Abstract

The dissatisfaction of States and some non-State actors with investor-State arbitration has deepened over the years. This has resulted in agitations for the reform of investor-State dispute settlement. Part of the reform agenda is the need for international investment tribunals to be required to consider human right norms, in appropriate cases, in the determination of arbitration matters before them. This is because, as good as the idea of protecting foreign investments is, if it is not put in its right perspective, it may lead to good government policies and the human rights of indigenes of host communities being sacrificed on the ‘altar’ of investment protection. Thus, this work aims at contributing to the ongoing debate on the need for international investment tribunals to always take public interest into account when deciding disputes before them. In that regard, this work examines the connection between human rights and investor-State arbitration, with particular focus on how these evolving human right norms would produce the needed panacea for environmental injustice. Although the ongoing agitations for reform transcend investor-State arbitration, this work in limited to discussing the specific issue of the need for investor-State arbitration tribunals to be required to give adequate consideration to human right norms in the determination of the matters that come before them. In this work, we used qualitative methodology based on doctrinal approach. The research design used is content analysis, which helps in describing the connection between human rights and investor-State arbitration as well as the concept of developing human right norms in investor-State arbitration. Keywords: Environmental injustice, Human right norms, Investment, Investor-State arbitration, Public interest DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/111-06 Publication date: July 31 st 2021

Highlights

  • A major concern today among scholars and arbitration institutions is the fragmentation of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system.[1]

  • This is because, as good as the idea of protecting foreign investments is, if it is not put in its right perspective, it may lead to good government policies and the human rights of indigenes of host communities being sacrificed on the ‘altar’ of investment protection

  • This work examines the connection between human rights and investor-State arbitration, with particular focus on how these evolving human right norms would produce the needed panacea for environmental injustice

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A major concern today among scholars and arbitration institutions is the fragmentation of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system.[1]. Some approaches by States in pursuing the ISDS reform agenda (use of local remedy only and diplomatic protection) are unsuitable for international investment disputes as mentioned above, the agitation for reform has scored a high point in awakening the need to take public interest into account in ISA proceedings, which has already resulted so far[2] in the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State. Arbitration, 2014 (Rules on Transparency) and the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, 2014 (the ‘Mauritius Convention on Transparency’).[3] there is a developing jurisprudence premised on the argument that ISA arbitral tribunals should act as agents for the parties that appointed them and for the global community at large.[4]. The main objective of this work, is to examine the connection between human rights and ISA,[6] especially those that are treaty-based, with particular focus on how these evolving human right norms in ISA would produce the needed panacea for environmental injustice

The Demand for ISDS Reform Touching on Human Rights
State Parties’ Role under the Evolving Dispensation
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call