Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Rights Protection in CETA: More Artificial Than Substantial

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
CETA's Investment Chapter

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 13))

  • 313 Accesses

Abstract

Investment awards occasionally adversely impact on the human rights situation of host States. The legal issue that arises in these circumstances is how to deal with a situation where human rights-motivated measures interfere with the rights of foreign investors. Human rights based on international law are likely to appear as defenses invoked by a host state or a non-disputing party. Further, human rights might be invoked in an effort to prevent a foreign investor from seeking protection under an IIA. In these situations, the question arises as to the possible avenues and methods through which a tribunal could consider human rights arguments in the context of an investment dispute. Despite this interplay between investment obligations and human rights, there is no widely accepted methodology as to how to react to argumentation based on human rights law. From a Rule of Law perspective, neverheless, ignoring or misapplying human rights law is problematic. The chapter aims to examine whether CETA better integrates human rights law with international investment law. In particular, this chapters examines the effectiveness of the traditional ‘toolbox’ that is used to integrate human rights and investment obligations, such as the jurisdictional and the applicable law clause, as well as the novel provisions in CETA, such as the amicus curiae mechanism and the appelate mechanism. This chapter utlimately argues that CETA is unlikely to ease the tension between human rights law and international investment law.

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 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an overview See Radi (2011) and Dumberry and Dumas-Aubin (2012).

  2. 2.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), para. 88. This limitation in international adjudication has been identified as a factor in the fragmentation of international law. See generally Mclachlan (2005).

  3. 3.

    Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd., et al. v. United States of America, UNCITRAL, para. 71.

  4. 4.

    For the same conclusion See Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. The Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, paras. 202–203.

  5. 5.

    Simma and Kill (2009), p. 694.

  6. 6.

    RosInvestCo UK Ltd. v. The Russian Federation, SCC Case No. V079/2005. Award on Jurisdiction, para. 39.

  7. 7.

    CETA, Art. 8. 18.

  8. 8.

    ibid. Art. 8.18 (3).

  9. 9.

    ibid. Art. 8. 18 (2).

  10. 10.

    CETA, Art. 8. 1. See generally Balcerzak (2017), pp. 134–146.

  11. 11.

    ILC, 57th session, para. 236.

  12. 12.

    In Salini the tribunal held that such provisions seek to prevent the IIA from protecting investments that should not be protected because they would be illegal. See Salini Costruttori S.p.a and Italstrade S.p.A v Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No.. ARB/02/13), para 46.

  13. 13.

    ibid.

  14. 14.

    Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. The Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/25, para. 40-1. Also See Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, UNCITRAL.

  15. 15.

    Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5, para. 78. Also See Inceysa Vallisoletana S.L. v. Republic of El Salvador, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/26 ; Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24.

  16. 16.

    Gustav F W Hamester GmbH & Co KG v. Republic of Ghana, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/24, Award, 18 June 2010, para. 127.

  17. 17.

    Newcombe (2011), p. 199.

  18. 18.

    Jacob (2010), p. 11.

  19. 19.

    Bernhard von Pezold and Others v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, para. 57.

  20. 20.

    See generally Gonzalez Garcia (2013), p. 30; Marie Dupuy and Vinuales (2015); Elisabeth Kjos (2013), ch.3; Adeleke (2018), ch. 5.

  21. 21.

    ILC Report (2005), p. 12. See generally Fry (2007); Asian Agricultural Products Ltd. v. Republic of Sri Lanka, ICSID Case No. ARB/87/3, para. 21. Lang argues that the recent attempts to defragment international economic law with human rights law forms part of a wider attempt to bring greater balance between competing obligations and, subsequently, to enhance the legitimacy of international economic governance. See Lang (2011), ch. 4.

  22. 22.

    See generally Hirsch (2008), pp. 163–172.

  23. 23.

    Right of Passage over Indian Territory, Portugal v India, Merits, Judgment, [1960] ICJ Rep 6, ICGJ 174 (ICJ 1960), 12th April 1960. On page 142, the court held that: ‘It is a rule of interpretation that a text emanating from a Government must, in principle, be interpreted as producing and as intended to produce effects m accordance with existing law and not in violation of it.’

  24. 24.

    Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula, S.C. European Food S.A, S.C. Starmill S.R.L. and S.C. Multipack S.R.L. v.Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20, para. 326.

  25. 25.

    These observations were also reaffirmed in Biloune, where the tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a human rights claim as an independent cause of action. Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd v Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana (UNCITRAL), p. 203.

  26. 26.

    Eric Peterson (2009), p. 22.

  27. 27.

    Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited v. Arab Republic of Egypt, Decision on Jurisdiction, ICSID Case No. ARB/84/3, para. 190–191.

  28. 28.

    Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A.and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19, para. 252.

  29. 29.

    ibid, Amicus curiae Brief, para. 252.

  30. 30.

    ibid.

  31. 31.

    ibid., para. 260.

  32. 32.

    Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, Award. 12 Oct 2005. Noble Ventures, Inc. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/11, para. 163.

  33. 33.

    The focus on different branches of international law in this chapter does not suggest that domestic law has no role to play in integrating investment law with human rights. However, the application of domestic law to an investment dispute will be limited compared with international law. This is because; investment tribunals are primarily concerned with establishing the international responsibility of a host state according to international law. By the same token, international law overrides domestic law when these areas of law conflict since a state cannot invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to perform an international obligation. In addition to the above, CETA expressly prohibits tribunals to determine the legality of a measure, alleged to constitute a breach of its provisions, under the domestic law of the disputing parties. Even if that was possible under CETA, human rights, which are based on domestic law, are usually invoked under the cloak of the public policy exception. For this reason, it’s not easy to identify them and assess their impact on investment disputes. See Kulick (2012), ch. 2. For the rationale behind this prohibition in CETA See Slowakische Republik v Achmea BV (Case C-284/16), 6 March 2018.

  34. 34.

    In a key policy paper on investment policy, the EU assumed the responsibility to draft investment agreements in consistency with the protection of the environment, decent work, health and safety at work, consumer protection, cultural diversity, development policy and competition policy. See European Commission (2010), p. 9.

  35. 35.

    See generally Dumberry and Dumas-Aubin (2014).

  36. 36.

    S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Partial Award (13 November 2000), para. 468.

  37. 37.

    CETA, Preamble.

  38. 38.

    ADF Group Inc. v. United States of America, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/00/1, para. 147.

  39. 39.

    Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, on the one part, and Canada, of the other part., Art. 2 (1).

  40. 40.

    ibid, Art. 28 (7).

  41. 41.

    Bartels (2017), p. 210.

  42. 42.

    Joint Interpretative Instrument on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States (2016), para.2.

  43. 43.

    ibid.

  44. 44.

    See generally Wandahl Mouyal (2016), pp. 59–65.

  45. 45.

    VCLT, 30 (2).

  46. 46.

    See generally Kriebaum (2007), pp. 172–177.

  47. 47.

    Kulick (2012), p. 267.

  48. 48.

    Cotula (2012), p. 78.

  49. 49.

    Kyoto Protocol, Art. 3 (1).

  50. 50.

    See generally Vinuales (2012), pp. 34–38.

  51. 51.

    Thielborger (2009), p. 488.

  52. 52.

    Spyridon Roussalis v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/1, para. 312.

  53. 53.

    ibid.

  54. 54.

    Hesham T. M. Al Warraq v. Republic of Indonesia, Final Award, UNCITRAL, 15 December 2014, para. 178.

  55. 55.

    ibid, para. 521.

  56. 56.

    Cali et al. (2017), p. 18.

  57. 57.

    The ILC suggests that when States enter into a treaty that might conflict with another treaty, they should aim to settle the relationship between such treaties through conflict clauses. ILC Report (2005), p.182. The need for a mechanism for resolving conflicts between investment provisions and human rights law was reiterated in the discussions for the establishment of a multilateral framework for investment protection. See generally Zia-Zarifi (2007).

  58. 58.

    As Simma and Kill have pointed out, ‘relevant’ is a term that lends itself to extremes of gradation and substantive lack of clarity, which means that arbitrators are given a significant amount of flexibility. As cited in Mota (2018), p. 221.

  59. 59.

    On recent attempts to promote sustainable development through IIAs See Anthony VanDuzer (2016).

  60. 60.

    NAFTA, Art. 104.

  61. 61.

    S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, paras. 255–266.

  62. 62.

    Vinuales (2012), pp. 148–149.

