Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Right to Access Information in Investment Arbitration: a Conflict between Confidentiality and Transparency

Document Type : Article

Authors

Nima Nasrollahi Shahri 1
Leyla Ebrahimi 2

1 Teaching and Research Fellow, University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris, France

2 MA. in International Trade Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba’I, Tehran, Iran, MA student of European Comparative Law, Faculty of Law, University of Sapienza, Rome, Italy

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.331170.2899
Abstract
While confidentiality is often cited as an advantage of arbitration over litigation, state involvement in investment arbitrations calls for a higher degree of transparency. Thus, confidentiality practices in investment arbitration have come under harsh criticism. Such criticism has to do, at least in part, with developments in the field of human rights law culminating in the recognition of the right to access information as a human right along with a duty of states to divulge information by regional human rights courts. This criticism has already brought about a change in investment arbitration. ICSID amended its rules of procedure in 2006 and more recently in 2022. UNCITRAL also annexed a set of rules regarding transparency in treaty-based arbitration to its arbitration rules. Finally, in 2015, United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Arbitration was concluded in an effort to maximize transparency. This study deals with how transparency and confidentiality interact where they appear to be most conflicting, that is to say in international investment arbitration.

Keywords

Information
ICSID
transparency
investment arbitration
free access
human rights
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Bianchi, A., & Peters Anne (2013). Transparency in International Law. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    3. Bishop, C. A. (2011). Access to Information as a Human Right. Law & Society, Texas, Lfb Scholarly Publishing.
    4. Weiler, T. (2004). NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration: Past Issues, Current Practice, Future Prospects. New York, Transnational Publishers.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Ackerman, J. M. & Sandoval-Ballesteros, Irma E (2006). The Global Explosion of Freedom of Information Laws, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 85-130.
    3. Banisar, D. (2011). The Right to Information and Privacy: Balancing Rights and Managing Conflicts, World Bank Institute Governance Working Paper, No. 80740.
    4. Elsaman, M. (2020). The Nexus of Access to Information, Good Governance, and Investment Negotiation. Washington International Law Journal Association, 29(2), 383-410.
    5. Franck, S. D. (2005). The Legitimacy Crisis in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Privatizing Public International Law through Inconsistent Decisions. Fordham Law Review, 73(4), 1521-1625.
    6. Hafner-Burton, E.M. & Steinert-Threlkeld, Zachary C. & Victor, David G. (2016). Predictability v. Flexibility: Secrecy in International Investment Arbitration, World Politics, 1-41.
    7. Hazzaa, H. & Kumpf, S. N.(2015). Egypt’s Ban on Public Interest Litigation in Government Contracts: A Case Study of Judicial Chill, Stanford Journal of International law, 51(2), 147-171.
    8. Hins, W. & Voorhoof, D. (2007). Access to State-Held Information as a Fundamental Right under the European Convention on Human Rights, European Constitutional Law Review, 3(1), 114-126.
    9. Jain, A. (2012). Good Governance and Right to Information: A Perspective, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 54(4), 506-519.
    10. Johnson, L. & Bernasconi-Osterwalder, N., & Orellana Marcos, A., et al. (2013). New UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules on Transparency: Application, Content and Next Steps, Investment Treaty News, 4(4).
    11. Karton, J. (2012). A Conflict of Interests: Seeking a Way Forward on Publication of International Arbitral Awards. Journal of Arbitration International, 28(3), 447-486.
    12. Lalive, P.A. (1976). Problemes Relatifs A de L’a Arbitrage International Commercial. in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 120, 573-582.
    13. Levin, P.T. (2009). The Swedish Model of Public Administration: Separation of Powers – The Swedish Style, Journal of Administration and Governance, 4(1), 31-46.
    14. Magraw Jr. Daniel et al. (2009). Transparency and Public Participation in Investor-State Arbitration, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law, 15, 337–360.
    15. Maupin, J. A. (2013). Transparency in International Investment Law: The Good, the Bad, and the Murky, Published in 'Transparency in International Law' by Andrea Bianchi and Anne Peters, eds, Cambridge University Press, 142-171.
    16. Orellana, M. (2007). Science, Risk and Uncertainty: Public Health Measures and Investment Disciplines. in “The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations”.
    17. Peterson, L., & Gray, K. (2003). International Human Rights in Bilateral Investment Treaties and in Investment Treaty Arbitration, International Law Institute for Sustainable Development, 18(77).
    18. Salacuse, J.W. (2007). Is There a Better Way? Alternative Methods of Treaty-Based, Investor-State Dispute Resolution. Fordham International Law Journal, 13(1), p. 138.
    19. Vleugels, R. (2011). Overview of all FOI Laws. Fringe Special Biweekly Journal.
    20. Vollenhoven, J. (2015). The Right to Freedom of Expression: The Mother of our Democracy, Electronic Law Journal, 18(6), 2299-2327.
    21. Zoellner, C. S. (2006). Transparency: An Analysis of an Evolving Fundamental Principal in International Economic Law. Journal of International Law, 27(2), 579-628.

