The seemingly overwhelming benefits of transparency need to be weighed against the legitimate interest of parties in settling disputes swiftly and confidentially. On one hand, public interest can be triggered in commercial disputes, for example in fields such as health or the environment. On the other hand, confidentiality is revered as one of the implied obligations of arbitration and parties often do not wish to compromise on it—thus making it challenging to strike a balance between transparency and confidentiality. There is undeniably a high level of public interest in the publication of awards and the transparency of proceedings. However, the extent to which transparency should be limited remains highly contentious. This paper’s central theme focuses on why Asian nations have not signed the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (the Mauritius Convention), which implements the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules of Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. The paper reviews the Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) entered by Asian nations and the stipulations pertaining to mandatory publication of awards, arbitral documents, and public hearings, while also examining the reasons for Asian nations’ reluctance to ratify the Mauritius Convention. Finally, this paper identifies the deficiencies in the present Asian arbitration regime, advocates for a higher threshold for transparency and publicity in investor-state proceedings and suggests reforms that could be adopted by arbitral institutions to enhance transparency.