Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Rights in International Investment Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2020

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 11))

  • 712 Accesses

Abstract

Covid has highlighted the pre-existing weaknesses in the social structure that leave vulnerable members of society at risk. This has reinforced the importance of states being able to protect their nationals’ human rights. A state’s role in this regard has been recognized not only by society but by business as well. Yet while progress is being made in these areas, international investment law remains bereft of increased attention to matters of human rights. Indeed, reforms in this area remain primarily procedural in nature.

This essay argues that issues of human rights must be given greater consideration in international investment treaties. Businesses are being asked to give greater attention to human rights matters in almost every area apart from international investment treaties. To ensure international investment law aligns with progress in other areas of the law, international investment law must delineate a role for human rights. This can be achieved, among other ways, through independent provisions on human rights, investor obligations, and carve-outs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Business Roundtable (2019) Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’, https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  2. 2.

    World Economic Forum (2020) Davos Manifesto 2020: The Universal Purpose of a Company in the Fourth Industrial Revolution, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/12/davos-manifesto-2020-the-universal-purpose-of-a-company-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/ (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  3. 3.

    Leaders on Purpose (2019) Purpose-Driven Leadership For The 21st Century: How Corporate Purpose Is Fundamental To Reimagining Capitalism, 2017–2019 Global Multi-Year CEO Study, https://www.thegeniusworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Leaders-on-Purpose.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  4. 4.

    Hirsch (2009), pp. 112 f.

  5. 5.

    See e.g. Al-Warraq v. Indonesia in which the investor relied on numerous arguments relating to human rights to protect his interests as a foreign investor, Al-Warraq v. Indonesia, UNCITRAL, Final Award, 15 December 2014, para. 177–184, 202–204, 240–246.

  6. 6.

    UNCTAD, Report of Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) on the work of its thirty-fifth session, UN Doc A/CN.9/935, 14 May 2018, https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/935 (last accessed 17 November 2020), para. 18.

  7. 7.

    UNCTAD, Improving Investment Dispute Settlement: UNCTAD Policy Tools, IIA Issues Note (Nov. 2017), https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/publications/182/iia-issues-note-improving-investment-dispute-settlement-unctad-s-policy-tools (last accessed 17 November 2020), p. 12.

  8. 8.

    Randall (2013), p. 3.

  9. 9.

    Besson (2014), pp. 44–46.

  10. 10.

    Donaldson (1982), p. 37.

  11. 11.

    UN Human Rights Council, Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008, https://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/8/5 (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  12. 12.

    UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, UN Doc. HR/PUB/11/04, 2011, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), Guiding Principle 11.

  13. 13.

    UN Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, 2011, UN Doc. HR/PUB/11/04, 2011, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), Guiding Principle 13.

  14. 14.

    UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Frequently Asked Questions about The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 2014, https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/faq_principlesbussinesshr.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), p. 10.

  15. 15.

    Assemblee Nationale, Proposition De Loi Relative Au Devoir De Vigilance Des Sociétés Mères Et Des Entreprises Donneuses D’ordre (adopted 21 February 2017); European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Commissioner Reynders announces EU corporate due diligence legislation, 30 April 2020, https://corporatejustice.org/news/16806-commissioner-reynders-announces-eu-corporate-due-diligence-legislation (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  16. 16.

    Reuters Staff, Swiss to vote on companies’ global liability for rights abuses, 4 June 2020, https://cn.reuters.com/article/instant-article/idUKKBN23B2B7 (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  17. 17.

    Wet Zorgplicht Kinderarbeid (Child Labor Duty of Care Act) (adopted 24 October 2019).

  18. 18.

    Supreme Court of Canada, Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 (2020).

  19. 19.

    Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, Legally Binding Instrument To Regulate, In International Human Rights Law, The Activities Of Transnational Corporations And Other Business Enterprises, Second Revised Draft, 6 Aug 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/WGTransCorp/Session6/OEIGWG_Chair-Rapporteur_second_revised_draft_LBI_on_TNCs_and_OBEs_with_respect_to_Human_Rights.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  20. 20.

    De Schutter (2014), p. 280.

  21. 21.

    Dupuy (2009), p. 46.

  22. 22.

    UN GA, Report of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/61/10, 2006, https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/reports/a_61_10.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), para. 233–251.

  23. 23.

    Choudhury (2020), p. 1.

  24. 24.

    Saldarriaga and Magraw (2015), pp. 125–146.

  25. 25.

    Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli & Others v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/07/01, Award (4 August 2010).

  26. 26.

    See e.g. Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award (8 December 2016); Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, et al. v. Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, Award (8 July 2016); Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005).

  27. 27.

    See e.g. Bilcon of Delaware et al v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award (17 March 2015); Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2, Award (4 April 2016); Vattenfall AB, Vattenfall Europe AG, Vattenfall Europe Generation AG v. Federal Republic of Germany, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/6 (2009), Award (11 March 2011).

  28. 28.

    Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, Final Award of the Tribunal on Jurisdiction and Merits (3 August 2005), pt. IV, ch. D, para. 7.

  29. 29.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/17, Decision on Liability (30 July 2010), para. 232; Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S.A. and Interagua Servicios Integrales de Agua S.A. v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability (30 July 2010), para. 252.

  30. 30.

    See e.g. Bilcon of Delaware et al v. Government of Canada, PCA Case No. 2009-04, Award (17 March 2015); Gold Reserve Inc. v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/09/1, Award (22 September 2014); Copper Mesa Mining Corp. v. Ecuador, PCA No. 2012-2, Award (15 March 2016).

  31. 31.

    Van Harten (2020), ch. 6.

  32. 32.

    Cape Verde-Hungary BIT (2019), Pmbl. See also Belarus-Hungary BIT (2019), Pmbl.

  33. 33.

    See e.g. Azerbaijan-Hungary BIT (2007), Art. 2; Cambodia-Japan BIT (2007), Pmbl.

  34. 34.

    Nigeria-Morocco BIT (2016), Pmbl.; Argentina-Qatar BIT (2016), Art. 10.

  35. 35.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 31(2).

  36. 36.

    See e.g. Canada-European Union: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (2017), Art. 28.3; Canada-China BIT (2012), Art. 33.

  37. 37.

    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (15 April 1994), Art. XX, U.N.T.S. Vol. 1867, pp. 154 ff.

  38. 38.

    Egypt-Mauritius BIT (2014), Art. 13.

  39. 39.

    ASEAN-India Investment Agreement (2014), Art. 3(5).

  40. 40.

    See e.g. Austria-Kyrgyzstan BIT (2016), Art. 7(4).

  41. 41.

    Australia-China FTA (2015), Art. 9.11(4).

  42. 42.

    See e.g. Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA) (2018), Art. 14.17; Belarus-India BIT (2018), Art. 12; Nigeria-Singapore BIT (2016), Art. 11.

  43. 43.

    Brazil-Malawi BIT (2015), Art. 9. See also Brazil-Mozambique BIT (2010), Art. 10.

  44. 44.

    African Union Commission, Draft Pan African Investment Code (2016), Art. 24(a) and (b).

  45. 45.

    Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 18.

  46. 46.

    Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08 Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implementation with ECOWAS (2008), Art. 14(2).

  47. 47.

    Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08 Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implementation with ECOWAS (2008), Art. 14(3).

  48. 48.

    Southern African Development Community, SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary (2012), Art. 15.

  49. 49.

    Bangladesh-Denmark BIT (2009), Art. 2(2).

  50. 50.

    Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 20; Indian Model BIT (2016), Art. 13.

  51. 51.

    Supplementary Act A/SA.3/12/08 Adopting Community Rules on Investment and the Modalities for their Implementation with ECOWAS (2008), Art. 18(2) and (3); Netherlands Model Investment Agreement (2018), Art. 23; Southern African Development Community, SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary (2012), Art. 19.1.

  52. 52.

    See e.g. China-Switzerland FTA (2013), Pmbl; CARIFORUM-UK Economic Partnership Agreement (2019), Art. 3.

  53. 53.

    See e.g. China-Switzerland FTA (2013), Pmbl; EU-Moldova BIT (2014), Art. 35.

  54. 54.

    India-Belarus BIT (2018), Art. 12. See also Argentina-Japan BIT (2018), Art. 17; Australia-Hong Kong FTA (2019), Art. 16.

  55. 55.

    Brazil-Chile BIT (2015), Art. 15; Austria-Nigeria BIT (2013), Pmbl.

  56. 56.

    See eg. EU-Ukraine BIT, Art. 422; EU-Moldova BIT (2014), Art. 35.

  57. 57.

    See e.g. Netherlands Model Investment Agreement (2018), Art. 7.

  58. 58.

    Morocco-Nigeria BIT (2016), Art. 18 (3) and (4); Southern African Development Community, SADC Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Template with Commentary (2012), Art. 15.2.

  59. 59.

    African Union Commission, Draft Pan African Investment Code (2016), Art. 37(3).

  60. 60.

    See e.g. Belarus-India BIT (2018), Art. 11(ii); Morocco-Nigeria BIT, Art. 17 (2) and (3).

  61. 61.

    Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline Company, BTC Human Rights Undertaking (22 September 2003), https://subsites.bp.com/caspian/Human%20Rights%20Undertaking.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), Art. 2.

  62. 62.

    See e.g. Exploration and Production Concession Contract between the Government of the Republic of Mozambique and ENI East Africa S.p.A and Empresa Nacional di Hidrocarbonetos, E.P. for Area 4 Offshore of the Rovuma Block Republic of Mozambique 2006, Art. 27.13; Kaul R (2009) Getting a Better Deal from the Extractive Sector Concession Negotiation in Liberia, 2006–2008: A report to the Liberian Reconstruction and Development Committee Office of the President, Republic of Liberia. Revenue Watch Institute, https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/RWI-Getting-a-Better-Deal-final0226.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  63. 63.

    Product Sharing Contract, Topkhana Block, Kurdistan Region between Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq and Talisman (Block K39) B.V (2011), Art. 43.11.

  64. 64.

    Herat Cement Contract between Majd Industrial Pishgaman Company and Ministry of Mines, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2011), Art. 13 and 14.

  65. 65.

    For a good overview of arguments in this area see generally Krajewski (2020), p. 105.

  66. 66.

    Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award (8 December 2016), para. 1191–1192.

  67. 67.

    Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award (8 December 2016), para. 1196–1198.

  68. 68.

    David R. Aven and Others v. Republic of Costa Rica, Award, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3, Award (18 September 2018), para. 738.

  69. 69.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision On Counterclaims (7 February 2017).

  70. 70.

    Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Interim Decision on The Environmental Counterclaim (11 August 2015).

  71. 71.

    Burlington Resources Inc. v. Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/5, Decision On Counterclaims (7 February 2017), para. 889; Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Interim Decision on The Environmental Counterclaim (11 August 2015), para. 447; Perenco Ecuador Ltd. v. The Republic of Ecuador and Empresa Estatal Petróleos del Ecuador (Petroecuador), ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6, Damages Award (27 September 2019), para. 899.

  72. 72.

    David R. Aven and Others v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. UNCT/15/3, Award (18 September 2018), para. 737–739.

  73. 73.

    UN Human Rights Council (2008) Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie. UN Doc. A/HRC/8/5, 7 April 2008, https://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/8/5 (last accessed 17 November 2020), para. 17.

  74. 74.

    Argentina-Qatar BIT (2016), Art. 10.

  75. 75.

    See e.g. Azerbaijan-Hungary BIT (2007), Art. 2; Cambodia-Japan BIT (2007), Pmbl.

  76. 76.

    Titi (2014), p. 104.

  77. 77.

    Korzun (2017), p. 374; Titi (2014), pp. 104–105.

  78. 78.

    Appleton (1997), p. 136; Du (2016), p. 817.

  79. 79.

    Choudhury (2011), p. 697.

  80. 80.

    Bear Creek Mining Corp. v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/2, Award (30 November 2017), para. 451–452.

  81. 81.

    Bear Creek Mining Corp. v. Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/2, Award (30 November 2017), para. 473–474.

