• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.217-248
• /
• 2018

This paper reviews the Supreme Court of Japan in Decision of December 12, 2017, 2016 (Kyo) 43 (2011) concerning arbitrator's duty of disclosure and reasonable investigation under the Japan Arbitration Act (Arbitration Act). The Supreme Court of Japan recently issued a precedential decision interpreting, for the first time, the arbitrator disclosure requirements of the Arbitration Act. Under Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act, arbitrators have an ongoing obligation to disclose circumstances which may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. The Supreme Court held that Article 18(4) of the Arbitration Act - requiring arbitrators to disclose all "facts likely to give rise to doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence" - (1) is not satisfied by blanket disclosures or advance waivers of potential future conflicts, and (2) requires disclosure of facts both known to an arbitrator or "that can be normally ascertained by an investigation that is reasonably possible${\cdots}$" This new standard presents opportunities and challenges for enforcing arbitration awards in Japan, and suggests measures that both arbitrators and parties can use to protect their awards. Also, the Supreme Court's new standards for evaluating arbitrator conflict disclosures suggest some measures that both arbitrators and parties to arbitration in Japan can take to protect the enforceability of their awards. The key factual question posed by the Supreme Court's ruling was whether an arbitrator's conflicts check was reasonable. Maintaining records regarding a review of potential conflicts or any investigation provides a ready source of proof in case of a future challenge. The Supreme Court has spoken clearly that so-called advance waivers of potential conflicts are not effective under Japanese law. Instead, to the extent that potential conflicts arise during the course of arbitration, they should be specifically disclosed.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2016

The FAA provides that a district court may make an order vacating an arbitration award upon the application of any party to the arbitration where there was evident partiality on the arbitrator's behalf. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Commonwealth Coatings Corp. held that arbitrators must disclose to the parties "any dealing that might create an impression of possible bias." Justice White attempted to limit the scope of evident partiality to instances where an arbitrator has a "substantial interest" in the dispute before disclosure is required. The Second Circuit held that if an arbitrator thinks that a nontrivial conflict of interest might exist, the arbitrator must either (i) conduct an investigation into the potential conflict, or (ii) disclose to the parties why he or she thinks there could be a conflict. Further, the arbitrator must disclose his or her intent not to investigate the matter. By utilizing a reasonable impression of partiality standard, the Ninth Circuit held that evident partiality can exist despite an arbitrator's actual acknowledgement of a conflict, and if an arbitrator fails to discharge his or her duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest, his or her constructive knowledge of the conflicts can give rise to evident partiality.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.3-20
• /
• 2011

An arbitrator is an impartial person chosen to decide the issue between parties engaged in a dispute. But the arbitrator appointed by a party or arbitration institution shall be impartial or independent and should disclose to the administrator any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence. If, at any stage during the arbitration, new circumstances arise that may give rise to such doubts, the arbitrator shall promptly disclose such circumstances to the parties and to the administrator. Upon receipt of such information from an arbitrator or a party, an party must challenge any arbitrator whenever circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to arbitrator's impartiality or independence. Under these circumstance, there were two cases declared by the Korean Supreme Court in relation to the cancellation of the arbitration award. One arbitral case was cancelled for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without disclosure arbitrator's impartiality, and the other case was refused to cancel the ward for the reason of the having been arbitral procedure without challenge an arbitrator. There are not, however, the standard to decide what is definitely the arbitrator's impartiality or independence and the difference on qualification between arbitrator chosen by an party and neutral arbitrator in korean arbitration law and rules. Nevertheless, korean court require arbitrator to be impartial and independent and the arbitration parties to challenge arbitrator' impartiality or independence.