|
(Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 21, No. 5, 2004, pp 473--478)
Good arbitration rules can enable the arbitral tribunal to settle disputes impartially and efficiently, which will increase confidence in arbitration of the public as well. To achieve this objective, the Beijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules as effective from 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 2004”) makes brand new innovations, with distinct characteristics worthy of attention.
High Priority on Regulation of Arbitrators
The arbitration is only as good as its arbitrators. The justice of arbitration is to require arbitrators to behave impartially during the whole process of arbitration. From the perspective of arbitration institutions, regulation of arbitrators shall be deemed as the key for the fulfillment of arbitration justice. With the adoption of the “Rules 2004”, three other instruments are promulgated by the Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as BAC). They are not part of the “Rules 2004”, but they function as supplement and guarantee of the new arbitration rules. BAC’s innovations on the regulation of arbitrators is worthy of reference by other arbitration institutions in China.
I. On the qualification of arbitrators, BAC prescribes specific and pertinent provisions, deeming stipulations of the Arbitration Act of People’s Republic of China 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitration Act 1994”) as the lowest criterion and considering the arbitral practices and specific circumstances of China. For instance, based on the qualification requirement prescribed in Art.13 of “Arbitration Act 1994”, BAC distinguishes faculties engaged in legal teaching and research, lawyers, professionals engaged in economy and trade, retired judge and others engaged in law. Priority is set on professional backgrounds and working experiences, for example:
For faculties engaged in legal teaching and research, direct involvement in teaching and research in civil or business law and arbitration or litigation experience is required; for lawyers, they are required to have great capability on handling cases with high professional standard and good reputation and without records on abuse of disciplines.
II. On the appointment of arbitrators, BAC refers to the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules), respects party autonomy as well as efficiency and checks the deterrence of procedure by the parties. In accordance with Art.18 of “Rules 2004”, besides the general approach of appointment prescribed in the “Arbitration Act 1994”, the parties may, within the time limit, each nominate 1 to 3 arbitrator(s) as the candidate(s) for a presiding arbitrator. The BAC may also provide a presiding arbitrator candidate list composed of 5 to 7 arbitrators for the parties to select 1 to 3 from them as the candidates within the time limit. If there is one candidate being coincidental in the list of nomination or in the list of selection, this one shall be the presiding arbitrator mutually chosen by the parties. If in either list there is more than one coincidental candidate, the Chairman of BAC shall, taking into consideration of all the circumstances of the case, confirm one from them as the presiding arbitrator. The confirmed arbitrator shall be, however, regarded as the presiding arbitrator mutually chosen by both parties. If in either list there is no coincidental candidate, the Chairman shall appoint the presiding arbitrator outside of both lists.
III. Comparatively comprehensive arbitrator disclosure system is established for the first time in China. Pursuant to Art.20 of “Rules 2004”, the arbitrator shall，after he/she accepts to act, sign a statement to ensure to conduct arbitration independently and impartially, and the secretary shall transmit a copy of the statement to each party. If an arbitrator, having decided to accept the party's choice or the Chairman's appointment, is aware of the circumstances, which exist in the relation between himself/herself and a party or its agent and might lead any one of the parties to doubt his/her impartiality and independence, this arbitrator shall disclose these circumstances in writing. Further, the arbitrator undertakes continuous duty on disclosure, in the process of the case handling, if any circumstances that should be disclosed become known to an arbitrator, this arbitrator shall immediately disclose such circumstances in writing.
IV. Further improvement is made on the challenge of arbitrator. “Rules 2004” adopts the general practice in international arbitration circle and prescribes that when one party challenges an arbitrator and the other party agrees to do so, or the challenged arbitrator withdraws on his/her own initiative upon being informed of the challenge, this arbitrator shall no longer participate in the case handling. However, in neither case does withdrawal imply acceptance of the validity of the grounds for the challenge.
V. Issues on replacement of arbitrators are defined crystal clear for the first time in China. To elevate arbitration efficiency and strengthen the assiduity of arbitrators, “Rules 2004” refers to International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Rules 1998, which prescribes that when an arbitrator becomes unable to conduct arbitration as a result of death or unhealthiness, or he/she withdraws from the case handling on his/her own initiative, or the Chairman decides him/her to withdraw, or all the parties request that he/she should withdraw from the case handling, this arbitrator shall be replaced. When deciding the de jure or de facto impossibility of an arbitrator to perform his/her functions or the unconformity with “Rules 2004” in the performing of the functions, the BAC may also conduct the replacement on its own initiative.
