The thorny intersection of personal opinion and arbitrator impartiality: lessons from Crescent Petroleum and other cases

Abstract With the rising use of social and other media as a means of self-expression, arbitrators have been facing an increased risk of disqualification due to a perceived lack of impartiality based on their public pronouncements on controversial topics. This particular scenario crystallized for renowned international arbitrator Charles Poncet in late 2023, when the ICC Court of Arbitration (ICC Court) disqualified him in a multi-billion-dollar case involving Crescent Petroleum against the National Iranian Oil Company, due to comments that were perceived to display an anti-Muslim bias made during a television broadcast in August of the same year. The same issue has arisen in other cases with varying outcomes, depending on context and the strength of the arbitrator’s expression. While requirements for the public conduct of national judges are comparatively strict, the same cannot be said for those applying to arbitrators, whose standard for impartiality is based primarily on the need to avoid conflicts of interest, whereas the impact of apparent biases, perceivable through their public statements, seems to have been largely overlooked.