Is there room for further transparency through 3rd party participation at ICSID

Abstract

One of the prevalent challenges in investor state a dispute settlement in the last decade has been the demand for greater transparency. The call for greater transparency is so apparent to many contemporary observers that many questioned why it took long for ICSID and many Tribunals like it address this issue. It is therefore rather ironic that what was widely held as the main advantages of commercial arbitration is now seen as a liability in the investor state arbitration context. The reforms that ICSID undertook were relatively moderate, well balanced and should be commended transparency is essential in making certain the acceptance and democratic legitimacy of investment arbitration and the governments concerned. Amicus curiae briefs can present a unique view point, offer Tribunals with additional expertise and mirror civil society’s views on issues bearing on the public interest. Therefore there should be moves towards judicialization of arbitration proceedings like by allowing third parties to attend hearings, a greater role for amicus should be sought beyond merely submitting briefs.It is in the public interest that there is greater transparency in investor state arbitration as the legitimacy of the institution depends on it.