Resolving the Conflict between Human Rights Protection and Investment Protection in International Investment Disputes

Reconciling the Conflict between International Investment Arbitration and Protection of Human Rights: Way Out

THE COHERENCE OF EU LAW: THE PROMOTION OF INVESTMENTS VS. THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

This chapter analyzes the interaction between international investment law and human rights instruments from a socio-cultural perspective. It is argued that legal interactions between various branches of international law (either integration or fragmentation) may be analyzed as social interactions between the relevant communities. These legal interactions are affected by the particular features of relevant social settings, as well as the mutual relationships between the relevant social groups. More specifically, it is argued that the socio-cultural distance between the particular international legal settings affects the inclination of relevant decision-makers to incorporate or reject parallel legal rules developed in other branches of international law. Consequently, greater socio-cultural ‘distance’ between the involved social settings and groups is likely to decrease the prospects for mutual incorporation of legal rules developed in the other legal sphere. As to the relationship between international investment and human rights laws, the likelihood of investment tribunals to accord a significant role to human rights treaties is influenced by the cultural distance between these two branches of international law. An analysis of investment tribunals' jurisprudence indicates that investment tribunals do not hesitate to apply rules derived from certain non-investment branches of international law (state responsibility, treaty law and general principles of law regarding corruption). Despite that, they are generally reluctant to accord significant weight to human rights treaties in international investment law. An analysis of the relationships between the social settings involved in international human rights and investment laws reveals a considerable socio-cultural distance between these branches of international law. In light of this and the deep-rooted tensions between the relevant communities, it is not surprising that investment tribunals are generally reluctant to accord significant weight to human rights treaties in international investment law. Thus, the considerable socio-cultural distance between these socio-cultural settings parallels the normative distance between these branches of international law. The existing social and normative gaps between investment and human rights laws may change in the future. Past experience shows that the relationship between various branches of international law is often dynamic. Future socio-cultural changes within each community – or changes in the social interactions between the relevant communities – may narrow the normative distance between international human rights and investment laws.

The article focuses on the study of issues of human rights implementation in international investment legal relations, both in the substantive and procedural aspects. The author attempts to reveal the relevance of the research topic and assess the significance of the interaction of international investment law and international human rights law in modern realities. The article reveals the options for the interpenetration of the two branches of public international law, as well as the problems arising as a result of such interaction. Emphasis is placed on the search for a new balance between international investment law and international human rights law, and on the possible identification of ways to promote the protection of human rights while encouraging and protect-ing foreign investment. An attempt is made to identify and comprehensively analyze the possibility of preven-tive integration of human rights in international investment legal relations, as well as its advantages and disad-vantages. Furthermore, the study of substantive and procedural aspects of interaction between international investment law and international human rights law identifies the importance and prospects of the impact of soft law on the realization of human rights in international investment relations. Special attention is paid to the prac-tice of resolving international investment disputes with reference to the protection of human rights as one of the options for the manifestation of the interpenetration of branches of international public law. The author identi-fies the existing patterns in the practice of resolution of international investment disputes. As one of the key conclusions the idea of the possibility of generalization of the results of harmonious interpretation (explanation) and the formation of an appropriate unified legal framework of international public law for its subsequent har-monious application is put forward.

The 2016 icsid award in Urbaser v. Argentina affirmed for the first time the possibility of a counterclaim in investment arbitration based on an international investor obligation under the human right to water. But to denounce a break-through and fundamental change in both international investment and human rights law would be premature. This article deconstructs the award’s reasoning and sheds light on its doctrinal fallacies, in particular the award’s unclear construction of the integration of a human rights obligation into investment arbitration and its misled argumentation on the existence of an international human rights obligation of private actors under the human right to water. Concluding that the award cannot be sustained under the current state of international law, the article then reflects on the potential of the award’s conception of human rights counterclaims for the future of international investment law and international human rights law.

