Abstract
The progressive approach of investment arbitration tribunals in some recent cases represents a gradual development in reconciling human rights law and international investment law. This position finds support in recent scholarly literature, through analyses of cases such as Urbaser, Bear Creek Mining and David Aven. What if the reality is otherwise? For decades, investment arbitral tribunals have maintained a grey area governing the relationship between human rights law and international investment law. The institutional caution has resulted in the decoupling of these two normative orders. Consequently, investment treaty arbitrations face a legitimacy deficit in their ability to uphold human rights obligations. This paper attempts to map investment treaty arbitrations in which human rights arguments were advanced and examines the tribunals’ responses. It is argued that tribunals have consistently relied on flawed interpretative methodologies, thereby sidelining human rights considerations without meaningfully reconciling the competing normative frameworks.
Recommended Citation
Das, Animesh
(2024)
"Mapping Human Rights Obligations in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Decoupling by Tribunals,"
Indian Journal of International Economic Law: Vol. 15:
No.
2, Article 2.
DOI: doi.org/10.55496/UPYP8884
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/ijiel/vol15/iss2/2
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
doi.org/10.55496/UPYP8884