MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Arguments
I. The challenge to Dr. Arbitrator is to be rejected
1. Arbitrator will participate in the decision on his own challenge (A.), which is governed by
§§ 15, 18 DIS Rules (B.). The challenge is to be rejected because there are no reasonable doubts
as to his impartiality or his independence (C.).
A. Dr. Arbitrator participates in the decision on his challenge
2. In accordance with § 18.2 DIS Rules, the arbitral Tribunal itself decides on the challenge.
Dr. Arbitrator participates in the decision on the challenge as a member of the Tribunal
[Procedural Order No. 1, para No. 4].
B. The challenge is governed by §§ 15, 18 DIS Rules
3. § 15 DIS Rules calls for „impartial and independent“ arbitrators. § 18.1 DIS Rules provides
for the challenge of an arbitrator if “circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as
to his impartiality or independence“. The terms “impartiality and independence” are not
defined in the DIS Rules. As the DIS Rules are based upon the Model Law [Böckstiegel, DIS-
Mat III 1998, p. 5; Semler, J.Arb.Int. 2001, p. 579], case law relating to the Model Law may
be used as persuasive authority.
C. There are no reasons to doubt Dr. Arbitrator’s impartiality or his independence
a. Dr. Arbitrator’s expectation to become a partner of a law firm that has represented
CLAIMANT is not sufficient to raise doubts as to his impartiality or independence
4. Dr. Arbitrator’s expectation of becoming a member of the law firm during a period when
he is acting as an arbitrator in a matter involving a former client of the firm is not sufficient to
raise justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence
5. Such justifiable doubts would have to be direct, definite, and capable of demonstration
rather than remote, uncertain, or speculative [Giddens v. Board of education of the city of
Chicago (U.S.); Pitta v. Hotel Ass'n, Inc. (U.S.); Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickholz (U.S.); Morelite
3