VI. On participation of deliberation and providing opinions on arbitral awards, the audacious stipulation of “Rules 2004” poses great challenges. The award shall be made with each arbitrator’s participation in discussion and statement of personal opinions. However, in practice, some arbitrators do not deliver their opinions or hold minority opinion but refuse to present their arguments, which influences people’s inclination towards the impartiality and arbitral justice. To countercheck this weakness, Art.41 of “Rules 2004” prescribes that the award shall be signed by arbitrator(s). Any arbitrator dissenting from the award may sign or not sign his/her name on the award. The arbitrator who does not sign the award shall present a statement of individual opinions. The statement shall be served on the parties with the award but shall not constitute any part of the award. The arbitrator who does not sign the award neither does he present a statement of individual opinions shall be deemed to refuse to sign the award without justified reasons.
Respect on Party Autonomy Maximized
Party autonomy is the foundation of commercial arbitration. In the world today, the development of arbitration laws and rules demonstrates a trend, which is to maintain and safeguard more respect on party autonomy. “Rules 2004” is of no exception. Freedom of choice of the parties is taken into full consideration from every possible perspective and during the whole process of arbitration. Pursuant to Art.2, if the parties agree to submit their dispute to the BAC for arbitration, these Rules shall apply. However, if the parties have agreed otherwise on the arbitral proceedings or on the rules applicable to arbitration, and subject to consent by the BAC, the parties’ agreement shall prevail. It accords with general practices in the world at large, but in China just few arbitration institutions adopt it and usually apply it to international cases only. BAC applies this approach not only to international cases, but internal ones, demonstrating its courage to confront international challenges. What’s more, maximum respect is paid to the choice of parties on issues, such as appointment of presiding arbitrator, place of arbitration, language of arbitration and appointment of agent, etc.
Arbitration Efficiency Enhanced
All legal procedures to settle disputes inevitably have to encounter the dilemma in dealing with justice and efficiency. It is known that justice delayed is justice denied. Through “Rules 2004”, BAC not only probes into arbitration justice, but puts high priority on efficiency as well. It is not hard to find that the time limits on rendering awards and on other issues are shorter compared with that of other arbitration institutions in China. To achieve the goal of high efficiency, summary procedure is incorporated in “Rule 2004” and the Beijing Arbitration Commission Regulation on Strengthening Management of Time Limits to Conduct Arbitration is promulgated.
Shorter time does not necessarily mean higher efficiency. To enhance efficiency, dual approaches are taken in “Rule 2004”. In the first place, from the perspective of arbitrators, as elaborated section I, assiduity duties of arbitrators are highlighted. In theory, until the award is rendered, when deciding the de jure or de facto impossibility of an arbitrator to perform his/her functions or the unconformity with these Rules in the performing of the functions, the BAC may replace the arbitrator on its own initiative. Secondly, innovations are made on the relationship between the arbitration institution and arbitral tribunal. This is focused on the fact that the arbitral tribunal is endowed with greater capability by “Rule 2004”.
1. On objection to the validity of an arbitration agreement or to the jurisdiction over an arbitration case, the arbitral tribunal is authorized by BAC to render preliminary arbitral awards or to settle it in final awards in due consideration of the specific situation and circumstances. This innovative stipulation better coordinates differences between “Arbitration Act 1994” and international practices.
2. Decision on procedural issues can be made by the presiding arbitrator solely with the consent of the parties and authorization of the arbitral tribunal.
The arbitral tribunal may, at one party’s request upon which the other party agrees, decide to hear in combination two or more than two cases of which the subject-matters are the same or related each other.
Secondly, from the perspective of the parties, “Rules 2004” emphasizes that the parties shall fulfill their obligations in good faith and without delay and be responsible for intentional deterrence of arbitration procedure. First, functions of clauses on waiver of right are emphasized. The rule attempts to keep pace with the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and incorporates many waivers of objection clauses. Particularly Art.3 of the Chapter I General Provisions prescribes that “A party who knows or should have known that any provision of these Rules or any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration proceedings without promptly stating an objection to such non-compliance in writing, shall be deemed to have waived the right to object.” These provisions target toward the reality and boast for their practicability. Second, many provisions of “Rules 2004”prescribe that the parties may be responsible for disadvantageous consequences from undue delay of the procedure and shall at least bear the costs. For instance, pursuant to Art.21, if a party engages its agent after being notified of the composition of the arbitral tribunal, while any circumstance giving rise to an arbitrator’s withdrawal exists in connection of the agent with the arbitrator concerned, the party shall be deemed to have waived its right to challenge the arbitrator on the grounds thereof. However, the other party’s right to challenge the arbitrator on the grounds thereof shall not be affected. If the arbitral proceedings are postponed due to the aforementioned reasons, the party responsible for the withdrawal of the arbitrator shall bear the corresponding costs.
