The opacity of the ISDS regime is not a mere oversight but rather a structural feature that prioritizes the investor-centric nature of its proceedings while giving limited consideration to the broader social, environmental, and economic impacts of investment disputes. Local communities often bear the brunt of disruptions caused by these projects, only to face the added burden of compensating the very investors responsible. Such payouts often divert public funds away from essential services, prioritizing corporate interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens. Arbitral tribunals reinforce this exclusivity by systematically excluding the voices of those most affected. While treaties and rules formally acknowledge the role of amicus curiae to lend a veneer of legitimacy, they actively stifle such participation by withholding key information and imposing procedural demands that resource-strapped local communities, academics, and civil society organizations are often unable to meet.
