Third-party funding is a recent yet rapidly growing phenomenon in investment arbitration. While it enables investors lacking funds to pursue remedies against States, it exposes States to greater risk of inability to recover arbitration costs. Against this background, this article examines the legal principles on security for costs and, contrary to the view of several tribunals and commentators, it argues that in cases involving third-party funding and the funding agreement does not cover potential adverse costs, there is a presumption in favour of ordering security for costs. However, as revealed in recent decisions in Herzig, the current legal framework on security for costs, which is predicated on the bilateral investor–State relationship, is ill-suited to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders. Unfortunately, the discussions on Investor–State dispute settlement reform and the current proposal by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on the ICSID Rules amendment have largely overlooked this problem. Thus, this article urges policy-makers to develop new rules to regulate the tripartite relationship involving third-party funders.

中文翻译：

---

颠覆赌徒的涅槃：第三方资金支持的投资仲裁成本保障

第三方资助是投资仲裁中最近出现但迅速增长的现象。虽然它使缺乏资金的投资者能够对国家采取补救措施，但它使国家面临更大的无法收回仲裁费用的风险。在此背景下，本文研究了费用担保的法律原则，与一些法庭和评论员的观点相反，它认为在涉及第三方资助且资助协议未涵盖潜在不利费用的情况下，存在有利于订购成本担保的推定。然而，正如 Herzig 最近的决定所揭示的那样，当前基于双边投资者与国家关系的成本担保法律框架不适合规范涉及第三方资助者的三方关系。很遗憾，关于投资者-国家争端解决改革的讨论以及国际投资争端解决中心 (ICSID) 目前关于 ICSID 规则修正案的提案在很大程度上忽略了这个问题。因此，本文敦促政策制定者制定新的规则来规范涉及第三方资助者的三方关系。