Journal of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회지:중재연구)

The Korean Association of Arbitration Studies (한국중재학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Introduction of Human Rights Arguments in ISDS Proceeding

ISDS 절차에서의 인권의 권리 주장

  • 신승남 (이화여자대학교 법학전문대학원)
  • Received : 2022.05.06
  • Accepted : 2022.05.28
  • Published : 2022.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

When human rights disputes are related to the cross-border investments treaties, the investment arbitral tribunals are confronted with the question of how to adjudicate connected human rights violations. The traditional structure restricts arbitration proceedings to the parties named within an investment treaty, i.e., Investor-Claimant and State-Respondent. If human rights issues occur, States must act as proxies for citizens with human rights claims. This effectively excludes individuals or groups with human rights concerns and contradicts the premise of international human rights law that seeks to empower human rights-holders to pursue claims directly and on an international stage. The methods for intorducing human rights issues in the context of investment arbitration proceedings are suggested as follows: First, human rights arguments can be introduced into ISDS by the usual initiator of investment disputes: the investor as the complainant. Especially, if the jurisdictional and applicable law clauses of the respective international investment agreements are sufficiently broad to include human rights violations, adjudicating a pure human rights claim could be possible. Second, the host state may rely on human rights argumentation as a respondent of an investor claim. Human rights have played a role as a justification for state measures undertaken to comply with human rights laws. Third, third party interventions by NGOs and civil society groups as amici curiae may act as advocates for affected populations or communities in response to the reluctance of governments to introduce their own human rights duties into the investment dispute. Finally, arbitrators have also referred to human rights ex officio, i.e., without having a dispute party referring to the specific argument. This was mainly the case in the context of determining the scope of property rights and the existence of an expropriation. As all U.N. member states have human rights obligations, international investment laws must be presumed to be in conformity with the relevant human rights obligations.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2020년 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행한 연구임 (NRF-2020S1A5B8100993).

References

  1. 김용일, 홍성규, "국제 투자협정상 공정하고공평한 대우에 관한 연구," 중재연구, 제22권 제3호(2012), 187-213. https://doi.org/10.16998/JAS.2012.22.3.187
  2. 신승남, 서한림, "인권과 투자자 국가 분쟁해결(ISDS) 제도," 생명연구, 제62집 (2021.11). 25-47.
  3. 조희문, "국제 투자조약상 포괄적 보호조항( Umbrella Clauses)의 해석에 관한 연구," 중재연구, 제19권 제2호(2009), 5-126.
  4. Siddharth S. Aatreya,"Human Rights and the ISDS Regime - Rethinking the Bipartisan Structure of International Investment Arbitrations," Gonzaga Journal of International Law, Vol. 22(28), 2019. 2-3.
  5. Nicolette Butler, Shavana Musa, "Systemizing Human Rights within Investment Arbitration," American Review of International Arbitration, Vol. 28, 2017, 433.
  6. Patrick Dumberry & Gabrielle Dumas-Aubin, When and How Allegations of Human Rights Violations Can Be Raised in Investor-State Arbitration, 13(3) J. World Inv. & Trade 349, 368 (2012)
  7. Ursula Kriebaum, Human Rights of the Population of the Host State in International Investment Arbitration, 10 J. World Inv. & Trade 653, 669 (2009).
  8. Vivian Kube, E.U. Petersmann, "Human Rights Law in International Investment Arbitration," Asian Journal of WTO & International Health Law and Policy, Vol. 11, 2016, 65-83.
  9. Tamar Meshel, Human Rights in Investor-State Arbitration: The Human Right to Water and Beyond, 6(2) J. Int'l Disp. Settlement 277 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv007
  10. John Ruggie, "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy," Framework, principle 17 with commentary, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/17/31 (Mar. 21, 2011).
  11. Bruno Simma & Theodore Kill, Harmonizing Investment Protection and International Human Rights: First Steps Towards a Methodology, in International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer 678 (Christina Binder et al. eds., 2009).
  12. Alec Stone Sweet & Giacinto della Cananea, Proportionality, General Principles of Law, and Investor-State Arbitration: A Response to Jose Alvarez, 46(3) N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 911 (2014).
  13. Bernhard von Pezold et al. v. Republic of Zimbabwe, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/15, Procedural Order No. 2 (June 26, 2012).
  14. Biloune & Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, UNCITRAL, Award on Jurisdiction and Liability (Oct. 27, 1989), 19 Y.B. Comm. Arb. 11 (1994).
  15. Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-23, Procedural Order No. 8 (Apr. 18, 2011);
  16. Chevron Corporation and Texaco Petroleum Corporation v. Republic of Ecuador, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2009-23, Submission of Amici (Nov. 5, 2010).
  17. Chevron Corporation (U.S.) & Texaco Petroleum Corporation (U.S.) v. Republic of Ecuador, PCA Case No. 34877, Interim Award, 2, 3, 207 (Dec. 1, 2008).
  18. Compania del Desarrollo de Santa Elena S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/96/1, Final Award, 72 (Feb. 17, 2000)
  19. Glamis Gold, Ltd. v. USA, UNCITRAL (NAFTA Ch. 11 Arb. Trib. Award, June 8, 2009).
  20. Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Phil., ICSID No. ARB/03/25, Decision on Annulment, para. 247 (Dec. 23, 2010).
  21. Metalclad v. Mexico, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/97/1, Award on the Merits, 111 (Aug. 30, 2000)
  22. United Parcel Services of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Investor's Memorial 645-71 (Mar. 23, 2005).
  23. United Parcel Services of America Inc. v. Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, Application for Amicus Curiae Status by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Council of Canadians, 36, 58 (Oct. 20, 2005).
  24. Veolia Proprete v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/15, Notice of Arbitration, (June 25, 2012).
  25. Veteran Petroleum Ltd. (Cyprus) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 228, Final Award, 765 (July 18, 2014.
  26. Yukos Universal Ltd. (Isle of Man) v. Russian Federation, PCA Case No. AA 227, Final Award, 765 (July 18, 2014).
  27. Int'l Centre for Settlement of Inv. Disputes, ICSID Convention, art. 52(1) (2006), http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/icsid/staticfiles/basicdoc/ partachap04.htm.