Part II Staking Out Theoretical Boundaries and Building the Regime, 6 Chanticleer, the Fox, and Self-Regulation

This chapter demonstrates that self-regulation — contrary to popular critique — is less a selfish, irresponsible, and unnecessary practice, and more of a progressive inevitability, in keeping with a transitioning society. Global patterns of self-governance in other areas of progress already justify the use of self-regulation as a necessary aspect of international arbitration, in keeping with this book's thesis of employing self-regulation as a means of legitimatizing international arbitration. And while ‘regulation’ might be rife with negative connotations, ‘self-regulation’ offers a healthy way of preserving structures, establishing integrity among participants, and avoiding the risks of external regulation. Effective counsel regulation within international arbitration can also help facilitate the influx of a large diversity of participants. Moreover, adopting ethical self-regulation extends rather enormous implications for the future of international arbitration, and the evolving roles of the actors therein.