Draft Arbitrator Nomination Letter

---
name: draft-arbitrator-nomination-letter
task_id: arbitration-international-dispute-resolution/draft-arbitrator-nomination-letter
description: Draft a formal arbitrator nomination letter addressed to the administering institution that identifies the applicable nomination deadline, proactively discloses any potentially relevant relationships with brief explanations, confirms availability, confirms the tribunal structure and the nominee’s role, and includes a confidentiality acknowledgment.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: ICC Arbitrator Nomination Letter

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- Treating the letter as a generic nomination notice instead of a case-specific institutional filing, which risks omitting the case reference, the correct addressee, or the nominating party’s identity.
- Assuming a default nomination period without checking the arbitration agreement and the applicable institutional rule, which can misstate whether the nomination is timely.
- Naming the nominee’s credentials but failing to disclose any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably be viewed as relevant to independence or impartiality.
- Disclosing relationships without a brief, candid explanation of timing, nature, and current status, leaving the institution unable to assess the significance of the disclosure.
- Omitting the nominee’s express confirmation of availability, which can create avoidable administrative follow-up or later appointment issues.
- Failing to confirm whether the tribunal is sole or multi-member and what role the nominee is proposed to fill, which can make the nomination ambiguous.
- Leaving out a confidentiality acknowledgment, which is a standard feature of a serious arbitrator nomination and helps show the nominee understands the proceeding’s confidential character.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- The nomination deadline is controlled first by the arbitration agreement, then by the applicable institutional rules if the agreement is silent; the letter should state which source governs and why.
- The governing institutional rule for arbitrator nominations should be identified by name and article/rule number where available, rather than described only generically.
- Independence and impartiality are assessed through proactive disclosure of any circumstance that a reasonable reader could view as potentially relevant, even if counsel believes it is not disqualifying.
- Prior professional overlap, repeat engagements, shared firm or institutional settings, academic collaboration, and other comparable connections should be disclosed succinctly with a neutral explanation.
- Public writing, speaking, or other professional commentary on the subject area should be disclosed if it could be perceived as relevant, with a statement that general expertise is not the same as prejudgment of the dispute.
- In a multi-arbitrator tribunal, the letter should identify whether the nominee is intended as party-appointed arbitrator, co-arbitrator, or another tribunal role consistent with the appointment mechanics.
- The nominee’s availability should be confirmed in terms that are operationally useful to the institution, including willingness to serve and absence of known scheduling conflicts.
- The nominee should acknowledge the confidential nature of the proceedings and agree to respect it.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

- Identify the administering institution, case number or reference, and the parties from the source correspondence before drafting.
- Identify the nominating party precisely and use that party consistently throughout the letter.
- Identify the nominee with full name and professional title as reflected in the source materials.
- Determine the governing nomination deadline by checking the arbitration clause first, then the institutional rule set; if multiple sources could apply, state the controlling source and briefly explain the hierarchy.
- For every potentially relevant relationship or circumstance, decide whether it should be disclosed conservatively; if yes, disclose it in plain language and explain why it is not understood to impair impartiality.
- Confirm availability from the nominee’s own communication or instructions, and do not infer availability from silence.
- Confirm the tribunal structure and the nominee’s intended role using the terminology that matches the actual appointment.
- Include any required independence, impartiality, and confidentiality statements in a form that is formal, concise, and institution-facing.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- If the source set contains more than one possible deadline source, resolve them in order of priority: contract first, then institutional rule, then any case-specific direction from the administering institution.
- If there are multiple relationships to disclose, present them as separate disclosures rather than collapsing them into one omnibus statement.
- If there is more than one procedural milestone in the source documents, anchor the nomination’s timeliness to the relevant nomination deadline and any immediate follow-on step that depends on it.
- If the tribunal is not yet fully constituted, make the nominee’s role explicit enough that the institution can see how the nomination fits the overall tribunal structure.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Draft as a formal letter addressed to the administering institution.
- Include a clear subject line with the case reference and the purpose of the submission.
- Identify the nominating party and the nominee near the top of the letter.
- State the applicable nomination deadline and the source that controls it.
- Include a discrete disclosure section for any potentially relevant relationships or circumstances, each with a brief explanation.
- Include an express availability confirmation.
- Confirm the tribunal structure and the nominee’s intended role.
- Include an express confidentiality acknowledgment.
- End with a standard signature block and any necessary contact details.
- Keep the tone formal, neutral, and institution-ready; the letter should read as a filing, not an advocacy submission.