2025 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration: A Field Guide for Foreign Companies (with London & Dubai Perspectives)

Prepared for corporate counsel, funds, SOEs, project developers, lenders and tech companies by TRW — Tahmidur Rahman Remura Wahid. Our international arbitration teams operate from Dhaka, London and Dubai.

If you need immediate help structuring disclosures, challenging an appointment, or “stress-testing” your tribunal for conflicts, see our practice overview: TRW — International Arbitration. For urgent interim measures while a challenge is pending, also review: Emergency Arbitration.

Why this matters to you

Conflicts of interest in arbitration are not academic niceties; they are award-risk multipliers. A concealed relationship between an arbitrator and a party, counsel team, expert, funder or affiliate can:

• derail your case mid-stream,
• hand your counterparty a lifeline on enforcement,
• or lead to annulment proceedings at the seat that can take years.

The 2025 IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (“2025 IBA Guidelines”) are the most widely accepted, globally portable “soft law” compass for navigating these risks. While non-binding, the IBA framework is routinely invoked by tribunals, institutions and challenge bodies; it is persuasive in many courts and baked into countless procedural orders. The 2025 update modernises the 2014 version with practical clarifications on third-party funding, social media, expert and co-arbitrator relationships, repeat appointments for mock hearings, and the duty of diligence on parties.

This is your practical guide: what changed, how to operationalise the lists (Red/Orange/Green), what in-house teams must build before a case, and how strategy differs when your seat or counterparties connect to London or Dubai.

Fast primer: how the IBA framework is structured

• Part I: General Standards — impartiality, independence, and disclosure from acceptance to final award; the duties of arbitrators and parties; scope and relationships.
• Part II: Traffic-light lists — Non-Waivable Red (never acceptable), Waivable Red (serious, but can be waived with informed consent), Orange (potentially problematic: disclose), Green (no need to disclose).

Key mindset: The General Standards in Part I come first. The lists are illustrative, not exhaustive; they guide rather than replace judgment. Institutions and courts repeatedly emphasise this hierarchy.

What is new in 2024 (and why it affects your playbook)

The 2024 updates do not revolutionise the framework; they modernise and clarify it. The most relevant additions for corporates and counsel include:

1. Sharper emphasis on disclosure even where secrecy or client confidentiality rules apply. The Guidelines underscore that arbitrators should still seek ways to disclose material facts despite professional secrecy, by using anonymisation, generic descriptions, waivers, or institutional channels.
2. Failure to disclose ≠ automatic conflict. Non-disclosure alone does not prove partiality; the substance of the relationship still governs. But non-disclosure is relevant context and can support a challenge when paired with other facts (e.g., repeat paid relationships).
3. Orange List expands around experts and repeat mock-hearing engagements.

• Acting as an expert for a party or affiliate in an unrelated matter within the past three years is now highlighted as Orange.
• New focus on arbitrator ties to counsel: serving as co-arbitrators with counsel elsewhere; repeat mock trial/hearing prep engagements by the same law firm or counsel (two to three+ times within three years) warrant disclosure.
• Arbitrator public advocacy on the issues or the very case (papers, speeches, or social media) is flagged.

1. Relationships between co-arbitrators are now more granular. Simultaneous service with the same person(s) in other cases appears in the Orange List — not a per se bar, but a disclosure trigger, particularly where case themes, parties, or funders overlap.
2. Green List fine-tunes “prior exposure.” Hearing the same expert in another matter (as arbitrator) is typically Green (no disclosure required), unless other facts push it into Orange (e.g., the arbitrator is currently instructing that expert as counsel elsewhere — flagged as Orange).
3. Uniformity and efficiency. The 2024 text leans harder on consistency: different institutions and seats should hew to the same conflict logic, reducing “seat-shopping” over disclosure rules.

The business risks: what goes wrong (and how to stop it early)

1) The stealth conflict

Scenario: Your sole arbitrator fails to disclose that their firm recently did significant unrelated work for your adversary’s parent. You lose; the award faces setting aside at the seat or refusal at the enforcement court.
Prevention: Pre-appointment diligence (see our checklists), aggressive conflict questions in the questionnaire, and request for updated disclosures when the case pivots (e.g., new funder, new affiliate appears).

