Abstract
In arbitration, it is the parties who, on the basis of various criteria – experience, references, expertise, previous meetings, etc. – can determine who will decide their dispute as an arbitrator. In this respect, arbitration differs fundamentally from proceedings before the ordinary courts in civil proceedings, where the judge is appointed on the basis of a work schedule and the parties to the dispute cannot change the judge so appointed by agreement. Nonetheless, despite the broad autonomy of the parties, the various legal systems lay down certain conditions which must be met by any person wishing to act as an arbitrator. This article takes a comparative view of these legal conditions to act as an arbitrator and seeks to highlight the differences in the conditions defined, the (in)appropriateness of certain conditions and the fact that a person who does not meet the conditions to act as an arbitrator under one legal system does not automatically mean that he cannot be an arbitrator under another legal system..