  82. 82.

    See e.g. China-Australia FTA (2015), Art. 9.11.4–9.11.6.

  83. 83.

    ASEAN-India BIT (2014), Art. 3(5) and 8(9).

  84. 84.

    Singapore-Kazakhstan BIT (2018), Art. 11(2); Singapore-Australia FTA (2017), Art. 22.

  85. 85.

    China-Australia FTA (2015), Art. 9.11.4–9.11.16.

  86. 86.

    International Institut for Sustainable Development (2018) Harnessing Investment for Sustainable Development: Inclusion of investor obligations and corporate accountability provisions in trade and investment agreements, https://www.iisd.org/system/files/meterial/harnessing-investment-sustainable-development.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), p. 6.

  87. 87.

    UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Principles For Responsible Contracts Integrating The Management Of Human Rights Risks Into State-Investor Contract Negotiations, UN Doc. HR/PUB/15/1, 2015, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Principles_ResponsibleContracts_HR_PUB_15_1_EN.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020).

  88. 88.

    UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Principles For Responsible Contracts Integrating The Management Of Human Rights Risks Into State-Investor Contract Negotiations, UN Doc. HR/PUB/15/1, 2015, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Principles_ResponsibleContracts_HR_PUB_15_1_EN.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), p. 8.

  89. 89.

    UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Principles For Responsible Contracts Integrating The Management Of Human Rights Risks Into State-Investor Contract Negotiations, UN Doc. HR/PUB/15/1, 2015, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Principles_ResponsibleContracts_HR_PUB_15_1_EN.pdf (last accessed 17 November 2020), p. 10.

References

  • Appleton A (1997) GATT Article XX’s chapeau: a disguised ‘necessary’ test? The WTO Appellate Body’s ruling in United States – standards for reformulated and conventional gasoline. Rev Eur Community Int Environ Law 6(2):131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besson S (2014) Justifications. In: Moeckli D, Shah S, Sivakumaran S (eds) International human rights law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 34–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury B (2011) Exception provisions as a gateway to incorporating human rights issues into international investment agreements. Columbia J Transnational Law 49(3):670–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury B (2020) International economic law and non-economic issues. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 53(1):1–77

    Google Scholar 

  • De Schutter O (2014) International human rights law: cases, materials, commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T (1982) Corporations and morality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Du M (2016) The necessity test in world trade law: what now? Chinese J Int Law 15(4):817–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy PM (2009) Unification rather than fragmentation of international law? The case of international investment law and human rights law. In: Dupuy PM, Petersmann EU, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 45–62

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch M (2009) Investment tribunals and human rights: divergent paths. In: Dupuy PM, Petersmann EU, Francioni F (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 97–114

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Korzun V (2017) The right to regulate in investor-state arbitration: slicing and dicing regulatory carve-outs. Vanderbilt J Transnational Law 50:355–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2020) A nightmare or a noble dream? Establishing investor obligations through treaty-making and treaty-application. Bus Hum Rights J 5(1):105–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall MH (2013) The history of international human rights law. In: Kolb R, Gaggioli G (eds) Research handbook on human rights and humanitarian law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saldarriaga A, Magraw K (2015) UNCTAD’s effort to foster the relationship between international investment law and sustainable development. In: Schill SW, Tams CJ, Hofmann R (eds) International investment law and development: bridging the gap. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 125–146

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Titi C (2014) The right to regulate in international investment law. Nomos/Hart, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Harten G (2020) The trouble with foreign investor protection. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, UK

    Barnali Choudhury

Authors
  1. Barnali Choudhury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barnali Choudhury .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Marc Bungenberg

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Markus Krajewski

  3. School of Law, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Christian J. Tams

  4. Competition and Regulation Institute, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Jörg Philipp Terhechte

  5. Faculty of Law and Criminal Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Choudhury, B. (2021). Human Rights in International Investment Law. In: Bungenberg, M., Krajewski, M., Tams, C.J., Terhechte, J.P., Ziegler, A.R. (eds) European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2020. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_65

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_65

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59070-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59071-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation