Non-Neutral Arbitration Opposed to Fundamental Principles of Arbitration: with an Emphasis on the Precedent of Iran-United States of America Arbitral Tribunal

To date there has been little disagreement on the fact that arbitrators are obligated to be impartial and independent; the rules and provisions of all the major international and domestic arbitral regimes are in accord that arbitrators have to be impartial and independent, so these obligations have turned into an international custom. Failure to this commitment can be a basis for challenging and disqualifiying an arbitrator in international and domestic arbitrations. The non-neutral arbitrator in United States’ arbitration system is a legal structure which is in opposite to the international practice, and presumes that the party-appointed arbitrators in a tripartite arbitration would not be neutral. This means that, in practice, they are not only free to act as advocates for the positions of the party that appointed them, they are expected to act in such a way to dictate the outcome of the proceedings for the benefit of appointing party. The purpose of this article is to determine the concept, grounds and basis of non-neutral arbitration and its significant opposition to the fundamental principles of arbitration. In the fourth section, the authors discuss the impartiality of arbitrators in Iran-United States of America arbitral tribunal.