Introduction: The EU Objective to Global Human Rights Protection and Becoming an Actor in International Investment Law

Author(s):  
Vivian Kube
Author(s):  
Moshe Hirsch

Abstract The recent moderate trend to increasingly apply human rights law in investment awards is accompanied by certain new investment treaties which include expressed human rights provisions. An analysis of recent investment awards indicates that though there are some ‘winds of change’ in this field, it is equally noticeable that human rights law is far from being mainstreamed in international investment law. Investment arbitration procedural law is also undergoing a process of change, and the new procedural rules tend to enhance public elements in the investment arbitral system. This study is aimed at explaining these recent legal changes, highlighting the role of social movements in reframing investment relations as well as increasing public pressure to apply human rights law. These framing changes concern broadening the frame of investment arbitration (beyond the foreign investor–host state dyad), reversing the perceived balance of power between investors and host states, and zooming-in on local individuals and communities residing in host states. The discussion on factors impeding legal change in this field emphasizes the role of the private legal culture prevalent in the investment arbitration system, which is reflected and reinforced by certain resilient socio-legal frames. Informed by this analysis, the study suggests some legal mechanisms which can mitigate the inter-partes frame, and increase the application of human rights law in investment arbitration; inter alia, rigorous transparency rules that are likely to facilitate increased public pressure on tribunals and increase the participation of social movements representing local actors in arbitral processes.


De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-154
Author(s):  
Rosemary Mwanza

Does the increase in Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into Kenya portend doom for human rights in the country? The prominent narrative has been that FDI undermines human rights in host states, especially those in the developing world. This narrative is countered by claims that there exists a mutually affirming relationship between FDI and human rights. Proponents of this view posit that FDI facilitates the diffusion of human rights norms and correlates with the improved rule of law in host states. They also point to emerging human rights jurisprudence in international investment arbitration as evidence of a reciprocal relationship between FDI and human rights. In light of these arguments, this paper analyses the extent to which such a reciprocal relationship bears out between Chinese FDI and human rights in Kenya. It will be demonstrated that given the lack of a framework for human rights accountability for corporations at the international level, the restrictive treatment of human rights in international investment arbitration tribunals and weak institutional capacity in host states, a positive overlap between FDI and human rights is hardly a panacea for human rights protection in Kenya. Therefore, a synergy of legal measures and non-legal measures provide a pragmatic approach to insulate human rights from violations that may be associated with Chinese FDIs.


Author(s):  
Francisca Costa Reis ◽  
Weiyuan Gao ◽  
Vineet Hegde

With a mandate under the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union (EU) has been engaging with foreign powers like Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) nations on human rights issues. Despite the common and shared goals, the BRICS set-up is not institutionalised, which prompts the EU to engage with each country on a bilateral basis. Such collaborations have occurred in bilateral dialogues, multilateral fora, through developmental assistance, and negotiations in economic partnership agreements. The scope and content of the discussions and cooperation vary due to the difference in the political structures of the countries. While the EU and the BRICS may share some common goals politically and economically, pursuing shared objectives related to democracy and human rights promotion remains challenging. These countries may believe in human rights protection, but the understandings and the approaches vary drastically, as visible when issues of sovereignty and non-intervention are raised to resist comprehensive discussions. Although the BRICS are emerging as an interconnected group and have begun to cooperate more closely in multilateral fora, the EU may also have to consider dealing with it in its institutional capacity. It could be more challenging to fulfill the mandate of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU while dealing with this cohesive group that has different understandings on human rights protection within their own states.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document