A Nightmare or a Noble Dream? Establishing Investor Obligations Through Treaty-Making and Treaty-Application

Abstract

This article assesses different approaches currently discussed and developed in international human rights and investment law to establish investor obligations. The article begins with a general framework of analysing and comparing these approaches. Next, attempts to include direct obligations of business entities in international human rights treaties are discussed. Despite earlier indications the recent initiative to create a legally binding instrument on business and human rights will most likely not include direct obligations for business entities. Subsequently, the article assesses the development of investor obligations in new international investment treaties and through the interpretation and application of existing international investment agreements. Arguably, the former will not lead to binding obligations in the foreseeable future and the latter rests on methodologically questionable grounds. Consequently, the article suggests that the way forward will require domestic legislation in host and home states to establish investor obligations which can be taken into account when interpreting existing investment treaty clauses requiring the investor to adhere to domestic law. This would reflect recent trends both in investment law reforms as well as the business and human rights movement.

The human rights-based approach to sustainable development: Lessons from recent African investment treaty practice

“…It is the use of the conditional verb “should” that has contributed to the ambiguity of the investors' obligations regarding human rights and labor. The language used in article 24 is considered “softer language” which simply aims to suggest to investors to adhere to some principles relating to business ethics and human rights [ 32 ]. This softer language seems to be in between “best effort language” consisting of encouraging investors to strive or make the best effort to respect human rights and “mandatory language” which directly requires investors to uphold human rights.…”

Business and Human Rights: Alternative Approaches to Transnational Regulation

“…Third, evolution of mandatory HRDD laws and/or the direct duty of care of parent corporations discussed above will mean that investors (as well as arbitrators deciding disputes between states and investors) must start taking cognizance of increasing social and legal expectations from investors to respect human rights throughout their operations (Krajewski 2020).…”