights and interests of other parties still need to be protected, and they may still apply for the challenge based on such circumstance, ensuring that the procedural fairness is not affected by the party’s malicious act.

2. Comparative Analysis

Most international arbitration rules do not specifically provide clear limitations on the rights of parties to challenge due to the appointment of representatives after the formation of the arbitral tribunal. Rules such as UNCITRAL, SIAC, HKIAC, ICC, etc., only generally stipulate that applications for challenge shall be based on objective facts and do not set special restrictions on circumstances requiring challenge caused by the party’s own act.

The distinctive feature of this paragraph of ICDPASO lies in its high specificity. By restricting the party’s right to apply for challenge in such circumstances, it effectively prevents the abuse of procedural rights, reflects the prevention and regulation of speculative acts that may occur in practice, and enhances the practicality and operability of the rule.

3. Jurisprudence Analysis

(1) Embodiment of the Principle of Prohibiting Abuse of Rights: Intentionally appointing a representative who has circumstances requiring the arbitrator’s challenge after the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal constitutes an abuse of procedural rights. This paragraph restricts the party’s right to apply for challenge, which is a direct embodiment of the principle of prohibiting abuse of rights, preventing procedural delays and infringements on the legitimate rights and interests of others through malicious acts.

(2) Procedural Fairness and the Principle of Accountability for One’s Own Acts: A party shall be accountable for its own act of appointing a representative. If such appointment gives rise to circumstances requiring challenge but the party is allowed to apply for challenge, it will seriously undermine procedural fairness and efficiency, causing injustice to other parties and the Arbitral Tribunal. Restricting the party’s right to apply for challenge is consistent with the principle of accountability for one’s own acts, ensuring the fairness and orderliness of the procedure.

(3) Protection of the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Other Parties: Clarifying that the right of other parties to apply for challenge is not affected reflects the protection of legitimate rights and interests. While restricting the rights of improper claimants, it preserves the remedy channel for other parties potentially affected by the conflict (i.e., those with reasonable doubts about impartiality), thus realizing the fair protection of the procedural interests of all parties.

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, further strengthening the safeguards for the fairness and efficiency of arbitration proceedings. Article 15 of the ICDPASO Rules shows a high degree of alignment and synergy with this Law.

1. Responding to the refined requirements of the New Arbitration Law for the challenge system: The New Arbitration Law has improved the relevant provisions on arbitrator challenges, emphasizing that applications for challenges shall be supported by reasonable grounds and focusing on procedural standardization and fairness. In addition, the New Arbitration Law has reviewed the subject of deciding on challenges from “arbitration commission” to “arbitration institution”, which is more consistent with the provision of the ICDPASO Rules entrusting the decision-making power to the Court of Arbitration. The detailed provisions of Article 15 of the ICDPASO Rules on the substantive requirements, formal requirements, time limits, procedures, and consequences of applications for challenges are highly consistent with the refined requirements of the New Arbitration Law, providing clear operational guidance for parties and ensuring the standardized operation of the challenge procedure.

2. Aligning with the New Arbitration Law’s pursuit of procedural efficiency: The New Arbitration Law takes “impartial and prompt” resolution of disputes as its legislative purpose and emphasizes avoiding procedural delays. Through clear time limit provisions, efficient review procedures, and restrictions on the abuse of rights, Article 15 of the ICDPASO Rules effectively prevents the challenge procedure from becoming a tool to delay arbitration, which is highly consistent with the New Arbitration Law’s pursuit of procedural efficiency and ensures the timely progress of the arbitration procedure.

3. Safeguarding the New Arbitration Law’s goal of enhancing arbitration credibility: The New Arbitration Law is committed to enhancing the credibility of the arbitration system and strengthening the guarantee of the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. The comprehensive challenge rule system constructed by Article 15 of the ICDPASO Rules not only provides parties with a legitimate channel to challenge partial arbitrators but also maintains the fairness and authority of the arbitration procedure by standardizing the procedure, restricting the abuse of rights, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of arbitrators. It helps to enhance the trust of parties from various countries in arbitration within the Chinese jurisdiction and is consistent with the New Arbitration Law’s goal of enhancing arbitration credibility.

4. Connecting with the New Arbitration Law’s balanced protection of parties’ rights: The New Arbitration Law focuses on balancing the rights of all parties, not only guaranteeing the parties’ right to participate in the procedure but also preventing the abuse of rights. The restrictions (such as restrictions on applying for the challenge of arbitrators appointed by one’s own party, restrictions on rights after malicious appointment) and guarantees (such as protection of the right to apply for challenge of other parties, right to be heard) on applications for challenges under Article 15 of the ICDPASO Rules realize the balanced protection of parties’ rights, which is fully consistent with the New Arbitration Law’s concept of balanced rights protection.

V. Conclusion

Through five interlocking provisions, Article 15 of the ICDPASO Commercial Arbitration Rules has established a comprehensive arbitrator challenge system that integrates fairness, efficiency, and practicality. From multiple dimensions including the substantive requirements, time limits, procedures, special circumstances, and restrictions on rights for challenge applications, this system fully regulates the operation of the challenge procedure, which not only fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of parties but also effectively prevents the abuse of rights, safeguarding the stability of the arbitral tribunal’s composition and the efficiency of the arbitration procedure.

In comparison with international arbitration rules, the challenge rules of ICDPASO demonstrate unique institutional advantages through their refined settings, clear legal consequences, and precise response to practical issues. Meanwhile, this article is deeply aligned with the spirit and specific provisions of China’s New Arbitration Law, providing fair, efficient, and transparent procedural guarantees for international commercial entities, which further enhances the credibility and competitiveness of the Court of Arbitration of ICDPASO as an international dispute resolution platform.