International Investment Agreements (IIAs) have emerged as pivotal instruments in shaping global economic relations by fostering cross-border investments. These agreements, often aimed at promoting economic growth and stability, come with provisions that can significantly influence the human rights obligations of states. This study critically examines the interplay between IIAs and human rights, focusing on how economic interests are balanced against fundamental human rights obligations in both developed and developing countries. The research investigates the legal and policy frameworks of IIAs, highlighting key elements such as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms, expropriation clauses, and regulatory measures. These provisions, while essential for protecting investor interests, may inadvertently constrain states' ability to fulfill their human rights commitments, especially in areas like labor rights, environmental protection, and access to essential services. The study explores specific instances where IIAs have led to challenges in ensuring equitable human rights outcomes, such as disputes involving indigenous communities, public health policies, and social welfare programs. Study combines qualitative analyses of case law and treaty provisions with quantitative assessments of their socio-economic impacts. Case studies from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are presented to illustrate the practical implications of IIAs on human rights protection. The findings reveal a significant gap in the alignment of IIAs with international human rights standards, emphasizing the need for a more integrated approach that balances economic development with the protection of fundamental rights. The study concludes by proposing reforms to the existing IIA framework, advocating for the inclusion of explicit human rights provisions, enhanced transparency, and stronger accountability measures. It underscores the importance of fostering a harmonious relationship between economic governance and human rights, ensuring that international investment does not come at the expense of vulnerable populations or undermine state sovereignty in protecting public welfare.

The Legacy of the SADC Tribunal in International Investment Law

Exception Provisions as a Gateway to Incorporating Human Rights Issues into International Investment Agreements

Problem setting. The current state of affairs in society requires increased attention to the protection of human and citizen rights and freedoms. Martial law, as a legal regime, causes significant changes in the functioning of state institutions and society in general, endangering the basic rights and freedoms of citizens. Under such circumstances, it is especially important to develop and implement innovative approaches to ensuring the protection of human rights, which would take into account the specifics of the state of war and, at the same time, act as guarantors of compliance with the basic principles of the rule of law. This requires not only the reform of the legislation, but also the introduction of new technologies and methods that will allow more effective protection of citizens’ rights even in difficult conditions. Innovative approaches should be based on an increased level of awareness and training of both state bodies and civil society regarding mechanisms for the protection of rights in wartime. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Important aspects of the issue of innovative approaches to the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms have been studied by R. Shai, S. Husarov, O. Gilyaka, V. Kovalenko. However, despite the considerable experience in this area, the issue of introducing innovations to protect human rights and freedoms has not been fully explored. Purpose of the research is a comprehensive study of the features of innovative approaches to the protection of human and citizen rights and freedoms under martial law. This involves an analysis of the latest technologies, legal mechanisms and organizational solutions that can be effectively used to protect civil rights in emergency situations. In addition, the article examines the challenges and prospects of implementing these innovative approaches in the context of Ukrainian realities, in particular, taking into account socio-economic and legal aspects. Article’s main body. The research materials are: 1) normative and legal support for the protection of human and citizen rights and freedoms under martial law, including international conventions, domestic laws and by-laws; 2) works of domestic and foreign authors who conduct scientific and practical research in the field of human rights, innovative technologies and methods of protecting rights in armed conflicts. In the research process, the following scientific methods were used: theoretical generalization and grouping – to characterize the components of the system of protection of human and citizen rights and freedoms in the conditions of martial law and functions related to ensuring security; the method of formalization, analysis and synthesis – for the study of the domestic and the needs for the protection of rights in the conditions of martial law; comparative analysis – to develop different strategies and approaches to the protection of human and citizen rights in the conditions of martial law. The generalization of the results was used to formulate conclusions and develop recommendations for improving the system of protection of rights and freedoms in similar conditions. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The protection of human rights under martial law is a complex and multifaceted task that requires an integrated approach, including legal, administrative and socio-economic processes. The war caused and continues to cause a lot of grief, destroying everything in its path, the most valuable of which is human life and health. The main goal currently remains the issue of effective protection of a person and a citizen from external dangers lurking in modern Ukrainian society. This study aims to analyze approaches to the protection of human rights under martial law, determine their effectiveness and outline ways of improvement. Special attention is paid to the study of international experience and the possibility of its adaptation to modern Ukrainian conditions. As a result, it is planned to develop recommendations for the implementation of innovative approaches that will contribute to strengthening the legal protection of citizens in the conditions of martial law, increasing the level of their security and well-being.

