국제투자중재에서 중재인에 대한 기피 신청의 인정에 관한 연구

A fundamental aspect of the arbitration process is that arbitrators must be impartial and, in most cases, independent. This is especially important given the limited possibilities for challenging awards. Recognising this, most of the major international arbitration rules and modern national arbitration laws impose, in some form or another, requirement of independence or impartiality on arbitrators. However, in practice there is considerable overlap between the two terms. In most cases, lack of independence is only an issue when there are doubts about the impartiality of the arbitrator. Furthermore, since lack of fairness can only be proven after considering objective facts and circumstances, including the relationship between the arbitrator and the parties, the same evidence may be relevant to both investigations. In some cases, arbitrators have been successfully challenged without any question of impartiality being raised due to lack of independence. In these situations, they even want to avoid revealing the arbitrator's impartiality. This is more of a problem when the arbitration body, rather than other members of the arbitration panel, is entrusted with the decision to challenge an arbitrator. At the heart of every ICSID arbitration is a panel of arbitrators whose job is to maintain the highest standards of impartiality and independence. However, ensuring that these criteria are met is not without its challenges. This study analyses in detail the complex world of arbitrator challenge under the ICSID Convention and Rules, focusing on the case of RSE Holding AG v. Republic of Latvia.