REVISING THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES TO ADDRESS STATE ARBITRATIONS

The policy brief by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposes specific amendments to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules to distinguish 'State arbitrations' from private commercial ones. The authors argue that because State arbitrations often involve public funds, governmental misconduct, and critical public policy issues—such as drinking water systems or hazardous waste bans—they require higher standards of transparency. The brief proposes revisions to four articles to ensure public notice of proceedings, open hearings, public access to awards and documents, and the explicit ability for tribunals to accept amicus curiae briefs.

• State arbitrations differ from private commercial arbitrations because they implicate the public interest through the use of public treasuries, allegations of governmental misconduct, and decisions on public policy that affect domestic decision-making.
• The current UNCITRAL Rules lack transparency in State arbitrations, often making it impossible for the public to know if a case has been filed, the arguments being used, or the final decision, which the authors claim is inconsistent with UN commitments to human rights and good governance.
• The authors propose revising Article 32(5) to allow awards in State arbitrations to be made public without the consent of both parties and to require the tribunal president to send copies to the UNCITRAL secretariat for website posting.
• To address the lack of a public register, the brief proposes a new paragraph to Article 3 requiring the tribunal president to transmit the notice of arbitration and the agreement on the composition of the tribunal to the UNCITRAL secretariat for public posting.
• The document suggests amending Article 25(4) to make open hearings the norm for State arbitrations, noting that such transparency is already practiced in some NAFTA disputes and by the WTO.
• The authors argue that Article 15(3) should be updated to ensure that arbitration materials and pleadings in State disputes are made public, as secrecy hinders the ability of non-disputing parties to provide useful amicus curiae input.
• The brief proposes a new Article 15(4) to explicitly grant tribunals the power to accept written submissions from non-disputing parties (amicus curiae), mirroring the 2006 revision of the ICSID Arbitration Rules.

APA

Center for International Environmental Law (2007). REVISING THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES TO ADDRESS STATE ARBITRATIONS. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/UNCITRAL_Arbitration_1Feb07.pdf

Chicago

Center for International Environmental Law. REVISING THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES TO ADDRESS STATE ARBITRATIONS. 2007. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/UNCITRAL_Arbitration_1Feb07.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=REVISING THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES TO ADDRESS STATE ARBITRATIONS |date=February 2007 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/UNCITRAL_Arbitration_1Feb07.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw2007revising, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{REVISING THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES TO ADDRESS STATE ARBITRATIONS}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2007}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/UNCITRAL_Arbitration_1Feb07.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }