Transparency in Investment Arbitration: A Growing Public Debate

Transparency in investment arbitration, thanks to Vattenfall suing Germany over the nuclear power exit, has become a topic in the mainstream business press. A recent piece in the business weekly Wirtschaftswoche talked about “back room justice” (“Justitia verzieht sich ins Hinterzimmer”), citing the “Toll Collect” arbitration as an example. “Toll Collect” is not technically a case of treaty arbitration, but a multi-billion dispute about a public-private partnership between the German government and Daimler, Telekom und Cofiroute.

And last week, even German public television has picked up the topic – the feature, building on the two Vattenfall actions against Germany, talks about big business attacking legislation it does not like in a manner that is a threat to democracy and big business for a small number of law firms (“Eine Gefahr für die Demokratie – und ein Riesengeschäft für eine überschaubare Zahl von Anwaltskanzleien.”)

Finally, Michael Goldhaber at the AmLaw Daily has a very thoughtful and well-researched article on the topic – the title gives away the  key critique: “Arbitration Without Legitimacy”. Investment arbitration, it appears, must do a better job of explaining what it does, and how it does it. Or, to quote Michael Goldhaber: “Without a redesign to enhance its legitimacy, treaty arbitration is always one notorious case away from existential crisis. And notwithstanding its more radical critics, the system is worth saving.”

 

 

 

Share and Enjoy

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 7 = thirteen

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>