This article examines the potential for beneficial procedural cross-fertilization between internationalcommercial and investment arbitration from a functional perspective. The article argues that botharbitration regimes share a ‘private’ dispute resolution function of resolving specific disputes, butonly investment arbitral tribunals also exercise a ‘public’ law-making function of developing the lawapplicable to the resolution of disputes. The article considers two recent procedural developmentsin international arbitration rulesjoinder of third parties and publication of arbitral awardsin thelight of these private and public functions. It argues that joinder, as an efficiency-enhancingmeasure, can lead to beneficial cross-fertilization between commercial and investment arbitrationbecause it reinforces the ‘private’ dispute resolution function shared by both regimes. In contrast,the default publication of arbitral awards, to the extent that it is intended to be systematic and createinformal precedent, is appropriate in investment but not in commercial arbitration because onlyinvestment arbitral tribunals exercise a ‘public’ law-making function that justifies and stands tobenefit from this practice. In this regard, the article rejects three rationales for default publication ofinternational commercial arbitral awards: improving consistency/predictability, enhancingtransparency and developing transnational commercial law. The article concludes that crossfertilizationbetween investment and commercial arbitration can be valuable so long as it concernstheir shared private dispute resolution function. However, attempting to develop internationalcommercial arbitral practice in the shadow of the public law-making function of investment arbitraltribunals may result in counterproductive practices and undermine the proper functioning ofinternational commercial arbitration as a whole.

中文翻译：

---

国际商业和投资仲裁中的程序交叉施肥：一种功能方法

本文从功能的角度探讨了国际商事仲裁和投资仲裁之间在程序上的有益交叉的潜力。文章认为，两种仲裁机制都具有解决特定争议的“私人”争议解决功能，但只有投资仲裁庭还行使制定适用于争议解决的法律的“公共”立法功能。鉴于这些私人和公共职能，本文考虑了国际仲裁规则中的两个最近的程序发展，即第三方合并和仲裁裁决的公布。它认为联合作为一种提高效率的措施，可以导致商业和投资仲裁之间的有益交叉，因为它加强了两个制度共享的“私人”争议解决功能。相比之下，仲裁裁决的默认公布，在其旨在系统化和创造非正式先例的范围内，适用于投资，但不适用于商业仲裁，因为只有投资仲裁庭行使“公共”立法职能，证明其正当性和立场受益于这种做法。在这方面，文章拒绝默认公布国际商事仲裁裁决的三个理由：提高一致性/可预测性、提高透明度和发展跨国商法。文章的结论是，投资和商业仲裁之间的交叉融合是有价值的，只要它涉及到它们共享的私人争议解决功能。然而，试图在投资仲裁庭的公共立法职能的阴影下发展国际商事仲裁实践可能会导致适得其反的做法，并破坏整个国际商事仲裁的正常运作。