Abstract

Confidentiality is traditionally hailed as a hallmark of international commercial arbitration. However, this article argues that in disputes involving State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), absolute confidentiality is neither legally sustainable nor justified. SOEs, as hybrid entities that straddle commercial and sovereign functions, trigger unique tensions between private dispute resolution and public accountability.

Through doctrinal analysis, comparative institutional research, and case law evaluation, this article investigates the erosion of blanket confidentiality when public interest is implicated. It critically examines how arbitral institutions and national courts are recalibrating the confidentiality-transparency balance, especially in response to allegations of corruption, misuse of public funds, and systemic unfairness such as repeat arbitrator appointments.

The article proposes a three-tiered transparency model that moves beyond rigid binaries and instead adopts a contextual approach grounded in the substance of the dispute. This model consisting of procedural visibility, controlled substantive disclosure, and triggered comprehensive transparency seeks to reconcile the legitimacy demands of democratic governance with the efficiency and flexibility of arbitration.

By positioning transparency not as an exception but as a structural necessity in SOE arbitration, the study contributes to the evolving discourse on arbitral legitimacy, public trust, and governance accountability. It concludes that structured transparency is not antithetical to arbitration's success, but essential to its future relevance in an increasingly state-linked commercial landscape.