Flexibility of Arbitration Procedure and Procedural Justice Emphasized
One of the comparative advantages of arbitration over litigation is flexibility. “Rules 2004” refers to Arbitration Act 1996 of United Kingdom and incorporates the standard of minimum procedural justice, based on which the tribunal are capable of conducting arbitration appropriately. Pursuant to Art.23, the arbitral tribunal shall hold oral hearings to handle the cases. If the parties agree to handle the case without oral hearing, or, if the arbitral tribunal considers that the hearing is unnecessary with the parties’ consent, the arbitral tribunal may hear and decide the case on the basis of documents only. No matter what manner of hearing is adopted, the arbitral tribunal shall act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each a reasonable opportunity to present its case.
Perfection of China International Commercial Arbitration System Pursued
It has been no more than ten years since the establishment of BAC, but the efforts and endeavors made to perfect Chinese international commercial arbitration system are unambiguously great. Chapter VIII of “Rules 2004” concentrates on international commercial arbitration. The title of this chapter is not “Special provisions on Foreign-Related Arbitration”, but “Special Provisions for International Commercial Arbitration”, which indicates an open-minded vision. International commercial arbitration is a common language shared by merchants, which requires more attention on its international feature. As to the specific systems, “Rules 2004” inherits the traditional advantages of Chinese international commercial arbitration, like to combine arbitration and conciliation, to clarify the characteristics of the applicable law of international commercial arbitration. For conciliation, to eliminate or to lessen the doubts by foreigners unfamiliar with the Chinese conciliation cultural backgrounds, “Rules 2004” prescribes that, if conciliation fails, the parties may request replacement of arbitrators. At least from these two aspects, the BAC plays a key and leading role in consolidating and improving Chinese international commercial arbitration system, which raises challenges to China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC).
Conclusion
“Rules 2004” makes brand new innovations both on format and specific systems, which accords with and promotes BAC’s objective of achieving justice, internationality, and modernization in management. As the sixth version of arbitration rules of BAC, “Rules 2004” enables BAC to transfer from the idea of negatively offsetting procedural defects to the vision positively providing advanced arbitration services. Apparently there is still room to make it better, but positive influences are definitely ensuing the implementation of “Rules 2004”.
Annex:
The Beijing Arbitration Commission
Arbitration Rules
(Revised and adopted at the Fifth Meeting of the Third Session
of the Beijing Arbitration Commission on September 16, 2003. Effective as from March 1, 2004)
Chapter I General Provisions. 3
Article 1 The Beijing Arbitration Commission. 3
Article 2 Application of these Rules 3
Article 3 Waiver of Right to Object 3
Chapter Ⅱ Arbitration Agreement 4
Article 4 Definition and Form of Arbitration Agreement 4
Article 5 Independence of Arbitration Agreement 4
Article 6 Objection to the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement 4
Chapter Ⅲ Application, Defence and Counterclaim.. 5
Article 7 Application for Arbitration. 5
Article 8 Case Hearing. 6
Article 9 Delivering the Notifications of Arbitration. 6
Article 10 Defence. 6
Article 11 Counterclaim.. 7
Article 12 Amendment to Claim or Counterclaim.. 8
Article 13 Number of Copies of Submitting Documents 8
Article 14 Preservation of Property. 8
Article 15 Preservation of Evidence. 8
Article 16 Representation. 8
Chapter IV Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 9
Article 17 The Panel of Arbitrators 9
Article 18 Designation of Arbitrators 9
Article 19 Notice of Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 10
Article 20 Disclosure of Arbitrator 10
Article 21 Challenge of Arbitrator 11
Article 22 Replacement of Arbitrator 12
Chapter V The Case Hearing. 13
Article 23 Manners of Hearing. 13
Article 24 Confidentiality. 13
Article 25 Place of Hearing. 13
Article 26 Hearing in Combination. 14
Article 27 Notice of Hearing. 14
Article 28 Default of Appearance by a party. 14
Article 29 Providing Evidence. 15
Article 30 Evidence Collecting on Arbitral Tribunal’s Own Initiative. 15
Article 31 Appraisal 16
Article 32 Hearing Measures 16
Article 33 Cross-examination and Authentication. 17
Article 34 Debating. 18
Article 35 Final Statement 18
Article 36 Record of Hearing. 18
Article 37 Withdrawing Application for Arbitration. 18