     

    1. C) Thesis
    2. Katranstiotis Dimitrios (2013). Transparency in International Investment Arbitration: From the Current towards the Future Normative Framework, Dissertation, International Hellenic University.

     

    1. D) Awards
    2. Ad hoc Arbitration (2000), S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Canada, UNCITRAL, First Partial Award.
    3. Ad hoc Arbitration (2008), Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade Claims v. United States, Award on Jurisdiction.
    4. ECHR (1987), Leander v. Sweden, App. no 9248/81.
    5. ECHR (1989), Gaskin v. The United Kingdom, App. no. 10454/83
    6. ECHR (1998), Guerra v. Italy, App. No. 14967/89.
    7. ECHR (2004), Case of Oneryildiz v. Turkey, App. No. 48939/99.
    8. ECHR (2008), Budayeva and Others v. Russia, App. No. 15339/02.
    9. ECHR (2009), Társaság a Szabadságjogokért v. Hungary, App. No. 37374/05.
    10. ECHR (2009), Tatar v. Romania, App. No. 67021/01.
    11. IACHR (2006), Claude Reyes et. al. v. Chile, No. 12.108.
    12. ICSID (1992), Abaclat and Others v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5, Procedural Order No. 3.
    13. ICSID (1992), AMCO Asia Corp. et al. v. The Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/81/1, Award.
    14. ICSID (2002), United Mexican States v. Metalclad Corp., Reasons for Judgment, and Supplementary Reasons for Judgment, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1.
    15. ICSID (2004), MTD Equity Sdn. Bhd. and MTD Chile S.A. v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/7.
    16. ICSID (2005), Methanex Corp. v. United States, Final Award.
    17. ICSID (2005), S.A. and Lucchetti Perْ A. v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/4.
    18. ICSID (2006). Biwater Gauff Limited v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, Procedural Order No. 3.
    19. ICSID (2007), Sociedad Anَnima Eduardo Vieira v. Chile, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/7, Award.
    20. ICSID (2010), Case of Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A., and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability.
    21. ICSID (2010), Foresti and Others v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/07/01, Award.
    22. ICSID (2010), Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12
    23. ICSID (2012), Vattenfall AB et al. v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12.
    24. ICSID (2015), ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/47.
    25. PCA (2005), Yukos Universal Limited v. The Russian Federation, PCA Case No. 2005-04/AA227.

     

    1. D) Documents
    2. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the “Aarhus Convention”), Denmark, 1998.
    3. Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, Tromsø, 2009.
    4. Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa, African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 32nd Session, Gambia, 2002.
    5. General Comment No. 34 on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/GC/34, Geneva, 2011.
    6. Law 32/2014, Egypt, 2014.
    7. The German Freedom of Information Act (Informationsfreiheitsgesetz), Germany, 2006.
    8. Transparency and Third-Party Participation in Investor State Dispute Settlement Procedures, Statement, OECD Investment Committee, Number 2005/1, France, 2005.
    9. United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the "Mauritius Convention on Transparency"), New York, 2014.

     

    1. E) Websites
    2. Harm and Public Interest Test, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

    https://www.right2info.org/exceptions-toaccess/harm-and-publicinterest-test

    1. Settlement Negotiations and Public Disclosure Laws, Legal Intelligencer, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

    https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/almID/1202763357348/

    1. The Settlement of Investment Disputes: A Discussion of Democratic Accountability and the Public Interest – Investment Treaty News, last accessed at 2023/01/22. Available at:

    https://www.iisd.org/itn/en/2017/03/13/the-settlement-of-investment-disputes-a-discussion-of-democratic-accountability-and-the-public-interest-lise-johnson-and-brooke-skartvedt-guven/

    1. Webcasting as a tool to Increase Transparency in Dispute Settlement Procedures, Center for International Environmental Law, Available at:

    https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Webcasting_21Jun10.pdf

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
      1. Asgari, P. (2015). Foreign Investment Law in Investment Arbitration Practice. Third Edition, The S.D Institute of Law Research and Study (In Persian).
      2. Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern (1992). International Economic Law. Second Edition, Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff (In Persian).
      3. Rudolf, D., & Kriebaum, U., & Schreuer, C. (2022). Principles of International Investment Law. Third Edition, Oxford University Press, DOI: 10.1093/law/9780192857804.001.0001 (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Mohseni, V., Hashemi, S.M. Javid, M., & Abbasi, B. (2019). Legal Analysis of the Right of Access to Information by Realizing Citizenship Rights with an Emphasis on the Iranian Legal System. Public Law Research Quarterly, 20 (62), 321-354, https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2019.32645.1860 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 2 - Serial Number 38
Summer 2024
Spring 2024
Pages 1181-1204

  • Receive Date 08 October 2021
  • Revise Date 25 February 2022
  • Accept Date 12 September 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us