Appointment, Independence and Challenge of Arbitrators in Turkey

The appointment of arbitrators is one of the most important stages of any arbitration proceeding. Unlike ordinary court litigation, arbitration allows the parties to participate directly in selecting the individuals who will determine their dispute. This autonomy enables businesses to choose decision-makers with relevant legal, commercial, technical or sector-specific expertise.

However, the parties’ freedom to appoint arbitrators is not unlimited. Arbitrators must remain independent and impartial throughout the proceedings. They must disclose circumstances that may create justified doubts about their neutrality, possess any qualifications agreed by the parties and perform their duties without unreasonable delay.

A defective appointment process or an unresolved conflict of interest may have serious consequences. It may result in a challenge against the arbitrator, termination of the arbitrator’s mandate, replacement of one or more tribunal members, delay in the proceedings, additional costs, annulment of the final award or refusal of enforcement in another country.

The principal Turkish legislation governing these matters is International Arbitration Law No. 4686 for qualifying international arbitrations and Articles 407 to 444 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 for domestic arbitration.

Institutional rules, including the Istanbul Arbitration Centre Arbitration Rules, may also regulate the appointment and challenge process where the parties have selected institutional arbitration.

This article explains the appointment, independence, impartiality, disclosure, challenge, resignation, removal and replacement of arbitrators under Turkish law.

Why Does the Selection of Arbitrators Matter?

The tribunal will decide questions that may involve substantial financial claims, complex contractual interpretation, expert evidence and important commercial relationships.

The arbitrators may determine:

• Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction;
• Which procedural rules will be applied;
• Whether interim protection should be granted;
• Which evidence will be admitted;
• Whether witnesses and experts will be heard;
• Which substantive law governs the dispute;
• Whether a contractual breach occurred;
• The amount of damages, interest and arbitration costs;
• Which party ultimately succeeds.

The quality, availability and neutrality of the arbitrators can therefore affect both the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings.

A technically experienced arbitrator may understand a construction, energy, finance or technology dispute more quickly. A legally experienced chair may manage jurisdictional objections and procedural questions effectively. Conversely, an arbitrator who lacks sufficient availability may cause significant delay even if that individual has excellent legal credentials.

The selection process should therefore consider not only reputation but also independence, impartiality, availability, language ability, procedural experience and familiarity with the subject matter.

Legal Framework for the Appointment of Arbitrators in Turkey

The applicable legislation depends on whether the arbitration is international or domestic.

International Arbitration Law No. 4686

Law No. 4686 applies mainly where the dispute contains a foreign element and Turkey is the seat of arbitration. Article 7 regulates the number, appointment, challenge, responsibility, termination and replacement of arbitrators.

The parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, but the number must be odd. If the parties do not determine the number, the statutory default is three arbitrators. Only natural persons may be appointed as arbitrators under the default provisions of the law.

Domestic Arbitration under the Code of Civil Procedure

Domestic arbitration is governed by the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure.

Articles 415 to 421 regulate the number, appointment, challenge, responsibility and replacement of arbitrators. The parties may determine the number of arbitrators, but the number must again be odd. If they make no selection, three arbitrators will be appointed.

The domestic arbitration provisions contain an additional express qualification rule. Where the tribunal consists of more than one arbitrator, at least one member must be a lawyer with five or more years of professional seniority. The International Arbitration Law does not contain the same express statutory requirement for an international tribunal.

Institutional Arbitration Rules

The parties may select institutional rules instead of relying exclusively on the statutory default process. International Arbitration Law expressly allows the parties to determine procedural rules through reference to national, international or institutional arbitration rules, subject to the law’s mandatory provisions.

ISTAC provides institutional arbitration services to Turkish and foreign parties. Its official materials state that arbitrators may be freely selected by the parties, while its institutional bodies perform appointment and replacement functions when the parties’ agreed mechanism does not produce a complete tribunal.

Party Autonomy in Selecting Arbitrators

Turkish arbitration law recognises the parties’ freedom to determine how the tribunal will be constituted.