Article 38 Conciliation. 19
Chapter VI Arbitral Award. 20
Article 39 Decision on Arbitral Procedural Matters 20
Article 40 Time Limit for the Award. 20
Article 41 Arbitral Award. 20
Article 42 Allocation of Costs 21
Article 43 Rectification to award and Additional Award. 22
Chapter VII Summary Procedure. 22
Article 44 Application of Summary Procedure. 22
Article 45 Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 23
Article 46 Time Limit for Defence and Counterclaim.. 23
Article 47 Notice of Hearing. 23
Article 48 Termination of the Summary Procedure. 23
Article 49 Time Limit for the Award. 24
Article 50 Application of Other Provisions of these Rules 24
Chapter VIII Special Provisions for International Commercial Arbitration. 24
Article 51 Application of this Chapter 24
Article 52 Composition of Arbitral Tribunal 25
Article 53 Defence and Counterclaim.. 25
Article 54 Preservations of Property and Evidence. 25
Article 55 Notice of Hearing. 26
Article 56 Conciliation. 26
Article 57 Time Limit for the Award. 26
Article 58 Application of Law. 26
Article 59 Application of Summary Procedure. 27
Chapter IX Supplementary Provisions. 27
Article 60 Calculating Period of Time. 27
Article 61 Service. 28
Article 62 Language. 28
Article 63 Interpretation of these Rules 29
Article 64 Official Versions of these Rules 29
Article 65 Implementation of these Rules 29
2020
1. The Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “BAC”) is a permanent arbitration institution registered in Beijing of China for resolving contractual disputes and other disputes over rights and interests in property between physical persons, legal persons and other organizations that are equal subjects.
2. The Chairman of the Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Chairman”) performs the functions and duties vested in him by the Arbitration Rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as these “Rules”); the BAC’s Vice-Chairmen or Secretary-General (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary-General”), may also perform the Chairman’s functions and duties with his authorization.
3. The Office of the Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “Office”) is responsible for handling the day-to-day affairs in the BAC. It shall appoint one of its staff-members as an arbitral tribunal’s secretary to take charge of procedural administration and provide service for the case handling.
If the parties agree to submit their disputes to the BAC for arbitration, these Rules shall apply. However, if the parties have agreed otherwise on the arbitral proceedings or on the rules applicable to arbitration, and subject to consent by the BAC, the parties’ agreement shall prevail.
A party who knows or should have known that any provision of these Rules or any requirement under the arbitration agreement has not been complied with and yet proceeds with the arbitration proceedings without promptly stating an objection to such non-compliance in writing, shall be deemed to have waived the right to object.
1.“Arbitration agreement” is an agreement by the parties to submit to arbitration all or certain disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. An arbitration agreement may be in the form of an arbitration clause in a contract or in any other form of a written agreement to arbitrate
2. Any arbitration agreement shall be in written form. The written forms include but are not limited to the forms, which can show the described contents visibly, such as a contract instrument, letters, and data message (including telegram, telex, fax, EDI and e-mail, etc.).
1. An Arbitration agreement shall exist independently. The validity of an arbitration agreement shall not be affected by any modification, rescission, termination, invalidity or expiry, and non-existence of a contract.
2. The arbitral tribunal has the power to affirm the validity of a contract.
1. A party’s objection to the validity of an arbitration agreement or to the jurisdiction over an arbitration case shall be raised in writing before the initial oral hearing conducted by the arbitral tribunal. Where a case is examined on the basis of documents only, the written objection should be raised prior to the expiry of the time limit to the first defence.
2. If a party has not raised any objection under the preceding paragraph, it shall be deemed that the party has admitted the validity of the arbitration agreement or the BAC’s jurisdiction over the arbitration case.
3. If a party objects to the validity of an arbitration agreement, he/she may request the BAC to make a decision or apply to the people’s court for a ruling. If one party requests the BAC to make a decision while the other party applies to the people’s court for a ruling, the people’s court shall give a ruling.
