Stratos Pahis (ICJ) - Bilateral Investment Treaties and International Human Rights Law

Un gran colega de la Yale Law School, Stratos Pahis (acá), actualmente trabajando como abogado y acádemico  en New York publicó este trabajo "Tratados bilaterales de inversión y Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos" (acá el link al paper en inglés) en la International Comission of Jurist (Comisión Internacional de Juristas - ICJ por sus siglas originales) que pueden encontrar en su web acá .

Por lo extraordinario de Stratos, su calidad humana y su increíble carrera académica, lo difundimos acreditando que vale la pena leerlo! Hace un tiempo tuvimos un diálogo personal sobre su investigación, sus conclusiones y Stratos tiene un enfoque progresista, preocupado por los Derechos Humanos, de un tema monopolizado por conservadores y burócratas. Por eso también la importancia de sus investigaciones y de su trabajo.

colores de un barrio, muros de un atardecer - NY 2012

Felicitaciones Stratos y salud desde Buenos Aires!

-.-

Bilateral Investment Treaties and International Human Rights Law: Harmonization through Interpretation

by Stratos Pahis.

Stratos Pahis is a graduate of Dartmouth College (A.B. 2004), La Universidad Complutense de Madrid (M.A. 2005) and Yale Law School (J.D. 2009). He currently works as an attorney in New York.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction

1. Bilateral Investment Treaties: A Interpretive Framework:
1.1. Bilateral investment treaties and arbitrations
1.2. Bilateral investment treaties as international law
1.3. VCLT Article 31(3)(c) and the principle of systemic integration
1.4. Jurisdiction and choice of law rules
1.5. Systemic integration of BITs and international human rights law in
practice

2. The Need for Harmonization with Human Rights Law:
2.1. International human rights law and State liability
2.2. Constitutive versus instrumental norms
2.3. Preamble of the VCLT
2.4. Other conflict resolution techniques

3. Identifying and Harmonizing Potential Conflicts:
3.1. Identifying potential conflicts
3.2. Harmonizing potential conflicts

4. Investor-State Arbitrations: Procedural Reforms
4.1. Secrecy and the rights to free expression, access to information, and
democratic governance
4.2. Participation of non-disputing parties
4.3. Legitimacy of the investor-State arbitration process
4.4. Recommendations

Conclusion

The number of bilateral investment treaties and disputes arising from them has exploded during the past two decades. Recent investment arbitrations have highlighted the potential for this new and increasingly important form of law to interact and conflict with international human rights law. The aim of this Report is to examine the relationship between these two bodies of law. Section One explores the substance of BITs and their relationship to international law generally. It identifies BITs as international treaties, which according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), must be interpreted within the broader context of international law. It examines the principle of systemic integration, the presumption against conflict in international law, and how these principles call for BITs to be interpreted in harmony with other relevant and applicable international law. The Section confirms that investment tribunals have the jurisdiction to consider external law in the interpretation and application of BITs, and it goes on to explore in what circumstances other international law would be relevant and applicable for these purposes. 

Section Two explores the relationship between BITs and international human rights law specifically. It argues that achieving harmony between the two sets of laws is critical given the nature of human rights obligations, the constitutive nature of human rights norms, and the limited applicability of conflict resolution tools to potential conflicts with human rights law. The Third Section explores the potential for conflict between human rights law and BITs and whether such conflicts can be harmonized through interpretation. Applying the framework developed in Sections One and Two to the interpretation of major BIT terms, it shows that while potential conflicts do exist between these provisions and international human rights law, they can be mitigated by adopting reasonable and already accepted non-conflicting interpretations of the terms. Section Four goes on to discuss how the lack of transparency in investor-State arbitrations conflicts with the right to information and democratic governance, and undermines the fulfillment and protection of other human rights. 

The Report concludes the following: First, international investment tribunals have not only the authority but the obligation to consider international human rights norms while interpreting and applying BITs. Specifically, they must take seriously the potential for conflict between these two sets of laws, and interpret and apply BITs in a manner that minimizes these conflicts. Second, while the potential for conflict between BITs and international human rights law is real and growing, it can be mitigated by following standard principles of interpretation and applying generally accepted interpretations of BIT terms".-