Investment treaty arbitration is often promoted as a fair, rules-based system that advances the rule of law. The system falls short of this expectation, however, due to its unique combination of arbitration and public law, its asymmetrical claims structure, its reliance on executive officials to make case-by-case appointments, and its attenuation of judicial oversight. The focus of concern is not actual bias on the part of individual arbitrators but, more appropriately, institutional and procedural aspects of the adjudicative process that raise suspicions of bias.