4. If a party objects to the validity of an arbitration agreement or to the jurisdiction over an arbitration case, the BAC or the arbitral tribunal authorized by the BAC may make a decision. The decision of the arbitral tribunal can be made in an interim award or in a final award alternatively.
1. The Claimant shall submit the following documents:
(a) the Arbitration agreement;
(b) the Application for Arbitration, in which the following items should be specified:
(i) the names or designations, domiciles, zip codes, telephone numbers, fax numbers and any other possible convenient means of contact of the Claimant and the Respondent; where a party concerned is a legal person or other organization, the name, position, domicile, zip code, telephone number, fax number and any other possible convenient means of contact of its legal representative or its chief responsible person;
(ii) the arbitration claim and the facts and reasons on which it is based;
(iii) the evidence as well as the source of the evidence with a detailed list attached, the names and domiciles of witnesses, if any; and
(iv) the Claimant’s identity documents.
2. To apply for arbitration, the Claimant should pay an arbitration fee in advance, according to the Arbitration Fee Schedule formulated by the BAC. If it is difficult for the Claimant to pay the arbitration fee in advance, the Claimant may apply for deferment of the payment, which is subject to the approval of the BAC. If the Claimant neither pays the fee in advance nor applies for the deferment of the payment, it shall be deemed that the Claimant has withdrawn the Application for Arbitration.
1. Within 5 days after the receipt of an Application for Arbitration, if the BAC considers that it fulfills the requirements for acceptance, the BAC shall accept this application.
2．If an Application for Arbitration does not fulfill the requirements set forth in Article 7, the Claimant should make rectification.
3. Arbitral proceedings shall be deemed to commence on the date on which the BAC accepts the Application for Arbitration.
The BAC shall deliver the Notice of Case Acceptance, these Rules, and the Panel of Arbitrators of the BAC to the Claimant. Within 10 days after the date on which the BAC accepts the Application for Arbitration, the BAC shall deliver the Notice of Defence as well as the Application for Arbitration with its attachments, these Rules, and the Panel of Arbitrators to the Respondent.
1. The Respondent should submit a written Statement of Defence and certificated document(s) to the BAC within 15 days after the date of the receipt of the Notice of Defence. The Statement of Defence and certificated document(s) should include:
(a) the name(s) or designation(s), domicile(s), zip code(s), telephone number(s), fax number(s) and any other possible convenient means of contact of the Respondent; where a party concerned is a legal person or other organization, the name, position, domicile, zip code, telephone number, fax number and any other possible convenient means of contact of its legal representative or its chief responsible person.
(b) the main points of the defence as well as the facts and reasons on which they are based;
(c) the evidence as well as the source of evidence with a detailed list attached and the names and domiciles of witnesses, if any; and
(d) the Respondent’s identity documents.
2. The BAC shall deliver a copy of the Statement of Defence to the Claimant within 10 days after the date on which the Statement of Defence is received.
3. The conduct of the arbitral proceedings shall not be affected notwithstanding the failure of a party to file a defence in writing.
1. The Respondent shall, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Defence, submit to the BAC his/her counterclaim in writing, if any. In the event that the submission exceeds the aforementioned time limit, the decision as to whether or not to accept the counterclaim shall be made by the BAC before the tribunal is composed or by the tribunal after it is composed.
2. The submission of the Request for Counterclaim shall be made with reference to the provisions of Article 7.
3. Within 5 days after the date of acceptance of the Request for Counterclaim, the BAC shall deliver to the Claimant the Notice of Defence to the counterclaim as well as the Request with the documents annexed thereto.
4. The Claimant shall submit his/her Statement of Defence to the BAC according to the provisions of Article 10.
A written application shall be filed if a party concerned requests to amend his/her arbitration claim or counterclaim. It shall be decided by the BAC as to whether to accept this application or not before the arbitral tribunal is composed, and the same shall be decided by the tribunal after it is composed.
When submitting Application for Arbitration, Statement of Defence, Request for Counterclaim, evidential materials and other written documents, the parties shall submit them in quintuplicate. If the number of parties is more than two, additional copies shall be provided accordingly. If the arbitral tribunal is composed of only one arbitrator, the number of copies can be reduced by two.
1. A party may apply for preservation of the property if it becomes impossible or difficult to enforce the award due to actions of the other party or for other reasons.
