Interpretation of the presumption of impartiality of arbitrators from “unfriendly” jurisdictions

this study examines the approach adopted by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in evaluating the impartiality of arbitrators affiliated with jurisdictions deemed "unfriendly," particularly focusing on the presumption of their lack of objectivity established in the FOSFA case. The research aims to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the interpretation and practical application of this presumption, while assessing its impact on international commercial arbitration. The study pursues the following objectives: analyzing the factual background and legal reasoning of the Supreme Court's decision in the FOSFA case; comparing this judicial approach with prior case law; examining the legal nature and foundations of the presumption of impartiality absence; evaluating potential consequences of this legal position for future arbitration practice; developing a balanced interpretation of the established presumption. Special emphasis is placed on how an arbitrator's nationality or affiliation with an "unfriendly" jurisdiction affects perceptions of their neutrality, and what legal and ethical challenges this creates within contemporary geopolitical realities. The research findings will enhance understanding of the evolving standards for arbitrator impartiality within the Russian legal framework and their alignment with international arbitration norms. The investigation employs comparative legal methodology and case analysis to provide systematic examination of this significant development in arbitration jurisprudence.

impartiality, bias, arbitrator, court, dispute, party