Young ICCA Debate: This house believes that nationality is a material criterion to judge arbitrator independence and impartiality

As part of Singapore Convention Week 2025, Young ICCA is pleased to invite you to a debate on the motion:

"This house believes that nationality is a material criterion to judge arbitrator independence and impartiality."

The event will take place on 27 August from 4:00 – 5:30 pm SGT and is generously hosted by White & Case in Singapore. The motion will be debated by four young arbitration practitioners from diverse professional and jurisdictional backgrounds, and judged by a distinguished panel of senior arbitration figures.

Judges

• Lucas Bastin KC, Essex Court Chambers
• Anne Secomb, Secomb Arbitration

• Kevin Kim, Founder & Managing Partner, Peter & Kim

   

Speakers

• Joshua Wan, DLA Piper
• Clemency Wang, White & Case
• Gerald Seah, Drew & Napier

• Nishanth Kadur, Nishith Desai Associates

   

Moderator

• Nicholas Lee, Quinn Emanuel

   

Join us for what promises to be a lively and thought-provoking discussion, followed by a networking reception with members of Singapore’s arbitration community. 

The event will be held in person at the White & Case Singapore office and will also be accessible remotely.

Young ICCA Debate: Nationality and Arbitrator Independence and Impartiality 

Reported by Nolan Lee (White & Case)

On 27 August 2025, as part of Singapore Convention Week, Young ICCA hosted a debate on the motion:

“This house believes that nationality is a material criterion to judge arbitrator independence and impartiality.”

Held at White & Case’s Singapore office and livestreamed to a global audience, the debate brought together four young arbitration lawyers to examine the relevance of the arbitrator’s nationality in assessing her independence and impartiality. The session was moderated by Nicholas Lee (Quinn Emanuel) and judged by AnneSecomb (Secomb Arbitration), Kevin Kim (Peter & Kim), and Lucas Bastin KC (Essex Court Chambers).

Clemency Wang (White & Case) opened the case for the proposition by asking how many people during the week (this event took place during Singapore Convention Week), when meeting someone new at a networking event, asked some variation of the question “where are you from?”. 

Unsurprisingly, we saw a lot of hands. She then used this to make the point that nationality matters — as social creatures, humans intuitively group themselves and thus, nationality cannot be a neutral characteristic. She then turned to her second point: that it’s not about how the arbitrator or counsel feel, but how the parties feel. Focusing on the perception of the users of arbitration, Clemency argued that parties would doubt the process if the sole arbitrator or institution-appointed chair shared nationality with the opposing party. 

By way of conclusion, Clemency argued that there is no downside to recognizing nationality as a material consideration. She then pointed to a benefit — diversity. Forcing institutions to choose arbitrators of a different nationality as the parties may nudge institutions to rely on a more diverse arbitrator pool. 

Gerald Seah (Drew & Napier) presented the case against the motion by distinguishing between actual bias and apparent bias, framing the question as: whether nationality alone can give rise to apparent bias (because actual bias is notoriously difficult to prove and out of scope for today’s debate). Gerald answered in the negative and proceeded to make his point by way of a rhetorical question (paraphrased): why would we think that an intellectual and professional arbitrator who has taken her oath of impartiality would be so easily swayed by something like nationality? He then highlighted an apparent inconsistency between party-appointed arbitrators and sole arbitrators or institution-appointed chairs. Parties may appoint an arbitrator who shares their nationality. If the arbitration community can accept that party-appointed arbitrators with the same nationality may act independently and impartially, we should also accept that sole arbitrators or institution-appointed chairs can act equally independently and impartially. 

Gerald concluded by pointing out that the model law and various institutional rules look only to sharing nationalities with parties, without looking beyond the potential dynamics certain nationalities may have. To support his point, Gerald cited a recent case where a Russian court refused enforcement because the award debtor was Russian while one of the arbitrators was from Ukraine, a country which the court deemed hostile towards Russia. 

Nishanth Kadur (Nishith Desai Associates) continued in support of the motion by addressing the role of unconscious bias. He explained that while arbitrators may act professionally, inherent cultural and legal predispositions can subtly influence decision-making. Giving an example of inherent cultural predispositions, he gave the example of time. Certain cultures adhere to timelines like clockwork, while other cultures may seem to enjoy more leniency. He suggested that appointing arbitrators from the same or similar cultural backgrounds as one of the parties may inadvertently impact their perceptions of fairness, especially since unconscious bias and cultural predispositions are exceptionally difficult to actively manage. This is particularly important as identifying unconscious bias through nationality provides an objective measure (albeit an imperfect one). 

Nishanth proceeded to answer Gerald’s concerns about geopolitical tensions and the rudimentary framework of simply preventing those who share nationalities. Nishanth argued that these tensions often change and, therefore, may not be a reliable basis for determining arbitrator impartiality. Geopolitical tensions may vanish or arise overnight. In contrast, nationality is a more consistent and familiar factor that may be more relevant to how parties perceive fairness. 

Joshua Wan (DLA Piper) argued against relying on symbolic factors of impartiality, which prevents co-nationals from being both party and arbitrator, especially when we already have a substantive mechanism to judge impartiality — the IBA Guidelines. Joshua emphasized that we already have an objective set of rules to assess impartiality and that treating nationality as materially different from other traits (e.g., ethnicity, gender, religion, cultural background, legal training, etc.) risks imposing arbitrary limits on arbitrator appointments without clear justification. This is especially so in today’s multicultural world — if an arbitrator is a national of country A, while having spent most of her life in country B, but currently living in country C (not an uncommon scenario in the international arbitration sphere), with which country should we assume her allegiance? 

Going beyond the IBA Guidelines, Joshua pointed out that most arbitrators are already obliged to be neutral, since most arbitrators are lawyers, who would in turn be bound by their home jurisdiction’s rules of ethics. Joshua then argued that to presume bias (especially when there has been no evidence to suggest so) would be to undermine the arbitrator’s integrity without cause. Responding to Nishanth’s comment on the ever-so-changing nature of geopolitics, Joshua concluded his argument by pointing out that people change nationalities as well. 

Upon the conclusion of the debate, the judges provided some comments before deliberating. One judge questioned whether we should consider an arbitrator’s previous (renounced) nationality. Another recognized that the system isn’t perfect, but nationality is a tangible, objective feature that is easily ascertainable (something is better than nothing). The final judge commented on Clemency’s argument that this is all about how the parties feel by giving an example of a Qatar blockade-related case that they previously heard. The parties in that case sanctioned against arbitrators from some 20 plus nationalities. This was not because the parties made up more than 20 nationalities. Rather, this was because there was a worldwide commentary on the blockade and parties would feel strongly if an arbitrator was from a country that was vocal about the issue (one way or another). 

Ultimately, the judges found in favor of the opposition. Clemency Wang and Joshua Wan were crowned co-best speakers.  

Note: The position adopted by each speaker was allocated at random. Their positions during the debate, as summarized above, do not necessarily reflect their personal views or the views of their organizations. 

Left to right: Nishanth Kadur, Clemency Wang, Kevin Kim, Anne Secomb, Lucas Bastin KC, Nicholas Lee, Gerald Seah, Joshua Wan, Eva Chan