2. If a party applies for preservation of the property, the BAC shall submit the party’s application to the people’s court of the place in which the Respondent’s domicile is situated or the property is located.
1. Under the circumstances where the evidence may be destroyed or lost or difficult to obtain at a later time, a party may apply for preservation of the evidence. 2. If a party applies for preservation of the evidence, the BAC shall submit the application to the people’s court of the place where the evidence is located.
If a party entrusts representative(s) to carry out arbitration activities, it should submit to the BAC a Power of Attorney，in which the matters entrusted, as well as the powers conferred, shall be specified.
The choice of arbitrator(s) by the parties shall be made from among the Panel of Arbitrators set by the BAC. For international commercial cases, the BAC sets a Panel of Arbitrators on international commercial cases.
1. The parties shall, within 15 days after the receipt of the Notifications of Arbitration or within the time limit fixed by the arbitration agreement, each choose or entrust the Chairman to appoint an arbitrator from among the Panel of Arbitrators of the BAC and within the above period of time mutually choose or entrust the Chairman to appoint a third arbitrator who shall be the presiding arbitrator.
2. The parties may, within the time limit fixed by paragraph 1, each nominate 1 to 3 arbitrator(s) as the candidate(s) for a presiding arbitrator. The BAC may also provide a presiding arbitrator candidate list composed of 5 to 7 arbitrators for the parties to select 1 to 3 from them as the candidates within the time limit fixed by paragraph 1. If there is one candidate being identical in the list of nomination or in the list of selection, this one shall become the presiding arbitrator mutually chosen by the parties. If in either list there is more than one identical candidate, the Chairman shall, taking into consideration of all the circumstances of the case, confirm one from them as the presiding arbitrator. The confirmed arbitrator shall be, however, regarded as the presiding arbitrator mutually chosen by both sides of the parties. If in either list there has no identical candidate, the Chairman shall appoint the presiding arbitrator outside of both lists.
3. If the parties fail to agree on choosing a presiding arbitrator pursuant to the aforementioned provisions, the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the Chairman.
4．When a party consists of more than two persons, they should, through consultations, jointly choose or entrust the Chairman to appoint one arbitrator. In case these persons as one side of the parties fail, within 15 days from the date when the last one of them receives the Notification of Arbitration, to agree on choosing or entrusting the Chairman to appoint arbitrator, the arbitrator should be appointed by the Chairman.
The BAC shall, within 5 days from the date on which the arbitral tribunal is composed, notify in writing to the parties of the tribunal’s composition. The secretary shall transmit the case file to the tribunal promptly after it is composed.
1. After accepting to act, the arbitrator shall, sign a Statement to ensure to conduct arbitration independently and impartially, and the secretary shall transmit a copy of the Statement to each party.
2. If an arbitrator, having decided to accept the party's choice or the Chairman's appointment, is aware of the circumstances, which exist in the relation between himself/herself and a party or its representative and might lead any one of the parties to doubt his/her impartiality and independence, the arbitrator shall disclose these circumstances in writing.
3. In the process of the case handling, if any circumstance which should be disclosed becomes known to an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall immediately disclose such circumstances in writing.
4. The secretary shall deliver a copy of the arbitrator’s disclosure to each party. The parties shall, within 5 days after being notified of it, submit a written statement to explain whether they challenge the arbitrator or not.
5. In case a party challenges an arbitrator on the basis of any circumstance disclosed by the arbitrator, the provisions of paragraph 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, Article 21 shall apply.
6. A party who fails to challenge within the time limit specified in paragraph 4 shall be no longer permitted to challenge based on the circumstance(s) disclosed by the arbitrator.
1. In one of the following circumstances, the arbitrator must withdraw, and the parties also have the right to challenge the arbitrator for a withdrawal:
(a) the arbitrator is a party to the case or a close relative of a party to the case or a representative in the case;
(b) the arbitrator has any interest relation with the case;
(c) the arbitrator has other relationship with a party or its representative(s) in the case which may affect the impartiality of the arbitration; or
(d) the arbitrator has met with a party or its representative(s) in private, or accepted an invitation to entertainment or gift from a party or its representative(s).
2. A party’s challenge shall be made by the submission of a written statement specifying the reasons and providing the correlative evidence.
3. A challenge of an arbitrator must be put forward no later than the initial hearing. If the matter giving rise to the challenge becomes known after the initial hearing, the challenge may nevertheless be raised before the closing of the final hearing except for the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4, Article 20.
| 