  63. 63.

    ibid.

  64. 64.

    Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing the Benefits arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity, October 2010, Art. 4(1).

  65. 65.

    ibid, Art. 4 (4).

  66. 66.

    Vadi argues that a balance between investment and non-investment norms could be achieved through the standard interpretative techniques enshrined in the VCLT. See Vadi (2012), pp. 187–188.

  67. 67.

    Amado et al. (2018), p. 109.

  68. 68.

    ibid, p.109. See generally Fahner and Happold (2019), Yotova (2017) and Acconci (2014).

  69. 69.

    For some examples See Anthony Van Duzer et al. (2012) and Gehring et al. (2017).

  70. 70.

    Methanex Corporation v United States of America, UNCITRAL Award 8/2005.

  71. 71.

    ibid, para. 49.

  72. 72.

    ICSID Convention, Rule 37.

  73. 73.

    UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, Art. 4.

  74. 74.

    Bellhouse and Lavers as cited in John (2016), pp. 82–83.

  75. 75.

    CETA, Art. 8.38 (2). This provision is reflective of Article 1128 of NAFTA.

  76. 76.

    See generally Kube and Petersmann (2018), pp. 87–91.

  77. 77.

    Vinuales (2012), p. 118.

  78. 78.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, para. 187.

  79. 79.

    Knahr (2011), p. 336.

  80. 80.

    UN (2010), p. 11.

  81. 81.

    Butler provides empirical evidence to argue that amicus curiae briefs have had a minimal impact on investment disputes. Butler further argues that the extent to which such briefs could affect the final outcome of a dispute is at the discretion of a tribunal. See Butler (2019). Also See Harrison (2009) and Wiik (2018).

  82. 82.

    Harrison (2009), p. 412.

  83. 83.

    Cotula and Schroder (2017), p. 23; United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1, para. 187.

  84. 84.

    ibid, para. 187.

  85. 85.

    The tribunal in UPS acknowledged that international tribunals have either ignored or given very low priority to third party interventions. United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No. UNCT/02/1 para. 40.

  86. 86.

    Piero Foresti, Laura de Carli & Others v. The Republic of South Africa, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/07/01, Petition for Limited Participation as non-disputing parties in terms of articles 41(3), 27, 39, and 35 of the Additional Facility, p. 8.

  87. 87.

    ibid, Letter Regarding Non-Disputing Parties.

  88. 88.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania,Procedural order No 5, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, para. 71.

  89. 89.

    CETA, Art. 8. 38 (1).

  90. 90.

    ibid. Art. 8 38 (2).

  91. 91.

    Schadendorf (2013), pp. 12–14. This is also reflected in Rule 37 of the ICSID Convention where it is stated that a non-disputing party could address a matter within the scope of the dispute.

  92. 92.

    Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v. United Republic of Tanzania,Procedural order No 2, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/22, para, paras. 59–60.

  93. 93.

    Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, Decision on the Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objections, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12, paras. 2.39–2.43.

  94. 94.

    See Kalnina and Di Pietro (2009), p. 240.

  95. 95.

    Schreuer (2002), p. 193.

  96. 96.

    CETA, Art. 8. 28 (2) (a).

  97. 97.

    DSU, Art. 17 (6).

  98. 98.

    See generally Ngangjoh Hodu and Qi (2016), ch. 3.

  99. 99.

    DS26: European Communities—Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones).

  100. 100.

    ibid, para. 118.

  101. 101.

    Hodu and Ajibo (2015), p. 320.

  102. 102.

    Butler and Musa (2018), p. 445. See generally H Qureshi (2008), pp. 1165–1168; Werner (2009); Kurtz (2016), ch.5.

  103. 103.

    Qureshi (2008).

  104. 104.

    Kurtz (2016), pp. 240–241.

  105. 105.

    Miles (2013), p. 381.

  106. 106.

    United States-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimps and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report WT/DS58/R, 12 October 1998.

  107. 107.

    ibid, para. 15.

  108. 108.

    ibid, para. 187.

  109. 109.

    Dine (2005), p. 197.

  110. 110.

    ibid, paras. 154–155.

  111. 111.

    ibid.

  112. 112.

