Not all rights are created equal: A loss–gain frame of investor rights and human rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Tomer Broude ◽  
Caroline Henckels
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Cognitive Psychology ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Gain Frame ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Cognitive Explanation

Abstract International investment tribunals often use the language of ‘rights’ to characterize foreign investors’ claims against host states, evoking the language of human rights and, in some cases, appearing to conflate the two concepts. We investigate the cognitive framing of the relationship between investor rights and human rights in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), as characterized by investment tribunals. We first establish that arbitrators (and scholars and counsel) tend to characterize investor claims as rights claims in general and property rights claims in particular, even if this normative basis is far from precise. Second, building on behavioural economics and cognitive psychology, we argue that this characterization places human rights considerations at a structural disadvantage in ISDS. Investor rights are perceived by arbitrators as endowments that are possessed and that risk being lost, while the human rights of host state populations are viewed as aspirational demands that might only be fully realized in the future. Thus, governmental actions interfering with investments are perceived by arbitrators as actual losses, while competing human rights claims are perceived as potential gains or demands. Following prospect theory, the former (certain losses) will usually be weighed more heavily in a decision-making calculus than the latter (possible gains). This loss–gain frame provides a cognitive explanation for the prevalence of arbitral decisions that prefer investor claims over human rights, a phenomenon that is highly problematic in times in which the legitimacy of the ISDS system rests on its ability to consider the rights of non-investors.

scholarly journals ISDS Regimes and Democratic Practice: Creating Conflict of Interests between Governments, Investors and Local Populations

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (84) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Martin Karas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Scholarly Work ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Local Populations ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Democratic Practice ◽  
Recent Debate ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract The recent debate over the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) regimes of international arbitration has resulted in concerted efforts aimed mainly at protecting the rights of states to regulate, improving transparency of proceedings and eliminating inconsistency in decision making of the tribunals. While the existing scholarly work frequently addresses issues of the relationship between the existing investment regimes and good governance in general, increased attention is rarely paid to the effects that investment arbitration has on democratic practice. The article applies an “action-based” approach to democracy, in order to analyse the role that the ISDS regimes play in exacerbating conflicts between the local populations, foreign investors and governments. The analysis leads to a conclusion that the ISDS regimes create incentives for the governments and foreign investors to disregard sound democratic practice. The article represents an attempt to move the discussion about the ISDS regimes away from the question of legitimacy of the regimes to the question of the impacts that the regimes have in practice.

Investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases and India: affronting regulatory autonomy or indicting capricious state behaviour?

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Prabhash Ranjan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Content Type ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Global Context ◽  
State Behaviour

Purpose The dominant narrative in the investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) system is that it enables powerful corporations to encroach upon the regulatory power of developing countries aimed at pursuing compelling public interest objectives. The example of Phillip Morris, the tobacco giant, suing Uruguay’s public health measures is cited as the most significant example to prove this thesis. The other side of the story that States abuse their public power to undermine the protected rights of foreign investors does not get much attention. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews all the ISDS cases that India has lost to ascertain the reason why these claims were brought against India in the first place. The approach of the paper is to study these ISDS cases to find out whether these cases arose due to abuse of the State’s public power or affronted India’s regulatory autonomy. Findings Against this global context, this paper studies the ISDS claims brought against India, one of the highest respondent-State in ISDS, to show that they arose due to India’s capricious behaviour. Analysis of these cases reveals that India acted in bad faith and abused its public power by either amending laws retroactively or by scrapping licences without following due process or going back on specific and written assurances that induced investors to invest. In none of these cases, the foreign investors challenged India’s regulatory measures aimed at advancing the genuine public interest. The absence of a “Phillip Morris moment” in India’s ISDS story is a stark reminder that one should give due weight to the equally compelling narrative that ISDS claims are also a result of abuse of public power by States. Originality/value The originality value of this paper arises from the fact that this is the first comprehensive study of ISDS cases brought against India and provides full documentation within the larger global context of rising ISDS cases. The paper contributes to the debate on international investment law by showing that in the case of India most of the ISDS cases brought were due to India abusing its public power and was not an affront on India’s regulatory autonomy.

scholarly journals International Investment Law, Time, and Economics: Fixing the Length of Economic Crises as a Costs-Allocation Tool between Host States and Foreign Investors

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez
Keyword(s):  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Economic Research ◽  
Economic Crises ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Investment Law

AbstractThe case law on non-precluded measures clauses, when they are successful, and the customary rule of necessity, when it fails, transfers significant risks to foreign investors and host States, respectively, during severe economic crises. Some risk-sharing mechanisms should be explored to achieve a more balanced result. This article presents the policy reasons in support of this approach and its normative basis: the principle of acceptable compensation, and illustrates that one way to introduce such mechanisms is through the determination by investor/State tribunals of the length of the breakdown, which is marked by the dates for its beginning and end. The article discusses economic research on when crises conclude, which could be useful to tribunals, and explores the determination on the beginning of economic collapses as a risk-sharing tool and shows how decisions of the Argentinean saga have achieved this result.

Transnational Public Policy as a Vehicle to Impose Human Rights Obligations in International Investment Arbitration

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 809-846
Author(s):  
Jean-Michel Marcoux
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Foreign Investors ◽  
Material Sources ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The Right

Abstract International investment arbitration has been criticized for its general reluctance to consider human rights concerns related to foreign investors’ activities. By contrast, arbitration tribunals have relied on transnational public policy to prevent a claimant whose investment is tainted with illegality from obtaining redress. This article explores how human rights norms could be conceptualized as part of transnational public policy to impose obligations on foreign investors. It proceeds in three steps. First, it addresses the role of transnational public policy in investment arbitration. Second, the article identifies the material sources considered by tribunals to delimit the content of the doctrine. Third, it focuses on three norms – the protection of fundamental human rights, a corporate responsibility to respect human rights and the right of Indigenous Peoples to be consulted – for which tribunals have found an international consensus and that could be conceptualized as norms of transnational public policy.

The Role of Regional Courts in the Development of International Investment Law: The Case of NAFTA Chapter 11 Dispute Settlement Framework and ECtHR

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-95
Author(s):  
Collins C. Ajibo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Nafta Chapter 11

AbstractRegional courts have synthesized, articulated, and elucidated certain principles of law that influence the development of international investment law. The contributions of NAFTA Chapter 11 dispute settlement framework and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in particular, have been outstanding. For instance, NAFTA jurisprudence has guided investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals through influential precedents. Similarly, the doctrine of proportionality and the margin of appreciation doctrine which emerged from the ECtHR jurisprudence have become embedded in international investment law. Indeed, given the unique contributions of regional courts and their rapid proliferation, it can be predicted that they will play even more significant roles in the future development of principles of international investment law. Arguably, such emergent principles should be subjected to a prior scrutiny and filtering by ISDS institutions as a precondition to full incorporation into international investment law to foster their legitimacy and credibility.

scholarly journals ASEAN REFORM: TOWARDS A MORE COHESIVE REGIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-83
Author(s):  
Yogi Bratajaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Identity ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is a regional intergovernmental organization that has seen exponential growth throughout the course of its lifespan ever since it was founded in August 8 of 1967. The organization comprises of 10 Member States with differing backgrounds in economy, culture and government. Its aims and purposes include “To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter” based on the “Mutual respect for the interdependence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations.” However, it seems that ASEAN’s fundamental principles are its main detriment to achieving and carrying out its aims and purposes. The organization has faced multiple criticisms regarding its failure to address pressing matters in the region, such as ongoing human rights violations committed by member states. The slowness in addressing these matters is due to its fundamental principles of non-intervention and mutual respect for political independence, which in turn causes the lack of comprehensive dispute settlement mechanisms within the organization. This journal aims to pinpoint and identify the root of the aforementioned problems and seeks to provide a comprehensive solution with reference to other regional organizations. Keywords: ASEAN, Legal Personality, Dispute Settlement, Human Rights   AbstrakAssociation of SouthEast Asian Nations (ASEAN) merupakan sebuah organisasi antarnegara regional yang mengalami perkembangan pesat sejak terbentuknya pada 8 Agustus 1967. Saat sekarang ASEAN mengandung 10 anggota negara yang mempunyai latar-belakang ekonomi, budaya, dan sistem pemerintahan yang berbeda. Tujuan dari ASEAN adalah “To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter” berdasarkan “Mutual respect for the interdependence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations.” Namun, prinsip dasar ASEAN seakan-akan menghambat ASEAN untuk mencapai tujuannya. Kritik yang dihadapi oleh ASEAN meliputi statusnya dalam hukum internasional, kurangnya efektivitas sistem penyelesaian sengketa di dalam ASEAN, dan bagaimana ASEAN mengatasi permasalahan Hak Asasi Manusia. Jurnal ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi masalah tersebut dan memberi solusi komprehensif dengan meninjau kepada organisasi regional lain. Kata Kunci: ASEAN, Personalitas Hukum, Penyelesaian Sengketa, Hak Asasi Manusia

2. Some General Warnings for the Novice Tort Lawyer

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Real World ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Ivory Tower ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Liability Rules ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Academic Interests

This chapter discusses issues that readers must bear in mind when encountering criticism of individual rules, decisions, and academic opinions in the remainder of the book. These are: how judicial mentality and outlook affects decision-making; academic interests and practitioners’ concerns; ivory tower neatness v. the untidiness of the real world; tort’s struggle to solve modern problems with old tools; need to reform tort law; whether liability rules are restricted because the damages rules have been left unreformed or because the relationship between liability and damages has been neglected; that tort law is, in practice, often inaccessible to the ordinary victim; and that human rights law is set to influence tort law, but this influence is likely to be gradual and indirect.

scholarly journals Green Shoots in a Barren World: Recent Developments in International Investment Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-471
Author(s):  
Jason Rudall
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Business And Human Rights ◽  
Good Investment ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Multiple Challenges ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Making

AbstractThis article begins from the observation that there have been a number of developments in international investment law-making and the jurisprudence of investor-state dispute settlement tribunals involving the protection of the environment and human rights. As for law-making, this article explores the evolving substance of international investment agreements as well as regulatory developments in the area of business and human rights that are of relevance to the international investment law framework. The article then turns to consider the emergence of human rights and environmental issues in the recent jurisprudence of investment tribunals and appraises how such issues have been dealt with—both in procedural and substantive terms—by arbitral tribunals. Finally, it questions whether investment tribunals are appropriate venues for the adjudication of non-investment matters like environmental and human rights issues, and highlights best practices that could be adopted by future tribunals. Overall, the article concludes that the piecemeal approach adopted to date provides a step in the right direction but is ultimately inadequate given the multiple challenges that our planet currently faces. Rather, a more ambitious agenda that is concerned with promoting good investment, as opposed to mitigating bad practices, should be pursued.

From Substitute to Supported Decision-Making: Participatory Action Research on the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 104420732110554
Author(s):  
Benoît Eyraud ◽  
Iuliia Taran
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Action Research ◽  
Participatory Action Research ◽  
Lived Experience ◽  
Participatory Action ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Relationship

In this article, we present findings from a participatory action-research program in France on the exercise of human rights and supported and substitute decision-making, inspired by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”). Bringing together persons with the lived experience of disability, academics, and health and social care and support professionals, the project used the method of “experience-based construction of public problem” to transform experience into collective expertise. This enabled the exploration of support that people in vulnerable situations, whose capacity to exercise their human rights has weakened, need to make decisions in their lives and participate meaningfully in public debate. The relationship between the awareness of rights and exercise of rights is discussed. We argue for the need to balance out the positions of different contributors in participatory action research, in a reasoned manner, by recognizing the scientific and citizen-based participation of all partners.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document