The arbitration agreement may establish:

• A sole arbitrator;
• A three-member tribunal;
• A larger odd-numbered tribunal;
• An institutional appointment mechanism;
• A specified appointing authority;
• Qualifications required from the arbitrators;
• Professional or technical experience requirements;
• Language requirements;
• Nationality requirements;
• The method for selecting the presiding arbitrator.

The parties may also incorporate the appointment provisions of an institution such as ISTAC or adopt the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules for an ad hoc arbitration.

Party autonomy should nevertheless be exercised carefully. An appointment clause that is excessively complex, one-sided or dependent on an unavailable person may create procedural difficulties.

The clause should establish a method that remains workable even where one party refuses to cooperate.

Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator

A sole arbitrator is commonly selected for disputes where procedural economy and cost control are important.

The parties may agree jointly on the individual to be appointed. They may also authorise an institution or independent appointing authority to make the selection.

Under the International Arbitration Law, if the parties have agreed on a sole arbitrator but cannot agree on the individual, either party may request the competent court to make the appointment.

The same general approach applies under domestic arbitration. If the parties cannot agree, the court may appoint the sole arbitrator upon the application of one party.

When deciding whether to select a sole arbitrator, the parties should consider:

• The amount in dispute;
• The legal and technical complexity;
• The need for different areas of expertise;
• The anticipated volume of evidence;
• Cost considerations;
• The commercial importance of the outcome.

A sole arbitrator can generally act more quickly and at a lower cost than a three-member tribunal. However, all decision-making authority is concentrated in one individual, making the selection especially important.

Appointment of a Three-Member Tribunal

The traditional method for constituting a three-member tribunal is for each party to appoint one arbitrator and for the two party-appointed arbitrators to select the presiding arbitrator.

Under International Arbitration Law No. 4686, each party appoints one arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators then appoint the third arbitrator, who acts as the tribunal president.

If one party fails to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days after receiving the other party’s request, or if the two arbitrators fail to select the chair within 30 days of their appointment, a party may ask the competent court to complete the tribunal.

The domestic arbitration provisions contain a similar system, using a one-month appointment period.

A party-appointed arbitrator is not the appointing party’s representative or advocate. All members of the tribunal must exercise independent judgment and must treat the parties fairly.

The role of the party appointment is to allow participation in tribunal constitution, not to create a partisan decision-maker.

Tribunals Consisting of More Than Three Arbitrators

Turkish law permits tribunals consisting of more than three members, provided the total number is odd.

Under the statutory default approach, the parties appoint an equal number of arbitrators, and those arbitrators select the final member.

Larger tribunals are uncommon because they increase fees, scheduling difficulties and procedural complexity. They may nevertheless be considered in highly technical, multiparty or strategically significant disputes.

The arbitration clause should explain clearly:

• How many arbitrators each party appoints;
• Who selects the final arbitrator;
• Who will serve as president;
• What happens if a party or appointing authority fails to act.

Court Assistance with Arbitrator Appointment

A party’s refusal to cooperate should not necessarily prevent the arbitration from proceeding.

Under the International Arbitration Law, the competent court may intervene where:

• A party does not follow the agreed appointment procedure;
• The parties cannot reach a required joint decision;
• Party-appointed arbitrators cannot agree on a chair;
• A third person, institution or appointing authority fails to perform its appointment role.

The court’s appointment decision is final under the statutory framework. When making the appointment, the court must consider the parties’ agreement and the need for independent and impartial arbitrators.

Where the parties have different nationalities, the International Arbitration Law also directs the court to consider nationality neutrality. For a sole arbitrator, the court should avoid appointing a person possessing the nationality of either party. In a three-member tribunal, the law includes safeguards intended to prevent the tribunal from being dominated by arbitrators sharing one party’s nationality.

Following the amendments introduced by Law No. 7101, judicial functions assigned under the International Arbitration Law are exercised by the Civil Court of First Instance or Commercial Court of First Instance according to the subject matter of the dispute.

For domestic arbitration, the competent court is generally the Civil or Commercial Court of First Instance at the seat of arbitration, depending on the nature of the underlying dispute. If the seat has not been determined, territorial jurisdiction is linked to the respondent’s domicile, habitual residence or place of business in Turkey.

