Contemporary developments in international arbitration have discussed the necessity of ensuring adherence to the rule of law in various facets of arbitration. International institutions deliberating on dispute resolution mechanisms and strategies have been evincing interest in discussing claim funding in international arbitration. The Working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is currently engaged with the access to justice (“ATJ”) rationale set forth by proponents of third-party funding in the context of an investor to state dispute settlement (“ISDS”). This chapter aims to discuss the potential overlap between the nascent practice of “not-for-profit third-party funding” (“TPF”) or “ideological funders” and the need to ensure the rule of law through disclosure in situations where TPF is identified. Although shrouded in mystery and less prominent compared to the traditional TPF, the author believes that the prevalence of not-for-profit funding is only set to increase in investment arbitration since a financial return on investment would not in usual circumstances be required to be given to that funder party. Through this chapter, the author will also attempt to define the contours of the rule of law in the context of TPF in arbitration and also elaborate upon the role of the rule of law in ensuring procedural fairness and natural justice in arbitration proceedings.