Navigating the Disclosure Dilemma: Reconciling the U.S. Circuit Split on ‘Evident Partiality’ of Arbitrators and the 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration

Driven by the proliferation of transnational transactions in the digitized economy, arbitration has evolved into a preferred alternative dispute resolution mechanism, as it is prized for its procedural efficiency, flexibility, and enforceability and finality of arbitral awards. Therefore, more parties are resorting to international arbitration, as well as, other online dispute resolution mechanisms that incorporate technological advances instead of traditional court litigation. However, among the narrow grounds in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) based on which a U.S. court may vacate a final arbitral award, U.S. jurisprudence on ‘evident partiality’ of arbitral tribunal remains split due to inconsistent standards being applied by the U.S. federal courts. While international arbitration relies on the perceived neutrality of the tribunal, U.S. circuits remain deeply divided over whether a “reasonable impression of bias” or a more stringent “actual bias” threshold governs arbitrator disclosure obligations. Using the high-profile case of Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. v. Autoridad Del Canal de Panama as an exemplary case study, the article analyzes the implications of arbitrators’ failure to disclose, or “late-disclosed” professional relationships — where arbitrators and counsel serve contemporaneously as co-arbitrators, or in other capacities in other proceedings. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Grupo Unidos, which left this circuit split unresolved, the article evaluates the harmonizing potential of the 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. By testing the 2024 revisions against the factual benchmarks of recent vacatur decisions, the author assesses whether these “soft law” standards can provide the necessary clarity to bridge the gap between judicial finality and arbitral integrity. The article concludes that while the IBA Guidelines lack the force of law, they serve as a critical normative bridge that may foster more predictable and uniform jurisprudence in an otherwise volatile domestic legal landscape.