Abstract

International arbitration has emerged as the leading forum for resolving cross-border disputes, lauded for its flexibility, global enforceability, neutrality, confidentiality, and specialized expertise. Yet, as parties, counsel, and arbitrators increasingly represent diverse linguistic backgrounds, gaps in language proficiency threaten procedural fairness and efficiency. This paper investigates how the absence of explicit language-disclosure requirements under key frameworks—specifically, the “_ICC_” and the “_UNCITRAL_”—can erode arbitral integrity. Employing both doctrinal analysis and real-world case studies spanning multiple dispute contexts, the research illustrates how inadequate linguistic capacity prolongs proceedings, escalates costs, and undermines perceptions of arbitrator neutrality. By pinpointing doctrinal shortcomings and recommending targeted reforms, including mandatory linguistic disclosures, standardized self-assessments, and robust vetting processes, this study highlights the indispensable yet frequently overlooked role of language in international arbitration. Ultimately, it advocates for heightened transparency to enhance trust, bolster procedural fairness, and reinforce the legitimacy of arbitral outcomes across diverse legal and cultural landscapes.