§ 1297.144.Acceptance of Validity of Ground Referred to In Section 1297.132 Not Implied
Title 9.3. Arbitration and Conciliation of International Commercial Disputes · Chapter 3. Composition of Arbitral Tribunals · Article 5. Failure or Impossibility to Act · Enacted 1988 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
Full Text of § 1297.144
Plain-English Summary
Stepping down or agreeing to a replacement can look like a concession, and this section makes sure it isn't treated as one. If an arbitrator withdraws from office, or a party agrees to end the arbitrator's mandate, under the failure-to-act rules in this article or the challenge notice procedure elsewhere in this chapter, that withdrawal or agreement does not imply acceptance that the reasons behind it were sound.
This matters because an arbitrator might resign to avoid friction or delay, not because the arbitrator agrees a disqualifying circumstance truly existed. Likewise, a party might agree to a replacement for practical reasons -- keeping the case moving -- without conceding the challenging party's version of events. This section keeps those practical accommodations from being read later as an admission on the merits.
Frequently Asked Questions
If an arbitrator withdraws after being challenged, does that mean the challenge was valid?
No. Section 1297.144 specifically provides that a withdrawal doesn't imply acceptance that the grounds for removal were valid.
Does a party's agreement to remove an arbitrator concede that the other side was right?
No. Agreeing to end the mandate carries no implication that the party accepts the validity of the grounds raised against the arbitrator.
Why does the law protect withdrawal and agreement this way?
So arbitrators and parties can resolve a composition dispute practically -- through withdrawal or agreement -- without that resolution being used later as an admission about the underlying facts.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 23, Sec. 1. Effective March 7, 1988.