Qualifications of an Arbitrator

Only natural persons may act as arbitrators under the Turkish statutory default rules. A company, professional association or arbitration institution cannot itself serve as the decision-maker, although an institution may administer the proceedings and appoint the arbitrators.

The parties may require an arbitrator to possess particular qualifications, such as:

• A specified number of years of legal experience;
• Expertise in Turkish commercial law;
• Construction or engineering knowledge;
• Energy-sector experience;
• Financial or accounting expertise;
• Fluency in English or another language;
• Experience with a particular institutional rule;
• A nationality different from the parties.

Qualification requirements should be sufficiently clear to be enforceable but not so restrictive that no suitable arbitrator can be found.

For example, a clause requiring the arbitrator to be simultaneously a Turkish-qualified lawyer, a civil engineer, fluent in three languages and experienced in a narrowly defined technical process may create appointment difficulties.

The parties should identify qualifications that are genuinely necessary for the dispute.

Independence and Impartiality of Arbitrators

Independence and impartiality are central requirements under Turkish arbitration law.

Although the concepts are related, they describe different concerns.

Independence generally concerns objective relationships or connections between the arbitrator and a party, counsel, affiliate or person interested in the outcome.

Impartiality concerns whether the arbitrator approaches the dispute without bias, prejudice or predisposition in favour of one side.

An arbitrator may lack independence because of a professional, financial or organisational relationship even if there is no proof of actual subjective bias. Similarly, an arbitrator with no financial connection may still create impartiality concerns through statements or conduct demonstrating prejudgment.

Turkish law uses an objective standard based on whether circumstances justify doubts regarding the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. A party is not always required to prove actual bias. The issue is whether the relevant circumstances would objectively justify concern about the arbitrator’s neutrality.

The UNCITRAL Model Law follows the same general structure, requiring disclosure of circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts and permitting challenge where such doubts exist.

Continuing Duty of Disclosure

A prospective arbitrator must disclose relevant circumstances before accepting the appointment.

The duty does not end once the tribunal is constituted. If a new circumstance arises during the proceedings, the arbitrator must disclose it without delay unless the parties have already been informed.

Circumstances that may require consideration include:

• Current or previous professional work for a party;
• Work for a party’s parent company, subsidiary or affiliate;
• A financial interest in the outcome;
• A family or close personal relationship with a party or counsel;
• Previous involvement in the dispute;
• Prior advice concerning the transaction;
• Repeat appointments by the same party or law firm;
• Concurrent service with counsel in another arbitration;
• Business relationships involving the arbitrator’s law firm;
• A public statement suggesting that the dispute has been prejudged;
• Relationships with an expert, witness or third-party funder.

Disclosure does not automatically mean that the arbitrator is disqualified. Its purpose is to allow the parties and the competent authority to evaluate the circumstances transparently.

A failure to disclose may damage confidence in the tribunal. However, non-disclosure alone does not always prove that a disqualifying conflict exists. The underlying undisclosed facts and their objective significance remain central.

The 2024 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration similarly emphasise a continuing duty of disclosure and clarify that a failure to disclose does not automatically establish partiality or require disqualification. The Guidelines are influential soft-law standards but do not override Turkish legislation or the arbitration rules selected by the parties.

Grounds for Challenging an Arbitrator

Under the International Arbitration Law, an arbitrator may be challenged where:

• The arbitrator does not possess qualifications agreed by the parties;
• A challenge ground exists under the procedure selected by the parties;
• Circumstances justify doubts about the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.

The domestic arbitration provisions contain substantially similar grounds. They also expressly provide that a party may challenge an arbitrator whose appointment it made or participated in only on the basis of circumstances learned after the appointment.

A challenge should be based on specific facts rather than dissatisfaction with procedural decisions.

The following will not ordinarily be sufficient by themselves:

• The arbitrator rejected an application;
• The arbitrator asked difficult questions;
• The tribunal preferred the other party’s procedural proposal;
• The arbitrator expressed a preliminary procedural view;
• The party believes the hearing was unfavourable;
• The arbitrator has previously written generally about the relevant legal issue.

An arbitrator is not required to have no professional history or legal opinions. The relevant issue is whether the specific circumstances objectively create justified doubts regarding neutrality.

Challenge Procedure under the International Arbitration Law

The parties are free to agree on the procedure for challenging an arbitrator. They may do so directly in the arbitration agreement or by selecting institutional rules.

In the absence of a different agreed procedure, a party seeking to challenge an arbitrator must act within 30 days after:

• Learning of the appointment or constitution of the tribunal; or
• Learning of the circumstances giving rise to the challenge.

The party must communicate the challenge in writing to the opposing party. Where one or more members of a tribunal are challenged, the grounds are submitted to the tribunal.

If the tribunal rejects the challenge, the challenging party has 30 days from learning of that rejection to apply to the competent court and request removal of the relevant arbitrator or arbitrators.

Where the challenge concerns:

• The sole arbitrator;
• The entire tribunal; or
• A number of arbitrators sufficient to eliminate the tribunal’s decision-making majority,

the application must be made directly to the competent court. The court’s decision is final.

Challenge Procedure in Domestic Arbitration

Under the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure, the parties may also agree freely on a challenge procedure.

In the absence of an agreed process, the challenging party must act within two weeks after learning of the tribunal’s constitution or the relevant circumstances. The challenge must be submitted in writing.

If the challenged arbitrator does not withdraw and the opposing party does not accept the challenge, the tribunal decides the initial challenge.

A party whose challenge is rejected may apply to the competent court within one month after learning of the rejection.

A challenge involving the sole arbitrator, the entire tribunal or enough arbitrators to remove the decision-making majority must be brought directly before the court. The statutory framework excludes a further ordinary legal remedy against the court’s decision.

The different statutory time limits are important:

• International Arbitration Law: generally 30 days;
• Domestic arbitration: generally two weeks for the initial challenge and one month for court review following rejection.

The applicable regime must therefore be identified before filing the challenge.

Challenging a Party-Appointed Arbitrator

The appointment of an arbitrator does not prevent the appointing party from later raising a legitimate challenge.

However, a party should not be allowed to appoint an individual despite knowing of a potential conflict and then rely on the same known fact after the proceedings become unfavourable.

The Code of Civil Procedure expressly limits a party’s ability to challenge its own appointee to circumstances discovered after appointment.

As a practical matter, a party should perform reasonable conflict checks before making a nomination and should review the candidate’s disclosure statement carefully.

Relevant checks may include:

• Previous appointments;
• Professional relationships;
• Publications and public statements;
• Law firm conflicts;
• Company affiliations;
• Financial interests;
• Connections with counsel, experts and witnesses.

A party that knowingly remains silent may face an argument that it waived the objection.

Withdrawal Does Not Establish the Challenge Ground

An arbitrator may choose to withdraw after a challenge, and the opposing party may agree that the arbitrator’s mandate should end.

Turkish law expressly states that an arbitrator’s withdrawal, or the other party’s consent to termination, does not amount to an admission that the challenge grounds were valid.

This rule encourages an orderly resolution without requiring the arbitrator or other party to accept allegations of bias.

An arbitrator may withdraw to protect the efficiency or appearance of fairness of the proceedings even where the arbitrator believes the challenge is legally unfounded.

Consequences of a Successful Challenge

Where a court accepts a challenge against the sole arbitrator, the entire tribunal or enough arbitrators to eliminate the required majority, the arbitration may terminate.

However, if the arbitration agreement did not identify the arbitrators by name, a new appointment process may be conducted.

This distinction is important.

If the parties merely establish an appointment mechanism, a replacement can ordinarily be selected through the same method.

If the arbitration agreement expressly names the individual arbitrators and the mandate of the named arbitrator or a decisive number of named arbitrators ends, the arbitration itself may terminate under the statutory rules.

For this reason, permanently naming arbitrators in the original commercial contract can be risky. The named person may later:

• Die;
• Become seriously ill;
• Retire;
• Develop a conflict of interest;
• Refuse the appointment;
• Lack sufficient availability;
• Become legally or practically unable to act.

