Investor-State Arbitrations and the Human Rights of the Host State’s Population: An Empirical Approach to the Impact of Amicus Curiae Submissions

  • Sarah SchadendorfEmail author


Projects of foreign investors potentially impinge on the human rights of the people living under the host State’s jurisdiction. As host States show reluctance to raise human rights arguments in international investor-State arbitration, the submissions of amici curiae (“friends of the court”) from civil society can point the tribunal to the human rights implications of the dispute and thus represent the affected citizens' or a broader public interest. This chapter will examine all cases before NAFTA and ICSID arbitral tribunals in which human rights of the host State’s population were invoked by amici in substantive submissions. The author will explore which human rights the amici refer to and in how far the tribunals respond to the alleged human rights arguments in their procedural orders, decisions and awards. This rather empirical approach is supposed to evaluate the relevance of amicus briefs which aim at promoting the human rights of the host State’s population. The results will help to assess the impact of human rights related amicus submissions on contemporary investment arbitration and international investment law in general.


Civil Society Actor Vienna Convention Arbitral Tribunal Procedural Order Investment Dispute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bartholomeusz L (2005) The amicus curiae before international courts and tribunals. Non-state Actors Int Law 5:209–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross C, Schliemann-Radbruch C (2013) When investment arbitration curbs domestic regulatory space: consistent solutions through amicus curiae submissions by regional organisations. Law Dev Rev 6:1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Brabandere E (2013) Human rights considerations in international investment law. In: Fitzmaurice M, Merkouris P (eds) The interpretation and application of the European convention of human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 183–216Google Scholar
  4. Gomez KF (2012) Rethinking the role of amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: how to draw the line favorably for the public interest. Fordham Int Law J 35:510–564Google Scholar
  5. Gray LE, Peterson KR (2003) International human rights in bilateral investment treaties and in investment treaty arbitration. Research paper prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)Google Scholar
  6. Harrison J (2010) Human rights arguments in amicus curiae submissions: promoting social justice? In: Dupuy PM, Francioni F, Petersmann EU (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 396–421Google Scholar
  7. Karamanian SL (2012) Human rights dimensions of investment law. In: de Wet E, Vidmar J (eds) Hierarchy in international law – the place for human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 236–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karamanian SL (2013) The place of human rights in investor-state arbitration. Lewis Clark Law Rev 17:423–447Google Scholar
  9. Kriebaum U (2009) Human rights of the population of the host state in international investment arbitration. J World Invest Trade 10:653–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kulick A (2012) Global public interest in international investment law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levine E (2011) Amicus curiae in international investment arbitration: the implications of an increase in third-party participation. Berk J Int Law 29:200–224Google Scholar
  12. Mowatt JC, Mowatt C (2013) Case comment – Border Timbers and others v Zimbabwe and von Pezold and others v Zimbabwe. ICSID Rev 28:33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reiner C, Schreuer C (2010) Human rights and international investment arbitration. In: Dupuy PM, Francioni F, Petersmann EU (eds) Human rights in international investment law and arbitration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 82–96Google Scholar
  14. Schadendorf S (2013) Human rights arguments in amicus curiae submissions: analysis of ICSID and NAFTA investor-state arbitrations. Transnational Dispute Manag 10Google Scholar
  15. Simma B, Kill T (2009) Harmonizing investment law and international human rights law: first steps towards a methodology. In: Binder C, Kriebaum U, Reinisch A, Wittich S (eds) International investment law for the 21st century, essays in honour of Christoph Schreuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 687–707Google Scholar
  16. Suda R (2006) The effect of bilateral investment treaties on human rights enforcement and realization. In: De Schutter O (ed) Transnational corporations and human rights. Hart, Oxford, pp 73–160Google Scholar
  17. Triantafilou EE (2008) Amicus submissions in investor-state arbitration after Suez v. Argentina. Arbitr Int 24:571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wieland P (2011) Why the amicus curia institution is illsuited to address indigenous peoples’ rights before investor-state arbitration tribunals: Glamis Gold and the right of intervention. Trade Law Dev 3:334–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bucerius Law SchoolHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations