觀諸近年來若干國際經貿爭端案件，若涉及一般公眾利益之問題，則非政府間組織或民間社團常以「法庭之友」之資格，主動並積極參與爭端解決程序，為其爭取陳述意見之機會。世界貿易組織上訴機構在若干案件中確認其有權接受該等組織以「法庭之友」之資格所提交之書面文件，並確立接受此等文件之法律基礎。而在北美自由貿易協定第11章之架構下所進行之仲裁案件中，仲裁庭在解決國際投資爭端時，亦採取相同之立場。仲裁庭根據當事人所選擇之仲裁規則，接受「法庭之友」所提交之書面文件，不過卻拒絕其出席聽審、取得爭端當事人雙方互換之文件，或其他進一步在程序上之權利。雖然非政府間組織或民間社團得以「法庭之友」之資格提交書面文件，而此等文件亦可被接受，但是其在程序上與實體上之權利受到限制。並且此等文件縱使被接受，亦幾乎顯少被納入考量。為了解決「法庭之友」在國際經貿爭端解決程序上所引起之問題，實有必要確立一致性之規則，或採取一致性之作法，以杜絕爭議。而「法庭之友」亦應衡量其在世界貿易組織與北美自由貿易協定第11章爭端解決程序中所享有之權利，並重新思考其在該等程序上所扮演之角色。

Where a question of general interest arises from an international economic or commercial dispute, non-governmental organizations or civi1 societies today claim the right to be heard by intervening in the proceedings as an amicus curiae. The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has already recognized in several cases its discretionary power to accept amicus curiae briefs, and has set out the legal grounds on which such intervention should not be rejected. Moreover, two arbitral tribunals constituted pursuant to Chapter 11 of NAFTA have adopted this solution in the context of international investment. In the light of the applicable procedural rules, arbitrators have accepted amicus curiae briefs, while refusing their participation at hearing, or access to documents served in the proceedings. Even though non-governmental organizations or civil societies could submit their briefs and these briefs could be accepted, their rights, both procedural and substantive, are restricted. Their briefs, even accepted, have rarely been taken into consideration. In order to bring to an end those controversial issues, it is necessary to establish uniform rules or to apply a uniform practice for the consideration of amicus curiae briefs in dispute settlement procedures. Non-governmental organizations or civil societies shall assess what their procedural rights are under the WTO and NAFTA dispute settlement procedures, or at least, reconsider their roles in those proceedings.