In the last decade amicus intervention has become increasingly prevalent in investor-state arbitration. As part of a generalized drive towards transparency, amicus briefs are now routinely submitted in high-profile investor-state arbitrations, which are closely related to public interest issues. Philip Morris v. Uruguay is a notable example of such arbitrations. However, it is often argued that amicus submissions are hardly relevant to investor-state tribunals’ analyses. By first shedding light on the conditions governing the acceptance of amicus briefs, this article looks at how the Philip Morris tribunal admitted such briefs and whether they were at all relevant to the tribunal’s analysis. It thereafter questions the extent to which such relevance may be linked to the tribunal’s findings.

中文翻译：

---

法庭之友的接受和相关性：菲利普莫里斯诉乌拉圭案的独特例子

在过去十年中，友好干预在投资者与国家之间的仲裁中变得越来越普遍。作为普遍推动透明度的一部分，现在经常在与公共利益问题密切相关的备受瞩目的投资者与国家仲裁中提交法庭之友简报。菲利普莫里斯诉乌拉圭案是此类仲裁的一个显着例子。然而，经常有人争辩说，法庭之友提交的材料与投资者-国家法庭的分析几乎没有关系。本文首先阐明接受法庭之友诉状的条件，然后探讨菲利普莫里斯仲裁庭如何接受此类诉状，以及它们是否与仲裁庭的分析完全相关。此后，它质疑这种相关性在多大程度上与仲裁庭的调查结果相关联。