    An award-winning model treaty includes detailed provisions on human rights law as well as provisions giving the possibility to the appellate mechanism to request specialised international courts and tribunals, with core expertise on human rights, advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. See Treaty on Sustainable Investment For Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, Art. 9. 11 (3) stockholmtreatylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Treaty-on-Sustainable-Investment-for-Climate-Change-Mitigation-and-Adaptation-1.pdf.

  113. 113.

    UN suggests that in order to provide guidance to tribunals the interaction between different branches of international law should be addressed. ILC Report (2005), p. 162.

  114. 114.

    See generally Schill (2017).

References

  • Acconci P (2014) The integration of non-investment concerns as an opportunity for the modernization of international investment law: is a multilateral approach desirable? In: Sacerdoti G et al (eds) General interests of host states in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Adeleke F (2018) International investment law and policy in Africa: exploring a human rights based approach to investment regulation and dispute settlement. Routledge Publications, Abingdon, ch. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Amado J et al (2018) Arbitrating the conduct of international investors. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 109

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony Van Duzer J et al (2012) Integrating sustainable development into international investment agreements: a guide for developing countries. Commonwealth Secretariat, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony VanDuzer J (2016) Sustainable development provisions in international trade treaties: what lesson for international investment agreements? In: Hindelang S, Krajewski M (eds) Shifting paradigms in international investment law: more balanced, less isolated, increasingly diversified. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Balcerzak F (2017) Investor-state arbitration and human rights. Brill Publications, Leiden, pp 134–146

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels L (2017) Human rights, labour standards and environmental standards in CETA. In: Griller S et al (eds) Mega-regional trade agreements CETA, TTIP and TiSA: new orientations for EU external economic relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 210

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellhouse and Lavers as cited in John G (2016) The ‘de-fragmentation’ of international investment law and international human rights law: a procedural basis for a host state human rights defence in ICSID arbitration. Brunel Univ Res Archive:82–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler N (2019) Non-disputing party participation in ICSID disputes: Faux Amici? Netherlands Int Law Rev 66:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler N, Musa S (2018) Systemizing human rights within investment arbitration. Am Rev Int Arbitr 28:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Cali B et al (2017) The effects of international human rights law on other branches of public international law: an annotated compilation of case law. Center of Global Public Law. p 18

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotula L (2012) Human rights, natural resource and investment law in a globalised world. Routledge Publications, Abingdon, p 78

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cotula L, Schroder M (2017) Community perspectives in investor-state arbitration. IIEL Land, Investment and Rights Series, p 23

    Google Scholar 

  • Dine J (2005) Companies, international trade and human rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 197

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P, Dumas-Aubin G (2012) When and how allegations of human rights violations can be raised in investor-state arbitration. J World Invest Trade 13:349–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dumberry P, Dumas-Aubin G (2014) A few pragmatic observations on how BITs should be modified to incorporate human rights obligations. Transnational Dispute Manag 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Elisabeth Kjos H (2013) Applicable law in investor-state arbitration: the interplay between national and international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, ch.3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eric Peterson L (2009) Human rights and bilateral investment treaties: mapping the role of human rights law within the investor-state arbitration. International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development, Montreal, p 22

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2010) Communication from the Commision to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions’ COM(2010)343. Brussels, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahner J, Happold M (2019) The human rights defence in international investment arbitration: exploring the limits of systemic integration. Int Comp Law Q 68:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fry J (2007) International human rights law in investment arbitration: evidence of international law’s unity. Duke J Comp Int Law 18:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehring M et al (2017) Sustainability impact assessments as inputs and as interpretative aids in international investment law. J World Invest Trade 18:163–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez Garcia L (2013) The role of human rights in international investment law. In: Calamita J et al (eds) The future of ICSID and the place of investment treaties in international law. BIICL, London, p 30

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J (2009) Human rights arguments in Amicus Curiae submissions: promoting social justice? In: Marie Dupuy P et al (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch M (2008) Interactions between investment and non-investment obligations. In: Muchlinski P et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 163–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodu Y, Ajibo C (2015) ICSID annulment procedure and the WTO appellate system: the case for an appellate system for investment arbitration. J Int Dispute Settlement 6:320

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob M (2010) International investment agreements and human rights. INEF research paper series on human rights, corporate responsibility and sustainable development 03/2010, p. 11

