I. INTRODUCTION Two of the most well-regarded and distinguished members of our profession – Professors Jan Paulsson1 and Albert Jan van den Berg – recently authored articles that seemed to presume that party-appointed arbitrators are untrustworthy in that they may be too prone to violate their mandate to be and to remain independent and impartial. Their articles attacking party appointments and dissenting opinions are like Siamese twins, conjoined by an inseverable bond: assumed lack of good faith on the part of party-appointed arbitrators.3 In our view, however, such a presumption is demonstrably wrongheaded and unjustifiably casts a shadow over party-appointed arbitrators. It goes without saying that we have the upmost respect for these esteemed colleagues as counsel, arbitrators,4 and scholars. We question, however, their recently expressed views on these subjects. In this article, we therefore critique certain shortcomings we perceive in their theses and further clarify the importance of party-appointed arbitrators and dissenting opinions in international arbitration. In our view, the continued viability of international arbitration, particularly investment arbitration, hinges on users of the system viewing it as a legitimate form of international dispute resolution. One important element of perceived legitimacy is the significant and timeless right of the parties to choose the arbitrators. Another is the ability of a member of the tribunal to express disagreeing views in a dissenting opinion. Restricting these elements, as proposed by Paulsson and van den Berg, positively would impede the further development of the field.