It is generally safer to define an appointment mechanism rather than permanently identify the tribunal members before a dispute exists.

Termination of an Arbitrator’s Mandate

A challenge based on independence or impartiality must be distinguished from termination because the arbitrator cannot perform the role.

Under Turkish law, an arbitrator’s mandate may end where the arbitrator becomes legally or factually unable to perform the duties or fails to perform them in a timely manner.

The mandate may terminate through:

• The arbitrator’s withdrawal;
• Agreement between the parties;
• A court decision where the parties dispute whether termination conditions exist.

Examples of legal or factual inability may include:

• Death;
• Serious illness;
• Loss of legal capacity;
• A professional prohibition;
• Extended unavailability;
• Persistent refusal to participate;
• Inability to attend necessary proceedings;
• Failure to act within a reasonable period.

The court decision terminating the mandate is final under the relevant statutory framework.

Replacement of an Arbitrator

When an arbitrator’s mandate ends, the replacement is ordinarily appointed through the same method used for the original appointment.

If the original arbitrator was appointed by one party, that party usually makes the replacement appointment. If an institution or court made the original appointment, the same mechanism is generally used.

The International Arbitration Law and the domestic arbitration provisions differ regarding the effect of replacement on the arbitration period.

Under Law No. 4686, the arbitration period does not stop merely because one or more arbitrators are replaced.

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the period spent replacing one or more arbitrators is not counted within the arbitration period.

This difference may be significant where the tribunal is operating under a statutory deadline for rendering the award.

After a replacement, the reconstituted tribunal should determine whether earlier procedural steps must be repeated. Relevant considerations may include:

• Whether evidentiary hearings have already occurred;
• Whether the replacement arbitrator can review transcripts;
• Whether witness credibility is central;
• Whether the parties agree to preserve previous steps;
• Whether repeating a hearing is necessary to protect the right to be heard.

Arbitrator Responsibility for Failure to Perform

An individual who accepts an arbitral appointment assumes an obligation to perform the role.

Unless the parties agree otherwise, an arbitrator who refuses to perform the duties without a justified reason may be liable for losses caused to the parties. This principle appears in both International Arbitration Law No. 4686 and the Code of Civil Procedure.

Potential loss may include unnecessary institutional fees, costs of repeated hearings or expenses caused directly by an unjustified refusal to continue.

This liability rule does not mean that an arbitrator must continue despite a legitimate conflict, illness or inability to act. The relevant issue is an unjustified failure after accepting the appointment.

ISTAC Appointment and Challenge Mechanisms

Where the parties select ISTAC arbitration, tribunal constitution is administered within an institutional framework.

ISTAC’s official materials state that parties may select arbitrators freely. Where the parties fail to complete the appointment process, the ISTAC Board may perform appointment functions. Its institutional materials also identify the replacement of arbitrators following a successful challenge as one of the Board’s administrative responsibilities.

An institutional procedure may reduce the need for immediate court intervention because the institution can administer:

• Arbitrator nominations;
• Appointments where the parties fail to agree;
• Disclosure statements;
• Challenge submissions;
• Replacement appointments;
• Communications between the parties and tribunal.

The applicable version of the ISTAC Arbitration Rules should be reviewed when the arbitration is commenced because the parties’ agreed institutional procedure will determine the specific submission requirements and deadlines.

The institutional decision-making body does not resolve the commercial merits merely because it deals with appointment or challenge questions. The dispute remains for determination by the arbitrator or tribunal.

The 2024 IBA Guidelines and Turkish Arbitration

The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest are frequently used in international arbitration to organise and evaluate potential conflict situations.

The 2024 edition contains general standards on independence, impartiality and disclosure, together with practical Red, Orange and Green Lists.

In simplified terms:

• The Non-Waivable Red List concerns serious situations in which the conflict cannot ordinarily be cured by party consent;
• The Waivable Red List concerns serious conflicts that may be accepted through informed agreement in appropriate circumstances;
• The Orange List identifies circumstances that may require disclosure depending on the facts;
• The Green List identifies circumstances that ordinarily do not create a conflict or disclosure requirement.

The Guidelines emphasise that the lists are not exhaustive and that the general standards must remain central. They also apply the independence and impartiality requirements equally to sole arbitrators, tribunal chairs and party-appointed arbitrators.

The IBA Guidelines do not have the status of Turkish legislation. They do not replace Law No. 4686, the Code of Civil Procedure or the institutional rules selected by the parties. They may nevertheless provide useful guidance when evaluating whether a particular professional or personal relationship should be disclosed.

Effect of an Irregular Tribunal on the Final Award

Improper tribunal constitution may threaten the validity and enforceability of the award.

Under Article 15 of the International Arbitration Law, an award may be set aside where the applicant proves that the appointment of the arbitrator or tribunal did not comply with the procedure agreed by the parties or required by the law.

The domestic arbitration provisions similarly identify non-compliance with the contractual or statutory appointment procedure as a ground for setting aside an award.

The issue may also arise at the international enforcement stage.

Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention permits refusal of recognition and enforcement where the composition of the arbitral authority or arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, the law of the seat.

An appointment defect can therefore affect the award:

• At the seat through an annulment action;
• In Turkey through domestic enforcement procedures;
• Abroad through New York Convention enforcement objections.

This makes strict compliance with the agreed appointment and challenge process essential.

Practical Due Diligence before Appointing an Arbitrator

Before nominating an arbitrator, a party should consider:

• The candidate’s independence and impartiality;
• Professional relationships with all parties and affiliates;
• Relationships with counsel;
• Experience with the governing law;
• Knowledge of the relevant industry;
• Language ability;
• Availability during the anticipated timetable;
• Previous appointments by either party or law firm;
• Experience as sole arbitrator, co-arbitrator or chair;
• Ability to manage documents, witnesses and experts;
• Fee expectations;
• Potential conflicts involving the candidate’s firm;
• The candidate’s approach to procedural efficiency.

The party should also provide the prospective arbitrator with sufficient information to conduct an effective conflict check.

This information may include:

• The legal names of the parties;
• Parent companies and subsidiaries;
• Principal shareholders;
• Counsel and law firms;
• Experts;
• Relevant third parties;
• Known funders;
• Related disputes.

An incomplete party list may result in an incomplete disclosure process.

Drafting an Effective Appointment Clause

A workable clause should define the tribunal structure without creating unnecessary restrictions.

A three-member ISTAC clause may state:

“The tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators. Each party shall nominate one arbitrator, and the two party-nominated arbitrators shall nominate the presiding arbitrator. If an appointment is not made within the period prescribed by the ISTAC Arbitration Rules, the appointment shall be made by the Istanbul Arbitration Centre in accordance with those Rules. Each arbitrator shall remain independent and impartial and shall disclose without delay any circumstances capable of giving rise to justified doubts regarding independence or impartiality.”

A sole-arbitrator clause may state:

“The dispute shall be determined by a sole arbitrator jointly nominated by the parties. If the parties fail to agree within 30 days after service of the request for arbitration, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the agreed arbitration institution.”

The clause should generally avoid:

• Permanently naming an individual arbitrator;
• Giving one party exclusive control over all appointments;
• Selecting an even number of arbitrators;
• Requiring contradictory qualifications;
• Referring to a non-existent appointing authority;
• Creating an appointment procedure with no default mechanism.

Practical Challenge Checklist

Before challenging an arbitrator, the party should determine:

• Which arbitration law applies;
• Which institutional rules apply;
• When the relevant fact became known;
• Whether the statutory or institutional deadline has started;
• Whether the party appointed or participated in appointing the arbitrator;
• Whether the circumstance was previously disclosed;
• Whether the party previously waived the objection;
• Whether the concern is objective and evidence-based;
• Whether the challenge concerns one member, the whole tribunal or the majority;
• Whether the initial application goes to the tribunal, institution or court;
• Which Turkish court has jurisdiction;
• What documents support the challenge;
• Whether replacement will affect the arbitration period;
• Whether the challenge could affect annulment or enforcement later.

A challenge should be submitted promptly and should identify the legal ground, relevant facts and supporting evidence clearly.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many arbitrators may the parties select in Turkey?

