A/HRC/11/13 page 11 strives to “ensure that the State’s right to make legitimate regulations of the actions of investors is not restricted by an investment agreement. However, the right to regulate must be balanced against the investors’ wish for predictability, legal safeguards, minimum requirements regarding the actions of the State and compensation in the event of expropriation”.34 32. Investors often enhance the protection available under bilateral investment treaties with “stabilization” provisions in confidential contracts with host Governments called “host Government agreements”. The Special Representative, in collaboration with the International Finance Corporation, analysed stabilization provisions in nearly 90 recent host Government agreements.35 Among the key findings are: none of the host Government agreements with OECD countries offered investors exemptions from new laws and, with minor exceptions, they tailored stabilization clauses to preserve public interest considerations; a majority of the host Government agreements with non-OECD countries did have provisions to insulate investors from compliance with new environmental and social laws or facilitated compensation for compliance; the most sweeping stabilization provisions were found in Sub-Saharan Africa, where 7 of the 11 host Government agreements specified exemptions from or compensation for the effect of all new laws for the duration of the project, irrespective of their relevance to protecting human rights or any other public interest. 33. This research was discussed with experts in London, Johannesburg, and Marrakesh. Seasoned project lawyers from major international law firms expressed surprise that some of their peers were still employing the more extreme stabilization provisions and that Governments were willing to sign them, while several developing country negotiators were unaware of alternatives. 34. When an investor brings a claim regarding a bilateral investment treaty or host Government agreement to binding international arbitration, depending on the rules incorporated into the agreements, little or nothing about the case may be made public. This is at variance with precepts of transparency and good governance. While confidential business information must be protected, under some rules not even the existence of a case against a country is known to its public, let alone its substance. This impedes more responsible contracting by companies and Governments, and contributes to inconsistent rulings by arbitrators, undermining the system’s predictability and legitimacy. 35. Accordingly, the Special Representative was pleased that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), one of the sources of arbitration rules, invited his views at its forty-first session in 2008. He is encouraged by the Commission’s conclusion that transparency is a desirable objective in investor-State arbitration and its decision to address this as a matter of priority.36 34 Ibid., p. 27. 35 See “Stabilization Clauses and Human Rights”, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/ Content/Publications_LessonsLearned. 36 A/63/17.