Beyond Good and Evil: Toward a Solution of the Conflict between Corporate Profits and Human Rights

For many years international investment law and international human rights law developed along separate paths, each system having created specific dispute settlement mechanisms. This chapter falls within a broad subject of possible interrelations between the two fields. Although currently 'connecting human rights considerations to investment arbitration are still in its infancy', the intersections between both fields of law have started to raise interest in the literature. Possible interrelations between international investment arbitration and international human rights may be analyzed from various perspectives. The chapter focuses on the possible influence of human rights on the determination of compensation for a breach of an international investment agreement (IIA) which has already been established by the arbitral tribunal at the merits phase of the proceedings. The moment of determination of compensation is often argued to be the one which creates the possibility of introducing human rights considerations into investor-state arbitrations. Keywords: arbitral tribunal; international human rights law; international investment agreement (IIA); international investment law

Are human rights taken into consideration in international investment law and dispute settlement? The controversy surrounding this now tedious debate has largely been fuelled by political and economic interests rather than convincing legal arguments. Interestingly indeed, the apparent contradiction between norms could be easily resolved if a political and economic will to read the law from a holistic perspective making use of its many flexibilities could eventually manifest itself. Twenty years after the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the massive adoption of investment treaties promoting and protecting FDI, the complexities of today’s international economic law scene as well as the recent defiance of developing, but also developed countries, towards trade and investment instruments and dispute settlement in particular calls for a paradigm shift, that of the reconsideration of the State’s sovereign attributes and duty to regulate in the favour of the public interest and the protection of human rights. In relation to these changes, the rapid development of global mega investment cases (Bhopal, Chevron-Texaco v. Ecuador, Philipp Morris), which are litigated, often in parallel proceedings, at various jurisdictional levels and on the basis of a complex network of domestic and foreign norms dramatically modifies the way investment disputes are settled. In going far beyond the usually studied international investment arbitration cases, these disputes pose a global litigation challenge while responding, at the same time, to the question of international law reunification. In this context, this chapter proposes to revisit the now traditional international economic law approach of human rights in international investment arbitration in underlying the instrumental and artificial character of the presupposed normative contradiction (I) to then go beyond international investment dispute settlement (ISDS) and show why an alternative (human) rights-based perspective is needed to not only provide victims with essential remedies, but also participate in international law reunification (II).