The parties may determine the number, but it must be odd. If no number is agreed, the statutory default is three arbitrators.

Must an arbitrator be a lawyer?

Not necessarily in international arbitration. Under domestic arbitration, where the tribunal has more than one member, at least one member must be a lawyer with five years or more of professional seniority.

Can a foreign national act as an arbitrator in Turkey?

Yes. Turkish law does not generally require arbitrators to be Turkish nationals. In international appointments made by a court, nationality neutrality must be considered where the parties possess different nationalities.

Is a party-appointed arbitrator allowed to favour the appointing party?

No. Every arbitrator must remain independent and impartial, regardless of who made the appointment.

Must an arbitrator disclose potential conflicts?

Yes. Disclosure is required before accepting the appointment and continues throughout the arbitration when new circumstances arise.

Does disclosure automatically disqualify the arbitrator?

No. Disclosure allows the parties to evaluate the circumstances. The relevant issue is whether the facts objectively create justified doubts regarding independence or impartiality.

What is the time limit for challenging an arbitrator?

Under the International Arbitration Law, the general period is 30 days from learning of the appointment or relevant circumstance. In domestic arbitration, the general period for the initial challenge is two weeks. Institutional rules may contain their own applicable procedure.

Who decides the challenge?

The answer depends on the agreed rules and the number of arbitrators challenged. The tribunal or institution may initially decide an ordinary challenge. Challenges involving the sole arbitrator, the entire tribunal or enough arbitrators to eliminate the majority must generally be brought directly before the competent court under the statutory default process.

Can a party challenge the arbitrator it appointed?

Yes, but it should generally rely only on circumstances learned after the appointment. The domestic arbitration legislation states this restriction expressly.

Does an arbitrator’s resignation prove that the challenge was justified?

No. Turkish law expressly provides that withdrawal or consent to termination does not amount to acceptance of the alleged challenge grounds.

How is a replacement arbitrator selected?

The replacement is generally appointed through the same procedure used for the original arbitrator.

Can an appointment defect lead to annulment?

Yes. Failure to follow the parties’ agreed appointment process or the applicable statutory procedure is a ground for setting aside an award under Turkish arbitration legislation.

Can enforcement abroad be refused because of tribunal composition?

Yes. Article V(1)(d) of the New York Convention permits refusal where the tribunal’s composition did not comply with the parties’ agreement or, in the absence of an agreement, the law of the seat.

Conclusion

The appointment, independence and challenge of arbitrators are fundamental to the legitimacy and effectiveness of arbitration in Turkey.

Turkish law gives parties broad freedom to determine the number, qualifications and appointment procedure of arbitrators. At the same time, it establishes mandatory safeguards intended to ensure that arbitrators remain independent, impartial and capable of performing their duties.

A prospective arbitrator must disclose relevant circumstances before accepting an appointment and must continue to disclose new circumstances throughout the proceedings. A challenge may be raised where the arbitrator lacks agreed qualifications, a contractual challenge ground exists or circumstances objectively justify doubts about independence or impartiality.

Strict time limits apply. Under International Arbitration Law No. 4686, a challenge must generally be made within 30 days. Under domestic arbitration rules, the initial period is generally two weeks. Depending on the agreed procedure and the number of arbitrators challenged, the matter may be determined by the tribunal, an arbitration institution or a Turkish court.

Parties should select arbitrators based on neutrality, availability, competence and procedural ability rather than reputation alone. They should also perform conflict checks, provide complete party information and review disclosure statements immediately.

A poorly designed appointment clause or an unresolved conflict may affect not only the arbitration proceedings but also the validity and international enforcement of the final award. For this reason, tribunal constitution should be treated as a strategic legal process rather than an administrative formality.

The most effective approach is to draft a clear appointment mechanism, use reliable institutional rules where appropriate and respond promptly to any circumstances affecting the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Appointment and challenge procedures depend on the arbitration agreement, seat of arbitration, applicable legislation, institutional rules and specific circumstances of the arbitrator’s relationships. Case-specific legal advice should be obtained before nominating or challenging an arbitrator.