在国际仲裁中，一旦仲裁员不适当进行披露，其公正性与独立性就会遭到当事方的质疑，当事方会立马启动相关程序把该仲裁员赶出仲裁庭，正如Lord Hodge在Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (First Respondent) [2020] UKSC 48（以下简称为“Halliburton v. Chubb”）一案的判决书中一开头提到的：“It is axiomatic that a judge or an arbitrator must be impartial; he or she must not be biased in favour of or against any party in a litigation or reference. A judge or arbitrator, who is not in fact subject to any bias, must also not give the appearance of bias: justice must be seen to be done.” 在Halliburton v. Chubb一案中，英国法院针对仲裁员在国际仲裁中的披露义务进行详细的阐述，笔者将该判决中法院的主要观点梳理如下，供各位参考：

一、案件基本情况

The appeal concerns an arbitration under a Bermuda Form liability policy which arose out of the damage caused by the explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 when a well was being plugged in the context of a temporary abandonment. That disaster gave rise to several arbitrations between insured parties and insurers. (Paragraph 2)

本案背景：2010年墨西哥湾深水地平线钻井平台发生爆炸和火灾,这场灾难导致被保险方和保险人之间发生了好几起仲裁。本上诉案的原告Halliburton也是这场灾难的其中一个当事方，在Halliburton与其他当事方达成和解并确定其赔偿数额之后，Halliburton 向Chubb（为Halliburton提供保险服务的当事方）追偿，双方当事人依据仲裁条款启动了仲裁程序，因双方当事人对首席仲裁员的人选不能达成一致，英国法院根据双方的仲裁条款指定了Mr Rokison作为首席仲裁员，Mr Rokison在接受任命之前披露了其在其它仲裁中被Chubb任命过，因Mr Rokison在任命之后没有持续披露相关任命情况，Halliburton对Mr Rokison的公正性和独立性提出了质疑并要求其回避。

二、案件争议焦点

The principal issues which are raised in this appeal are: (i) whether and to what extent an arbitrator may accept appointments in multiple references concerning the same or overlapping subject matter with only one common party without thereby giving rise to an appearance of bias, and (ii) whether and do what extent the arbitrator may do so without disclosure. (Paragraph 3)

本上诉案件的核心争议焦点：

1、仲裁员是否能或者在何种程度能接受同一个当事方在多个相同或者相似争议中的任命并保证不会出现偏袒？

2、（在上述情景下）仲裁员是否能在不进行披露的情况下这样做？

三、法院观点

该判决中，英国法院按照以下论证顺序回答了上述两个问题：

Ø The duty of impartiality in the context of arbitration before addressing. (Paragraph 3)

Ø Whether an arbitrator is under a legal duty to disclose particular matters. (Paragraph 3)

Ø How far the obligation to respect the privacy and confidentiality of an arbitration constrains his or her ability to make disclosure. (Paragraph 3)

Ø Whether a failure to disclose such matters demonstrates a lack of impartiality. (Paragraph 3)

笔者在此将法院的观点总结如下：

1、在本案中，讨论的焦点应该是“apparent bias”而不是“actual bias”，在认定仲裁员是否存在“apparent bias”时，需要进行“Objective Test”，法官在此引用了Lord Hope of Craighead的观点：“The question is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.”（Paragraph 52）。法院认为，在进行“Objective Test”的时候需要充分考虑到诉讼和仲裁区别（例如诉讼是公开的，仲裁是保密的等等）。

2、在谈到仲裁员的披露义务时，法院列举了诸多仲裁规则，例如：The IBA Guidelines 2014、The ICC Arbitration Rules 2017、The LCIA Rules 2014等等，法院认为虽然这些机构的规则在陈述时用了不同的词汇，例如“doubts”、“reasonable doubts”、“justifiable doubts”，但是其表述没有实质性的不同。如果仲裁员是因为一些其它合理的原因没有披露相关事实，比如单纯就是忘记了，这也会对仲裁员带来不好的影响。Paragraph 73：“However understandable the reasons for it, the fact of non-disclosure in a case which calls for it must inevitably colour the thinking of the observer”.

3、如果仲裁员没有披露其在多个仲裁中被同一个当事方任命为仲裁员，尤其是当仲裁员明白这种情况可能会对自己的公正性和独立性带来质疑时，这会剥夺另一方当事人提出质疑的机会，这种行为也会增加法院认为该仲裁员存在“apparent bias”的可能性。 Paragraph 118: Where an arbitrator has accepted an appointment in such multiple references in circumstances which might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality, or is aware of other matters which might reasonably give rise to those doubts, a failure in his or her duty to disclose those matters to the party who is not the common party to the references deprives that party of the opportunity to address and perhaps resolve the matters which should have been disclosed. The failure to disclose may demonstrate a lack of regard to the interests of the non-common party and may in certain circumstances amount to apparent bias.