The international arbitrators’ service market is diverse, with arbitrators operating out of different structures, varying from multinational law firms to small arbitral boutiques. Yet, despite this heterogeneity, this market is dominated by individuals in the sense that legal persons are rarely, if ever, selected to act as arbitrators directly. Albeit the idea that an arbitrator must be a natural person appears to be deeply ingrained in the dominant understandings of arbitration, this is, in fact, an exception to the way knowledge-intensive services are usually provided. This brings to the forefront a largely unexplored topic: why legal entities are not selected as arbitrators. Through a survey of 60 jurisdictions, we explore to what extent may legal persons be appointed to act as arbitrators and conclude that stand-alone legal reasons do not fully explicate this state of affairs. Against this background, we advance a further set of explanations for relating to conflict of interest rules, insulation from civil liability, as well as the peculiar price formation and power competition dynamics within the arbitration market. Culturally and socially shaped expectations on how arbitrations should be managed play a role too.

中文翻译：

---

“It”仲裁员：为什么公司不担任仲裁员？

国际仲裁员的服务市场是多元化的，仲裁员在不同的结构中运作，从跨国律师事务所到小型仲裁精品店不等。然而，尽管存在这种异质性，这个市场还是由个人主导，因为法人很少（如果有的话）被选为直接担任仲裁员。尽管仲裁员必须是自然人的想法似乎在对仲裁的主流理解中根深蒂固，但事实上，这是通常提供知识密集型服务方式的一个例外。这将一个很大程度上未被探索的话题带到了最前沿：为什么不选择法人实体作为仲裁员。通过对 60 个司法管辖区的调查，我们探讨了在多大程度上可以指定法人担任仲裁员，并得出结论认为，单独的法律原因并不能完全解释这种情况。在此背景下，我们对利益冲突规则、民事责任豁免以及仲裁市场特有的价格形成和权力竞争动态等问题进行了进一步的解释。文化和社会对如何管理仲裁的期望也发挥了作用。