The impact of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements on the human rights of migrants 2016, para. 63
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- There must also be greater balance between the protections afforded States and investors and all other persons in the jurisdiction of trade parties. Rule of law and judicial oversight are compromised when investors can bypass the exhaustion of national remedies before seeking relief in supra-national tribunals, for example in investor-State dispute settlement tribunals. While investor-State dispute settlement provisions are included in trade and investment agreements throughout the world, 60 per cent of all cases in 2014 were brought against developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Although more cases are progressively being filed against developed countries, investors in capital-exporting countries have filed more than 80 per cent of all investor-State dispute settlement claims. There is no ceiling on the tribunal's compensation awards, and decisions are binding without appeal. As a result, the investor-State dispute settlement process has also had an undeniably chilling effect on the enforcement of rights, as States are less likely to rule in favour of the public if they are required to pay exorbitant fees as settlements. Remedies have also been disproportionately skewed in favour of high-income countries (see A/70/301).
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 63
sorted by
Date added
113 relationships, 113 entities