Many people believe that appointing an arbitrator is the most critical decision during an arbitration. In the “typical” two-party arbitration, this objective is easily met either by choosing rules that provide for direct selection by the parties or by crafting an agreement that each party will nominate an arbitrator. The typical two-party arbitration, however, is becoming increasingly atypical. In today’s global marketplace, business is more complex, often with back-to-back transactions involving numerous parties across the globe. As a result, arbitrations themselves have also become more complicated with multiple claims, parties and contracts.

As explored in the first part of in this series, to meet this expanding business interconnectivity, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules and the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) permit the joinder of parties and each of the arbitral institutions permits consolidation. Following joinder or consolidation, however, the paradigm of the claimant on one side and the respondent on the other shifts and, with three or more parties involved in an arbitration, each party appointing an arbitrator is no longer a viable option. The ability to make this “single most important decision” must be abrogated. Part 2 of this series explores the thorny question of arbitrator selection in a multiparty arbitration and how the various rules handle the issue.

Originally published in Corporate Counsel on July 16, 2015.