{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02169811320754717, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.430303030303031, '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}}
La Bocca della Verità: Between Transparency and Confidentiality in International Investment Arbitration

Applying his unmatched chessboard experience, Grandmaster Garry Kasparov taught that without long-term goals decisions become purely reactive and one is no longer playing her game . In International Investment Law (IIL), we may not be playing someone else’s game, however, while the IIL community focuses on spectacular arbitration and academic battles, the lack of an overarching goal for this atomised set of rules means everyone flounders and some occasionally run aground. Transparency provides a good example in this respect. Whereas transparency gives the mirage of a quick-fix for major IIL problems, most importantly for legitimacy concerns, it often seems that rule-making is reactive to practice; practice responds to investor and civil society concerns, while public dismay thrives in a legal grey zone. The article will show that transparency can bring benefits, but used carelessly may also entail unexpected results. A vicious circle indeed.