This article picks up the debate on transparency and
independence of arbitrators in investment arbitration prominently taking place
in Europe since the beginning of the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the us. With a view to the
rule of law it is argued that its elements transparency and independence can be
implemented in different but still compliant ways. Regarding the current status
of transparency and independence of arbitrators in investment arbitration the
author takes the position that with certain modifications both elements still
comply with the rule of law. Critical questions are raised about concepts
introduced in the current debate with respect to the UNCITRAL Rules on
Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration as means of increasing
transparency and regarding a permanent investment court system under TTIP to
allegedly foster independence of arbitrators. For the first it is argued that
the rules should be handled with care to comply with the fair trial and due
process; the latter concept raises various concerns regarding the rule of law
as well as practical aspects.