I'm surprised the community is not making more noise about this than they have. For all they have recently whined about natural justice, a system where the two drafters of a Proposed Decision might only have to persuade two or even one of their colleagues to sign their names to it for it to pass, looks very unjust and ripe for abuse, if not simply prone to errors.
I personally have never seen anyone say what the quorum is for the Arbitration Committee, or if there even is one. My guess is they never even considered things could get so bad they might need to have one. They presumably thought this provision also gave them some wiggle room...
.....but as has been recently seen, not even this extraordinary period counts as an exceptional circumstance. They're apparently just going to struggle on, hoping no one else resigns, is fired, or has to withdraw on grounds of stress, or just goes on holiday. Not a safe bet, imho.In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators.
For certain possible future cases, it is conceivable that the necessary amount of recusals could reduce the absolute majority to one. Which is close to absurd. Absurd being a Committee of two, both drafting a decision that each then has the ability to veto, because 1 is not "greater than 50% of the total number of arbitrators".