## Facts

- ICS Inspection and Control Services Ltd. (United Kingdom) commenced an investor–State arbitration against the Republic of Argentina under the Argentina–United Kingdom BIT (1990), applying the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (1976).
- ICS filed a notice of arbitration on June 26, 2009 and appointed Stanimir A. Alexandrov as arbitrator on July 28, 2009.
- On August 7, 2009, Alexandrov disclosed that:
  - His firm (Sidley Austin LLP) had previously represented PWC Logistics (thought to be an affiliate/parent of ICS); the representation ended in 2005, total billings were under $60,000, it was unrelated to the arbitration, and Alexandrov had no involvement.
  - He and his firm were then representing claimants in a separate ICSID case against Argentina (Vivendi v. Argentina), unrelated in subject matter to ICS’s dispute.
- On August 12, 2009, Argentina challenged Alexandrov under UNCITRAL Rule 10(1), alleging the disclosures created justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiality.
- The PCA Secretary-General designated Jernej Sekolec as appointing authority to decide the challenge.
- Argentina invoked the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2004), including Orange List scenarios, as support for disqualification.

## Issues

1. Whether Sidley Austin’s concluded, minor prior representation of PWC Logistics (allegedly connected to ICS) created justifiable doubts as to Alexandrov’s independence or impartiality under UNCITRAL Rule 10(1).
2. Whether Alexandrov’s and his firm’s concurrent representation of claimants against Argentina in an unrelated investment arbitration created justifiable doubts under UNCITRAL Rule 10(1).
3. What weight, if any, the IBA Guidelines should carry in applying the UNCITRAL “justifiable doubts” standard.

## Decision

- The appointing authority rejected Argentina’s challenge and declined to remove Alexandrov.
- The authority applied an objective “reasonable and informed third person” test to determine whether the disclosed circumstances created justifiable doubts.
- The authority treated the IBA Guidelines as persuasive, non-binding guidance, distinguishing disclosure-triggering circumstances from disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- Under UNCITRAL Rule 10(1), removal requires circumstances that, viewed objectively, give rise to justifiable doubts about an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.
- The relevant standard is not a party’s subjective apprehension; it is whether a reasonable and informed third person would find a likelihood the arbitrator could be influenced by factors other than the merits.
- A law firm’s past, concluded, minor, and unrelated representation—especially without the arbitrator’s personal involvement—will not ordinarily meet the disqualification threshold.
- Concurrent service as counsel against a party in a separate, unrelated matter does not automatically create justifiable doubts; the relationship must be sufficiently close in nature and intensity to compromise perceived impartiality.
- The IBA Guidelines may assist in structuring conflict analysis, but placement on the Orange List generally indicates a potential need for disclosure, not a mandatory basis for removal.

## Conclusion

Applying an objective “justifiable doubts” standard under UNCITRAL Rule 10(1), the appointing authority held that neither Sidley Austin’s minor, terminated work for an entity allegedly linked to the claimant nor Alexandrov’s concurrent counsel role against Argentina in an unrelated arbitration warranted disqualification, and the challenge was dismissed.


ICS Inspection & Control Servs. Ltd. (U.K.) v. Arg., Decision on Challenge to Arbitrator (UNCITRAL Dec. 17, 2009)