beyond those raised by the usual transnational arbitration between commercial parties. This is not merely because one of the Disputing Parties is a State: there are of course Disputes involving States which ace of no greater general public importance than a dispute between private persons. The public interest in this arbitration miles from its subject matter-, as powerfully suggested in the Petitions. There is also a broader argument, as suggested by the Respondent and Canada: the Chapter 11 arbitral process could benefit from being perceived as more open or transparent or conversely be harmed if seen as unduly secretive. In this regard, the Tribunal’s willingness to receive amicus submissions might support the process in general and this arbitration in particular; whereas a blanket refusal could do positive harm.

There are other competing factors to consider: the acceptance; of amicus submissions might add significantly to the overall cost of the arbitration and) as considered above, there is a possible risk of imposing an extra burden on one or both the Disputing Parties. In this regard, as appears from the Petitions, any amicus submissions from these Petitioners are more likely to run counter to the Claimant’s position and eventually to support the Respondent’s case. This factor has weighed heavily with the Tribunal; and it is concerned that the Claimant should receive whatever procedural protection might be necessary.………