The Importance Of Transparency In International Arbitration . . . Is It Possible?

As the amount of investor/state arbitrations increase, I have noticed the issue of transparency is cropping up more and more. Certainly, with arbitrations under NAFTA, transparency has been an issue for several years now.
 
The issue has also reached investor/state arbitrations under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
 
However, outside of investor/state arbitrations, can transparency co-exist with the cloak of confidentiality that users of international arbitration seek?
 
A working group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), which is looking into the possible revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, is wrestling with the issue of transparency right now, according to Jonathan Sutcliffe and Aníbal Sabater of Fulbright & Jaworski. Sutcliffe and Sabater have authored a commentary we are featuring in the May 2008 issue of Mealey’s International Arbitration Report.
 
Additionally, the English Court of Appeal has affirmed a lower court’s authorization disclosing, for the purposes of court proceedings in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, the British Virgin Islands (BVI) and several other jurisdictions, documents generated in an English arbitration on the ground that the interests of justice required disclosure.
 
While the circumstances in John Forster Emmott – and – Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd., Case No: A3/2007/2785 & 2786, English App.) were described as unusual by the appeals court, could such a ruling be actually tugging at the cloak of confidentiality?