This entry examines whether the existing transparency gap between the investment treaty arbitration and international commercial arbitration regimes should be maintained, considering three factors: (i) the nature of the public interest, (ii) the role of confidentiality, and (iii) the role of party autonomy. The author concludes that the transparency gap should - as a general matter - be maintained. Although the public interest in particular international commercial arbitration cases can be significant - most notably in cases involving state entities or statutory claims - on a systemic level the public interest in internationalcommercial arbitration contrasts sharply with investment treaty arbitration, where cases consistently involve state entities and challenges to government measures. Equally important, two cornerstones of international commercial arbitration also support the existing transparency gap: (i) the availability of discreet and dispassionate dispute resolution, made possible by confidential proceedings, and (ii) the primacy of party autonomy. But with respect to the public availability of arbitral awards, the author concludes that the transparency gap should be narrowed significantly, given larger developments regarding international commercial dispute resolution and public access to decision-making.