Preface List of Contributors Introduction Progressive Nuances in International Human Rights Paradigm 1. The Historical Development of International Human Rights, Michelo Hansungule 1. Introduction 2. Some Historical Perspectives on Human Rights 3. Universal Rights 4. The European View 5. Human Rights as Moral Ideas in Diverse Societies, Religions, and Cultures 6. Africa 7. Middle East (Islamic World) 8. Asia 9. Post-War Developments 10. Conclusion 2. Civil and Political Rights, Joshua Castellino 1. Introduction 2. The Covenant 3. The Rights Package 4. Future Challenges 3. An Introduction to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Overcoming the Constraints of Categorization through Implementation, Vinodh Jaichand 1. Introduction 2. Historical Development 3. Similarities and Differences in Content of ICCPR and ICESCR 4. The Norms and Enforcement 5. On Justiciability: An Example of the Protection of ESC Rights in a Region 6. On Justiciability: Domestic Enforcement 7. Conclusion 4. Women's Rights in International Law, Mmatsie Mooki, Rita Ozoemana, Michelo Hansungule 1. Introduction 2. Recognition of Women's Rights: United Nations Charter and the International Bill of Rights 3. Women's Rights in other United Nations Convention 4. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women 5. United Nations Groundbreaking Conferences 6. Violence Against Women 7. Conclusion 5. Globalization and Human Rights, Heli Askola 1. Introduction 2. Globalization 3. Economic Globalization and Human Rights 4. Political, Social and Cultural Globalization and Human Rights 5. Conclusion 6. Role of the UN in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Elvira Dominguez-Redondo 1. Introduction 2. From Codification to Efficiency: The Different Phases of the Human Rights Discourse within the United Nations 3. Normative Development of the UN System of Protection and Promotion of Human Rights 4. Charter-based and Treaty-based Monitoring Mechanisms: Public Special Procedure and the Work of the Committees 7. Attributes of Successful Human Rights on-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) - Sixty Years After the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, George E. Edwards 1. Introduction 2. NGOs & Human Rights NGOs 3. Ten Characteristics of Successful Human Rights NGOs 4. NGO Self-Regulation Via Codes of Conduct and Ethics 5. Conclusion 8. Do States have an Obligation under International Law to Provide Human Rights Education?, Paula Gerber 1. Introduction 2. Human Rights Education (HRE) in International Law 3. Obstacles to the Realization of HRE 4. Conclusion 9. Application of International Standards of Human Rights Law at Domestic Level, Joshua Castellino 1. Introduction 2. The Codification of International Human Rights Standards as Law 3. Domestic Implementation of Rights: The 'Engine Room' of Universal Instruments of Human Rights 4. Conclusion 10. Role of Regional Human Rights Instruments in the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights, Azizur Rahman Chowdhury, V. Seshaiah Shasthri, Md. Jahid Hossain Bhuiyan 1. Introduction 2. European Human Rights Treaties and Their Implementation 3. The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 4. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, 1981 5. Concluding Remarks Index

Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings. Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash. In this section, we summarize the three papers contained in this symposium and their original contributions to these themes. Over the last decade, dozens of countries have erected legal barriers or started vilifying campaigns to stymie the work of NGOs (Buyse, 2018; Chaudhry, 2022). One tactic in this toolkit is the enactment of burdensome regulation on NGOs that receive funds from foreign donors as they allegedly promote foreign agendas (Christensen & Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2021). States that frequently abuse human rights are especially prone to target NGOs that engage in strategic litigation (Hillebrecht, 2019). Most NGOs depend on foreign funding, and NGOs that litigate international cases fall disproportionately in this category, but do funders affect the selection of cases? In “Foreign Agents or Agents of Justice? Private Foundations, NGO Backlash, and International Human Rights Litigation,” Heidi Haddad and Lisa Sundstrom examine the extent to which Western donors, particularly private foundations, have encouraged NGOs in Europe to litigate at the ECtHR as a human rights advocacy strategy. They examine overall patterns of donor funding and NGO litigation records, and look in more detail at the case of Russian NGOs' foreign funding and litigation records. The analysis is extremely timely, as the Russian government's criminalization of independent civil society actors, especially in the human rights field, and their accusation that foreign funding turns NGOs into “foreign agents” have been crucial elements of the Russian regime's autocratization. This claim has also provided fuel for Russia's disenchantment with the ECtHR in recent years, contributing to the assessment of many observers that Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine was the last straw in an inevitable collision course leading to its exit from the Council of Europe. Haddad and Sundstrom debunk the idea that foreign donors are pushing NGOs toward strategies of human rights litigation. Instead, they argue, there is more evidence that NGOs themselves promoted the mechanism of international litigation as a strategy that donors later adopted. This article is a poignant reminder of the advocacy tools that Russian human rights activists and citizens have lost as a result of their government's departure from the Council of Europe, including ECtHR jurisdiction. Yet it also provides insight into the likely roles of foreign donors in other country cases where NGOs are using international court litigation as a human rights advocacy strategy, which is often a target of the ire of national governments, as explored in the next article in the symposium. When states attack human rights NGOs within their borders and/or international human rights courts themselves, how does this affect the willingness of those NGOs to take cases to international courts, and the ways in which they do so? De Silva and Plagis ask this question in their article about state backlash against NGOs in the case of Tanzania and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. A fascinating empirical question they pose is: does state backlash against NGOs increase NGO litigation at international courts (to contest state repression at those courts and use international mechanisms when domestic ones are not available), roughly in line with Keck and Sikkink's famous “boomerang pattern” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), or decrease it due to heightened fear and restricted NGO capabilities that state repression creates? Employing a process-tracing analysis of NGOs' involvement in three cases before the African Court at different stages of the Tanzanian government's backlash against the Court, De Silva and Plagis find that “two-level backlash” by states can result in both phenomena, either promoting or deterring NGO legal mobilization at international human rights courts, depending on certain conditions. The three selected cases concerning the death penalty, the rights of persons with albinism, and the rights of pregnant schoolgirls and mothers, which took place at different time periods, demonstrate a number of patterns of state backlash interacting with NGO strategies. The authors find that domestic-level state backlash deterred domestic NGOs from partnering with international NGOs in litigation, but that such backlash, when it repressed domestic political and legal mobilization opportunities, actually encouraged both Tanzanian and international NGOs to turn to the African Court more frequently to seek remedies. International-level backlash in turn only deterred NGOs from international litigation when such backlash consisted of state efforts to restrict NGOs' ability to engage in litigation, and not when the international backlash was in the form of routine noncompliance with African Court rulings. Importantly, the authors find that NGO responses to state backlash were significantly shaped by their degree of legal consciousness and expertise with the rules, proceedings, and workings of the African Court. Those NGOs with less knowledge and experience were more likely to back away from engaging with the Court under the pressure of state backlash. De Silva and Plagis conclude that “NGOs' persistent human rights advocacy in the face of state backlash is a double-edged sword,” in the sense that they may not be deterred by state backlash initially, but there is a danger that their continued determination to engage in international litigation could prompt governments to engage in even more severe forms of backlash, with critical impacts on international courts and already vulnerable human rights defenders. Rights advocates have a growing menu of institutions and courts available to them. How do activists choose at which institution to lodge their cases in a world where legal remedies have diversified, or as some have argued, fragmented (Koskenniemi & Leino, 2002)? In “What Makes an International Institution Work for Labor Activists? Shaping International Law through Strategic Litigation,” Filiz Kahraman goes beyond the tendency of legal mobilization studies to only examine how activists interact with a single court or institution. Instead, Kahraman opens up how rights advocates imagine which institution is most receptive to their claims. Drawing on a comparative interview study of British and Turkish trade union activists and their legal mobilization campaigns at international courts and quasi-judicial institutions like the International Labor Organization (ILO), Kahraman examines how activists first probe and then strategically identify which court or international institution is most susceptible to their primary goals of influencing structural reforms and setting new norms. Through this probing process—or dynamic signaling game between courts and litigants—activists push a court's jurisprudence and case law into new issue areas. For instance, at the ECtHR, Turkish trade unionists challenged domestic courts' ruling that public sector workers did not have the right to establish unions, even though the ECtHR had no established case law on labor rights in 1990s. They won the case, with the ECtHR finding that Turkey violated the right of public sector workers to unionize. These cases not only had an impact within Turkey, but over the next decades, similar cases brought by British unionists would spin off the early precedent set by the Turkish legal mobilization efforts. Kahraman argues that they ultimately pushed the ECtHR to recognize the basic trade union rights as fundamental human rights. Kahraman sheds light on the often hidden strategies behind international litigation. Activists litigate not just for the immediate impact on the current case they work on, but how they envision that all the cases they work on may shape norms and domestic structural reforms further in the future. Whether an institution is perceptive of claims lies in the eye of the beholder. Kahraman finds that besides targeting institutions with high compliance rates, they also take cases to institutions with low rates of compliance, especially “if these institutions have extensive judicial authority to create new international norms.” So, it is not the de jure protection set by an international courts, but rather how activists perceive the juridical responsiveness and judicial authority of courts—or, how judges adopt either an activist approach or restraint in response to incoming cases and how willing states are to implement cases of a court, respectively—that determines why activists select certain courts or quasi-judicial institutions (like the ILO). Kahraman gives us new tools to interpret how activists perceive authority and receptiveness and respond to opportunities. Rather than static external legal remedies, courts and quasi-judicial institutions are opportunity structures that are malleable to the strategic vision of the activist or litigant. The articles in this symposium together reveal a number of key overlapping insights. At the broadest level, they demonstrate that activists' behaviors and strategies influence international courts' jurisprudence, politics within states, and the human rights outcomes of everyday citizens—and these influences have often been hidden in our existing canon of research on international courts. In addition, all of these articles show that, while activists may face challenges in their efforts, often including significant backlash from their home state governments, they also continue to retain significant agency through their creative efforts to develop legal strategies and circumvent state repression. Activists perennially innovate: sparking the ideas that inspire donors who fund them; calculating how to continue their litigation work when government actors threaten them; and taking risks in litigation to push courts to expand how they define human rights. However, along with these uplifting conclusions, there are worrying patterns that demand future research. States are increasingly pushing back against the powers of international courts to bind them to costly measures, and as this symposium has shown, national governments often point to activists as contributors to this “problem” of invasive international human rights standards. A growing body of research has tracked how human rights defenders of all kinds globally are under threat from actors like governments and corporations who disagree with their contentious actions. We need more studies that gather comprehensive data and systematically track these threats, specifically with regard to activists who engage in international human rights litigation. We suspect that such activists are likely disproportionately targeted due to the international visibility of their complaints. We also desperately need research into possible innovative responses to these threats to activists—responses from activists, funders, governments of countries that support human rights, and international courts themselves. Freek van der Vet is a University Researcher at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki and the principal investigator of the Toxic Crimes Project. Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is the director of the ActinCourts network at UBC and conducts research on legal mobilization by Russian activists.

