{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027633851468048358, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.738372093023256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Amicus curious: structure and play in investment arbitration

ABSTRACT Arbitration literature has well covered the doctrine on non-disputing third-party (NDTP or ‘amicus’) participation in investor–state disputes. This is little help to potential NDTPs navigating doctrinally undetermined questions relating to participation, such as whether they can attach evidence to their briefs. A playbook is needed. This article explains how NDTPs obtain such privileges, and the principles according to which NDTPs gradually alter arbitration procedures over time. To analyse which arguments succeed, which fail and why, the article applies the heuristic ‘play within structure’ (Huizinga, Gadamer, Ost and Eskridge). The theory highlights ‘negative space’ where rules are not yet fixed. This exploration contributes to the debate about the legitimacy of investment arbitration as a whole and touches on the dynamics of alleged common law ‘transplants’ to international investment arbitration. Notwithstanding theory, the unifying intention is to surface upcoming NDTP participation rule choices and articulate the pre-understandings an NDTP must navigate to succeed.