scholarly journals Counterclaims Based on International Human Rights Obligations of Investors in International Investment Arbitration

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Abel

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuseppe Santacroce

Abstract Human rights are becoming increasingly relevant in international investment disputes. A question therefore arises as to whether the application of human rights law to those disputes is justified. This article answers that question in the affirmative. In particular, it suggests that there are at least four legal grounds (which may operate separately or cumulatively) warranting the application of human rights norms in the context of international investment disputes: (i) the fact that international human rights law is part of international law, which in turn governs the merits of investment disputes; (ii) the presence of express references to human rights in the investment treaty; (iii) the presence of implied references to human rights in the investment treaty; and (iv) the principle of systemic integration. Each of these grounds can be the basis for applying international human rights law as an interpretative tool. Some of them, however, can play a more substantive role and justify the direct application of international human rights norms to the merits of the dispute. This may lead to normative conflicts. The article thus also provides a framework to determine, in case of clashes between international investment law and international human rights norms, which norm should apply in concreto.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleisha Ebrahimi

Abstract In recognition of the health benefits breastfeeding offers for both mother and child, breastfeeding has been acknowledged in various International Human Rights Law instruments. Furthermore, against the backdrop of aggressive formula milk marketing campaigns, significant soft law provisions contained within the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes 1981 regulate and control the promotion of breastmilk substitutes. Refugee camps, however, remain aligned with pre-code practice, as formula milk is often one of the first donations to arrive in camps. Mothers, who are still affected by historical formula marketing campaigns, receive formula milk and perceive its availability and distribution as an endorsement over breastfeeding. In this article, International Human Rights Law is analysed, within the framework of the principle of the best interests of the child, to determine if the choice to breastfeed should be protected as a human right and how the indiscriminate supply of formula milk interacts with this choice in refugee camps.


BESTUUR ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Saidah Fasihah Binti Che Yussoff ◽  
Rohaida Nordin

<p>Malaysia is likely to introduce new laws on freedom of information. However, the important questions are whether the said laws are effective and will have enough bite with the public looking forward to opening government policy. Freedom of information has developed under international human rights law as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart knowledge and ideas through media, regardless of any frontier. This paper aims to examine freedom of expression under the international realm, scrutinize the said freedom in the Malaysian legal framework, and discuss the proposed enactment of freedom of information laws in Malaysia in conformity with international human rights law. This research uses the qualitative research method. This paper concludes that freedom of information in Malaysia is severely impeded by the enforcement of the Official Secret Act. This paper calls for the repeal or amendment to the Act in conformity with international standards.  </p><p><strong>Keywords</strong><strong>:</strong> Expression; Freedom; Expression; Human Right.</p>


2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (3) ◽  
pp. 744-750
Author(s):  
David Attanasio ◽  
Tatiana Sainati

On December 8, 2016, an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal (the Tribunal) held that international human rights condition the treatment that an investor is entitled to receive from a state and that human rights impose obligations on the investor itself. The Tribunal's explicit recognition of these dual consequences of international human rights law breaks new ground. International investment tribunals have not previously held that human rights obligations have any effect on protections due to investors, much less that international human rights law might establish separate obligations for investors.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Munafrizal Manan

This paper discusses the right of self-determinationfrom  international  law  and international human rights law perspective. It traces the emergence and development of self-determination from political principle to human right. It also explores the controversy of the right of self-determination. There have been different and even contradictory interpretations of the right of self-determination. Besides, there is no consensus on the mechanism to apply the right of self-determination. Both international law and international human rights law are vague about this.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Poels

Although safeguards for the individual human right guarantees for protection against double jeopardy are strongly entrenched in international and domestic law as well as widely reflected in State practice, such protection is generally limited in scope and applicability to surrender or extradition procedures. Where criminal offenders face courts of a State after having been prosecuted and punished or acquitted by a court of another State, the absence of transnational non bis in idem protection constitutes a serious lacuna in international human rights law. Although legislative and judicial initiatives are being undertaken – notably under the aegis of the European Union – to remedy this lacuna, the international community must incontestably act upon this need for individuals' protection against abuses of power and breaches of due process through the amendment or complementing of the classical international human rights conventions.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 514-518
Author(s):  
Moria Paz

We live now in the midst of a massive global crisis of mobility. An ever-growing population finds itself refugees displaced from the legitimate jurisdiction of any territorial state. In the face of this pressing emergency, influential voices argue that international human rights law should be placed “at the center” of international efforts to meet this challenge. But today's calamity is set against the backdrop of a universal human rights regime that is not only thin but, more importantly, incomplete. When it comes to cross-border mobility, human rights law ensures that states allow individuals to leave their state, but alas does not require that any other state let them enter and remain. Such entry and residence rights are required only for a country's own nationals (however nationality is defined). And so, many refugees who have exercised their human right to exit come up against a functional block to mobility: they have no place to stop moving. Some of them may nonetheless find a state willing to take them in. In that case, they may enjoy meaningful protection, but this protection exists only by virtue of a state's domestic policies and has little to do with international human rights.


2020 ◽  
pp. 109-130
Author(s):  
Michelle Jurkovich

This chapter considers the puzzling role of international law around the right to food and examines why the existing law has been unable to generate norms within the advocacy community. It explores the reasons why international anti-hunger organizations rarely legitimate the right to food in legal terms and how this case can challenge the understanding of the relationships between norms, human rights, and law. It also provides a conceptual discussion of the distinction between formal law and norms, underscoring the importance of not conflating the two concepts. The chapter argues that many international anti-hunger organizations still do not conceptualize food as a human right, making international human rights law less relevant. It looks at the hunger case that suggests there is nothing automatic about law generating norms among activists or society at large.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document