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalnina I, Di Pietro D (2009) The scope of ICSID review: remarks on selected problematic issues of ICSID decisions. In: Binder C et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  • Knahr C (2011) The new rules on participation of non-disputing parties in ICSID arbitration: blessing or curse? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 336

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriebaum U (2007) Privatizing human rights: the interface between international investment protection and human rights. In: Reinisch A, Kriebaum U (eds) The law of international relations: Liber Amicorum Hanspeter Neuhold. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 172–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Kube V, Petersmann EU (2018) Human rights in international investment arbitration. In: Gattini A et al (eds) General principles of law and international investment arbitration. Brill Publications, Leiden, pp 87–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulick A (2012) Global public interest in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ch. 2

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz J (2016) The WTO and international investment law: converging systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ch.5

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2011) World trade after neoliberalism: reimagining the global economic order. Oxford University Press, Oxford, ch. 4

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marie Dupuy P, Vinuales J (2015) Human rights and investment disputes: integration in progress. In: Bungenberg M et al (eds) International investment law: a handbook. Nomos Publications, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Mclachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention. Int Comp Law Q 54:279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles K (2013) The origins of international investment law: empire, environment and the safeguarding of capital. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mota A (2018) #Defend the sacred: harnessing hard and soft law mechanisms to integrate international investment and cultural rights. King’s College Repository, p 221

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcombe A (2011) Investor misconduct: jurisdiction, admissibility or merits? In: Brown C, Miles K (eds) Evolution in investment treaty law and arbitration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 199

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngangjoh Hodu Y, Qi Z (2016) The political economy of WTO implementation and China’s approach to litigation in the WTO. Elgar Publications, Camberley, ch. 3

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi AH (2008) An appellate system in international investment arbitration? In: Muchlinski P et al (eds) The Oxford handbook of international investment law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1165–1168

    Google Scholar 

  • Radi Y (2011) Realizing human rights in investment treaty arbitration: a perspective from within the international investment law toolbox. North Carolina J Int Law Commer Regul 37:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Report of the ILC (2005) 57th session, UN Doc A/60/10, para. 236

    Google Scholar 

  • Schadendorf S (2013) Human rights in Amicus Curiae submissions: analysis of ICSID and NAFTA investor-state arbitration. Transnational Disp Settlement 10(1):12–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Schill S (2017) Authority, legitimacy, and fragmentation in the (envisaged) dispute settlement disciplines in mega-regionals. In: Griller S et al (eds) Mega regionals trade agreements: CETA, TTIP and TiSA: new orientations for EU external economic relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreuer C (2002) Failure to apply the governing law in international investment arbitration. Aust Rev Int Eur Law 7:193

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B, Kill T (2009) Harmonizing investment protecting and international human rights: first step towards a methodology. In: Binder C et al (eds) International investment law for the 21st century: essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 694

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielborger P (2009) The human right to water versus investors rights: double-dilemma or pseudo-conflict? In: Dupuy PM (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 488

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Commision on International Trade Law (2010) Report of Working Group II (Arbitration and Conciliation) A/CN.9/712

    Google Scholar 

  • Vadi V (2012) Public health in international investment law and arbitration. Routledge Publications, Abingdon, pp 187–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinuales JE (2012) Foreign investment and the environment in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 34–38

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wandahl Mouyal L (2016) International investment law and the right to regulate: a human rights perspective. Routledge Publications, Abingdon, pp 59–65

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Werner J (2009) Limits of commercial investor-state arbitration: the need for appellate review. In: Marie Dupuy P et al (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiik A (2018) Amicus Curiae before international courts and tribunals. Nomos Publications, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yotova R (2017) Systemic integration: an instrument for reasserting the state’s control. In: investment arbitration? In: Kulick A (ed) Reassertion of control over the investment treaty regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zia-Zarifi S (2007) Protection without protectionism. Linking a multilateral investment treaty and human rights. In: Nieuwenhuys EC, Brus M (eds) Multilateral regulation of investment. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nicosia, Cyprus

    Kriton Dionysiou

Authors
  1. Kriton Dionysiou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dionysiou, K. (2021). Human Rights Protection in CETA: More Artificial Than Substantial. In: CETA's Investment Chapter. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66992-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66992-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66991-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66992-8

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation