Opponents of ISDS argue that arbitrations are sometimes carried out in secret by trade lawyers who do not enjoy the typical safeguards of judicial independence and procedural fairness, who earn income only if a case is brought and proceeds, and who are not accountable to the public or required to take into account broader constitutional and international law human rights norms. The Peterson Institute for International Economics agrees "that secrecy has gone too far" in many ISDS cases, but notes that agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership did ensure greater transparency in ISDS.
Why are arbitrations of Investor-state dispute settlement sometimes carried out in secret? Does carrying out arbitrations in secret give any advantages to some companies or governments? What are the motivations for carrying them in secret? Do companies or government fear some public backlashes over some of the arbitration decisions?