PurposeInternational investment law governs matters related to transnational investments. The extensive reach of transnational corporations (TNCs) has granted them substantial economic, political and social influence, often intertwining them with public interest issues and implications in human rights violations. This paper aims to explore the profound influence exerted by TNCs in today’s globalized world and its implications for human rights and social responsibility within the framework of international investment law. Particularly, it acknowledges the vulnerability of economically weak South Asian states and cites past instances such as the Bhopal gas tragedy in India and the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh as egregious violations of human rights. Focusing on South Asian bilateral investment treaties (BITs), this paper aims to examine the scope of investors’ social accountability.Design/methodology/approachThis research engages with doctrinal and analytical methods in traversing through primary and secondary sources. It would parse the arbitral tribunals’ jurisprudence for their discussion on the inclusion of social accountability obligations within international investment agreements (IIAs). Further, it engages in a quantitative analysis related to the nature of the social accountability-related obligation of the corporation within South Asian BITs.FindingsThe findings reveal a glaring absence of the law on investors’ social accountability and the need for enhanced regulatory mechanisms to address the escalating influence of TNCs on human and social rights. The absence of a robust legal framework, coupled with the asymmetric nature of international investment law, granting investors greater rights and leverage compared to states, exacerbates this challenge. The phenomenon of “regulatory chill” inhibits states from effectively enforcing regulatory measures aimed at protecting human rights and the environment. Furthermore, the broad interpretation of clauses such as “fair and equitable treatment” by investment tribunals often undermines states’ ability to implement measures in the public interest. While international organizations such as the UNCTAD and the UNCITRAL Working Group III are actively discussing reforms to IIAs, the existing guidelines addressing investors’ social accountability are woefully lacking in the content as well as the method of their integration with international human rights law. The findings underscore the imperative for South Asian nations, the subject of this research’s empirical analysis, to adopt a comprehensive approach involving both domestic law reforms to promote corporate social accountability and active pursuit of negotiations for the inclusion of binding social obligations for investors within IIAs.Practical ImplicationsThis research, drawing upon international law developments, offers suggestions for incorporation of social accountability provisions via relevant domestic law reform. The research could be viewed as a prelude for mapping the legal developments in the area of investors’ social accountability within investment agreements, as well as investment contracts, drawing guidance from international law instruments.Originality/ValueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, no other study analysed the scope of investors’ social accountability in South Asian BITs.