2) The echo chamber panel

Scenario: Two co-arbitrators serve together on multiple other panels and share a deep pipeline with the same counsel or funder. Nothing illegal — but perception problems mount.
Prevention: During appointments, query co-arbitrator overlaps; ask the institution for diversity of appointments and workload transparency; consider three-member tribunals with balanced, neutral chair selection.

3) The expert entanglement

Scenario: Your arbitrator is instructing the opposing expert in another matter as counsel.
Prevention: Press for the arbitrator’s full counsel docket (subject to confidentiality-friendly summaries), and include specific expert-related questions in the disclosure form.

4) The social media advocate

Scenario: Months before appointment, an arbitrator posted a LinkedIn article taking a stance on your key liability issue.
Prevention: Systematically scan public writings and social media for issue advocacy; do not underestimate how often this emerges after the hearing starts.

5) The repeat “mock” relationship

Scenario: Your opposing counsel has used the arbitrator in paid mock hearings several times in the last three years.
Prevention: Add explicit questions in the arbitrator questionnaire about mock hearing engagements by any party’s counsel or firm.

The traffic-light lists in practice (with 2024 tweaks)

Non-Waivable Red List (never acceptable)

Think “no one can be their own judge.” If the arbitrator is a legal representative of a party, has a significant financial interest in the outcome, or is otherwise functionally part of a party, they must step aside. No “informed consent” can cure.

Your response: Immediate objection to the institution; request replacement. If somehow missed, reserve rights for set-aside at the seat and enforcement defense.

Waivable Red List (serious, but curable)

Examples: substantial prior representation of a party in a related matter; deep and recent economic links that might prompt doubt, but which parties can waive after full disclosure.

Your response: Evaluate the upside of waiving a known risk vs the delay and friction of a challenge. If you waive, do it formally and narrowly, and record the disclosed facts precisely.

Orange List (disclose and discuss)

This is where most of 2024 action sits: relationships with experts, co-arbitrator overlaps, repeat mock hearing engagements, co-service with counsel, public advocacy on case issues, participation in institutional decisions touching the case. These facts do not automatically impugn impartiality, but they must be disclosed.

Your response:

• If disclosed early and fully: decide whether to accept (with a written reservation) or challenge based on materiality (frequency, monetary value, timing, proximity to case issues).
• If discovered late: document the discovery path, seek supplemental disclosure, then decide whether to move to challenge or request procedural safeguards (e.g., excluding that expert, re-balancing panel roles).

Green List (no disclosure expected)

Professional organisation memberships, academic roles, attending the same conferences, or having heard the same expert in another case usually don’t require disclosure (absent aggravating facts).

Your response: Don’t over-challenge. Save credibility for serious issues.

Duties re-stated in 2024: who must do what?

Arbitrators

• Investigate actively before and during the case; repeat your check when new parties, affiliates, funders, experts emerge.
• Disclose promptly; when secrecy impedes detail, disclose in generic but meaningful terms and seek client waivers.
• Update disclosures as facts evolve.
• Avoid public advocacy on the case or closely related issues while sitting.

Parties and Counsel

• Duty of diligence: you are expected to investigate publicly available information and raise timely objections. Sitting on a known issue is risky — it can be treated as waiver.
• Fair dealing: if you bring in a new affiliate, funder, expert, tell the tribunal and the other side promptly so conflicts can be reassessed.

Third-party funding: what you must surface

Funding is now mainstream in commercial and investment arbitration. The 2024 refresh reinforces that funders and insurers can be conflict vectors. Practically:

• Disclose existence and identity of funder/insurer to the institution/tribunal, even if you don’t reveal full terms.
• Map ownership and control of funder vehicles (some are part of larger financial groups overlapping with your adversary or arbitrators’ firms).
• If the funder has board members or advisers with ties to the tribunal or counsel, say so.

For corporates sensitive about publicity, disclosures can be framed privately to the institution subject to confidentiality directions.

Social media and public advocacy: a new frontline

The 2024 text explicitly recognises that an arbitrator publicly advocating a position on the case (or its core issues) — via articles, speeches, posts, even professional networking platforms — can trigger Orange disclosures. Your strategy:

• Add a structured scan to your arbitrator due diligence (articles, podcasts, panel appearances, posts).
• Distinguish general academic views from case-specific advocacy. The former may be harmless; the latter often isn’t.
• If discovered mid-case, raise a measured concern, ask for context and assurances, and preserve your right to challenge if doubt persists.

Experts: dual roles and cross-matter ties

The 2024 Orange List addresses situations where the arbitrator is instructing an expert who appears in your case (in another matter where the arbitrator acts as counsel). That is normally disclosable and potentially challenge-worthy.

Practical rules of thumb:

• Ask arbitrator candidates to disclose current counsel mandates involving any expert named in your case.
• When you engage an expert, request their recent instruction map (arbitrators, counsel, funders).
• Consider expert rotation strategies if the ecosystem is small (e.g., construction delay experts in the Gulf).

Co-arbitrators and counsel: repeat plays

Simultaneous service with the same counsel or same arbitrator(s) in multiple cases is now specifically Orange in several configurations. Not every repeat contact compromises impartiality, but frequency, intensity, and economic scale matter.

Your action points:

• In three-member tribunals, signal you will scrutinise repeat networks and ask the institution for balance.
• For appointment proposals, include an overlap statement (e.g., “Candidate A has no current co-service with X or Y; served once with Z in unrelated case three years ago”).

London and Dubai perspectives (and why they matter to foreign companies)

London (England & Wales)

• Courts (and LCIA practice) are receptive to the IBA Guidelines as persuasive guidance.
• English law often frames compliance disputes as admissibility rather than jurisdiction, meaning tribunals typically decide challenges in the first instance, with court supervision for egregious cases.
• The London market is dense with repeat players (arbitrators, experts, funders). A rigorous overlap audit is essential.
• Cost risks: unsuccessful challenges may carry adverse costs; keep objections focused and evidence-based.

Dubai (UAE onshore, DIFC/ADGM interface; DIAC/ICC seats)

• Institutional modernisation in Dubai (e.g., DIAC) coexists with onshore and common law free zone courts (DIFC, ADGM) that can be used as supporting jurisdictions.
• The arbitrator and expert community in the MENA region can be tighter-knit; conflict and overlap risks are heightened (especially in construction, energy and real estate disputes).
• Build bilingual disclosure workflows, anticipate government-linked affiliates, and pay special attention to expert/adjudicator relationships from regional mega-projects.
• Use seat selection strategically: a DIFC/ADGM seat can provide a sophisticated supervisory court for conflict challenges; an onshore seat may present different evidentiary and language expectations.

In-house readiness: what to build before the dispute

1) Arbitrator and expert diligence stack

• People map: potential arbitrators, counsel teams, experts, funders tied to your sector and geographies (UK, UAE, EU, Singapore).
• Overlap database: use a simple grid (person × firm × matter × year × capacity) incorporating public awards, conference bios, and publications.
• Social media & publication scan templates.

2) Affiliate and ownership clarity

• Keep an up-to-date structure chart (parents, subs, JV vehicles, SPVs, funds). Conflict screens often miss indirect affiliates.
• Record directors/advisers who sit on multiple boards across your group and strategic partners.

3) Funding protocols

• If you may use funding or insurance, pre-bake a disclosure plan (identity, ownership, any hooks to arbitrators/counsel/experts).

4) Procedural playbooks and clause language

• Insert into your arbitration clauses:
• duty to disclose funders and material affiliates;
• consent to email-based service for conflict disclosures;
• agreement that IBA Guidelines will inform (not override) conflict assessments;
• a mechanism for challenges (institution route, timing, replacement).

Need a clause audit or model language? Start here: TRW — International Arbitration.

Tactical phases: appointment → disclosure → challenge → cure

Phase 1 — Pre-appointment

• Send candidates a targeted questionnaire covering:
• past 3–5 year ties with parties, affiliates, funders, insurers;
• ties with counsel teams and experts (including mock hearing work);
• co-arbitrator overlaps (current and recent);
• publications, speeches, and social posts on case issues.
• Ask for ongoing duty to refresh disclosures.

Phase 2 — Initial disclosures

• Seek specificity (dates, roles, degree of involvement), yet be realistic about confidentiality constraints.
• Where detail is limited, ask the institution for confidential submissions to the challenge committee.

Phase 3 — Mid-case updates

• Major events that trigger re-checks: addition of new experts, entry of a funder, mergers among parties’ law firms, changes of counsel, corporate restructurings, or public statements by tribunal members on relevant issues.

Phase 4 — Challenge or cure

• Challenge only when facts meet a credible Orange→Red threshold, and be timely — delay looks tactical.
• Cure options:
• seek a process adjustment (e.g., chair to lead all credibility determinations where a co-arbitrator overlap is sensitive),
• replace an expert if that solves the entanglement,
• accept undertakings from the arbitrator (e.g., no further engagements with a counsel team during the case).

Model documents (you can adapt immediately)

A) Arbitrator disclosure questionnaire (extract)

1. Parties & Affiliates. Please identify any professional, financial or personal relationships (past five years) with:

• the named parties;
• any entity owning or controlling them (directly or indirectly);
• known affiliates likely to be involved (list attached).

1. Counsel & Firms. Any relationships with counsel of record or their firms (including co-arbitration and mock hearing roles) in the past three years? Please specify matter, capacity, fees (range), and timing.
2. Experts & Consultants. Any current or recent instruction of any expert named or anticipated in this case? Any service as arbitrator in a matter where that expert testified?
3. Funders & Insurers. Any relationships with entities funding or insuring parties in this case?
4. Public Advocacy. Any publications/speeches/posts in the last five years addressing issues central to this dispute?
5. Institutional Roles. Any decision-making role with an appointing authority that touched this dispute?
6. Ongoing Duty. Do you accept a continuing duty to disclose new circumstances as they arise?

B) Party disclosure to the tribunal (template extract)

• Affiliates: attach structure chart, name material affiliates.
• Funders/Insurers: identify by name; outline ownership at 10%+ thresholds if relevant.
• Experts: identify teams and employers; confirm no instruction of tribunal members in other matters.
• Updates: undertaking to notify promptly of material changes.

Red flags by sector (London & Dubai hotspots)

• Construction/Energy (Dubai, London global hubs)
• DAB/DRB members and delay/quantum experts rotate heavily. Watch for arbitrators who’ve instructed your expert elsewhere, or counsel who frequently retain a specific arbitrator for mock hearings.
• Regional mega-projects create repeat constellations; your conflict matrix must extend to JV partners and project companies.
• Financial Services / Trade Finance (London)
• Funders, insurers and banks interlock across portfolios. A funding house may be minority-owned by a bank on the other side; this often sits in the Orange zone but can become serious if combined with other ties.
• Valuation experts appear across multiple cases with the same counterparties.
• Tech / IP / Data
• Academics who publish on your algorithm, standard or protocol may appear as arbitrators. Check for issue advocacy.
• Experts overlap across standards bodies and open-source foundations — disclosure often needed.
• Investor-State
• The community is small. Repeat co-arbitration and counsel networks are common. Funding disclosure is crucial, and amicus/NGO ties of arbitrators can raise appearance issues on specific public law topics.

Challenges: when and how to pull the trigger

Threshold: You need objective facts that would lead a reasonable third party to justifiable doubts about impartiality. Mere speculation or volume-based attacks tend to fail and damage credibility.

Timing: Challenge as soon as you have enough to put forward, consistent with institutional deadlines (often 15–30 days from disclosure or discovery).

Package:

• a short, focused statement of facts,
• map to the relevant IBA list item (or Part I principles),
• explain materiality (frequency, recency, value, proximity to case issues),
• identify any non-disclosure and why it matters,
• propose a remedy (replacement; process safeguard).

Parallel strategy: If the institution declines, consider seat-court relief only for serious cases; otherwise preserve the point for annulment or enforcement. Keep your cost exposure in mind.

Case management ideas that reduce conflict risk (tribunal-friendly)

• PO-1 disclosure cadence: build a standing agenda item for updated disclosures after each major procedural milestone (post-document production, post-expert appointment).
• Expert neutrality guardrails: require all expert CVs and instruction declarations to include conflict statements vis-à-vis tribunal and counsel.
• Social media cooling-off: ask tribunal members to refrain from public commentary touching core issues until award publication.
• No new engagements: invite arbitrators to confirm they will not accept paid mock or consultancy roles from the parties’ counsel during the case.

Sample language to bolt into your arbitration clauses / PO-1

1. IBA reference (informative, not overriding):
   “In assessing impartiality, independence and disclosure, the tribunal and parties shall be guided by the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2024) without prejudice to the lex arbitri or the applicable institutional rules.”
2. Funding & affiliate disclosure:
   “Each party shall promptly disclose the existence and identity of any third-party funder or insurer with an economic interest in the outcome, and shall identify material affiliates (direct or indirect ownership ≥10%).”
3. Expert/tribunal crossover safeguard:
   “No party shall instruct as expert any individual who is currently being instructed by a member of the tribunal in another matter, absent disclosure and tribunal approval.”
4. Social media restraint:
   “Members of the tribunal will refrain from public statements on issues central to this case until the award is published.”
5. Ongoing disclosure commitment:
   “Arbitrators undertake to update their disclosures promptly if new circumstances arise; parties undertake to notify of any material change (affiliates, funders, experts, counsel).”

For foreign companies new to arbitration (and to London/Dubai): a 10-point survival kit

1. Treat the IBA as operational policy, not theory. Train your deal teams and litigation managers.
2. Centralise your affiliate tree and update it quarterly; conflict screens fail without it.
3. Choose a seat with mature courts (London, DIFC/ADGM) for predictable challenge handling.
4. Bake funding/insurer disclosures into internal approvals when you explore financing a case.
5. Institution choice matters: different challenge committees and disclosure practices exist; match them to your risk tolerance.
6. Don’t over-challenge: pick strong, documented points; avoid “kitchen sink” filings.
7. Record every disclosure (what was said, when, by whom). It will matter later.
8. Pre-approve expert pools that minimise entanglement with likely tribunal candidates.
9. Monitor public commentary by tribunal candidates; a quick scan early saves grief later.
10. Have a Plan B: if a conflict erupts mid-case, how will you maintain momentum (e.g., emergency measures, bifurcation, replacement protocols)?

Frequently asked questions

Q: If an arbitrator fails to disclose something that turns out to be Orange, is the award doomed?
Not automatically. Non-disclosure is a factor, not a per se breach. The test is whether the undisclosed fact creates justifiable doubts about impartiality in the eyes of a reasonable third party.

Q: Do we need to disclose funders even if the rules don’t force it?
Yes, if you want to de-risk conflicts up front. Many institutions expect it, and tribunals use it for conflict checks. You can protect confidentiality through limited scope disclosures or private submissions.

Q: How many repeat co-arbitrations with opposing counsel are “too many”?
There is no magic number; frequency + recency + economic scale + issue proximity drive the analysis. Three concurrent panels with the same counsel on similar issues is more concerning than two panels years apart.

Q: Can we agree that IBA Guidelines “apply” as binding rules?
You can state they will guide the analysis. They remain soft law and cannot override the lex arbitri or institutional rules — but referring to them helps alignment.

Q: Should we screen social media? Isn’t that intrusive?
It’s now standard diligence. You’re not policing opinions; you are checking for case-specific advocacy that triggers Orange-level disclosure.

How TRW runs conflict risk end-to-end (Dhaka · London · Dubai)

• Early triage (48–72 hours): build the party/affiliate/funder map; shortlist arbitrators; run publications & social media scans; flag Orange items.
• Questionnaire engineering: customise disclosure questions to the sector (construction/energy/tech/finance) and region (UK/UAE).
• Institution interface: frame disclosures and challenges to be credible and concise; propose workable cures where appropriate.
• Seat strategy: align London or DIFC/ADGM choices with enforcement and challenge pathways.
• Mid-case hygiene: schedule update rounds post-key events; monitor for new entanglements; maintain a clean record for any appellate court.

Explore how we staff and budget these workflows here: TRW — International Arbitration.

Conclusion: clear eyes, full disclosures, fewer problems

The 2024 IBA Guidelines don’t change the destination — independent, impartial tribunals — but they sharpen your map. The updates squarely address the way we arbitrate now: funded cases, omnipresent experts, a small world of repeat co-arbitrators, and the influence of public commentary. For foreign companies operating across London and Dubai, the payoff from getting this right is tangible: fewer detours into challenge skirmishes, stronger awards, and a cleaner path to enforcement.

Arbitration is chosen to avoid uncertainty. Use the 2024 IBA Guidelines to keep it that way — with diligence, proportionate disclosure, and timely, principled objections when they are truly needed.

Contact TRW — International Arbitration

Phone (BD): +8801708000660 · +8801847220062 · +8801708080817
Email: [email protected] · [email protected] · [email protected]

Offices:

• Dhaka: House 410, Road 29, Mohakhali DOHS
• Dubai: Rolex Building, L-12 Sheikh Zayed Road
• London: 330 High Holborn, London WC1V 7QH, United Kingdom

This guide provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. For tailored drafting, disclosures, or challenge strategy, speak with TRW’s International Arbitration team.