COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULES ON TRANSPARENCY IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) provide comments on draft rules for transparency in investor-State arbitration. The document argues for an 'opt-out' approach to ensure transparency is the default, criticizes broad tribunal discretion that could entrench a secretive status quo, and proposes specific modifications to draft articles regarding the publication of documents, awards, and hearing transcripts.

• The authors advocate for an 'opt-out' approach to the application of transparency rules, where transparency is the default and rules apply unless State parties specify otherwise. They argue that an 'opt-in' approach would 'frustrate the goal of ensuring transparency in investor–State arbitration'.
• The document warns that granting tribunals broad discretion to close proceedings or restrict disclosure based on the 'integrity of the process' could codify the current 'opaque and secretive status quo'. It specifically cites the case of Biwater v. Tanzania as an example where tribunals removed arbitrations from public view despite significant public interest.
• IISD and CIEL argue that requiring both parties' consent to disclose documents would be a regression, as current 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL rules already allow parties to unilaterally disclose notices of arbitration, claims, defenses, witness identities, and expert reports.
• The authors support the automatic and prompt disclosure of the notice of arbitration once received by the respondent, rather than waiting for the formation of a tribunal, to ensure transparency at the earliest stages of a claim.
• Regarding hearings, the authors support the principle that hearings should be public and that, if closed for logistical or mandatory reasons, all non-confidential aspects of the transcripts must be made available to the public.
• The document recommends the establishment of a central repository (registry) to consolidate information from various arbitration institutions and ad hoc proceedings, which would reduce the burden on disputing parties and tribunals.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (n.d.). COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULES ON TRANSPARENCY IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/uncitral_comments_draft_rules.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULES ON TRANSPARENCY IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION. n.d. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/uncitral_comments_draft_rules.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULES ON TRANSPARENCY IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/uncitral_comments_draft_rules.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopmentndcomments, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULES ON TRANSPARENCY IN INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/uncitral_comments_draft_rules.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }