There's been a further criticisms of the ISDS process that these ad hoc appointed panels do not enjoy some of the prime characteristics or features of what we regard as the rule of law. For instance they don't have security of tenure. Generally, we think in the western school of thought on the rule of law that judges need to be shielded from the consequences of their decisions so that they're free to decide as they wish. Are there concerns about the lack of security of tenure of these people? Also, could you comment briefly on criticisms of bias in the system?
On March 27th, 2013. See this statement in context.