Analysis of the impacts of international investment agreements on the rights of indigenous peoples 2016, para. 44
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- In Glamis Gold v. United States (2009), an arbitration panel found against the company, which had been refused access to a sacred area of the Quechan tribal nation. The decision hinged on the tribunal's position that its role was to assess if the customary international law standard of fair and equitable treatment had been breached and not to assess if the State had fairly balanced the competing rights of the Quechan nation and the company. It held that the State had been justified in relying upon the opinion of the professionals it had engaged and that, as the investor's expectations had not been induced by the State in a quasi-contractual manner, they did not trigger a treaty breach. The decision also pointed to the significance of the highly regulated environment in California with respect to environmental measures in general and mineral exploration in particular, which should have tempered the investor's expectations. The tribunal accepted the Quechan amicus submission but did not engage with its argument that international human rights law as it pertained to indigenous peoples was applicable in the case.
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Environment
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- Ethnic minorities
- Year
- 2016
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Reference
- SR Indigenous Peoples, Report to the HRC (2016), A/HRC/33/42, para. 44.
- Paragraph focus
- Examples of investor-State dispute settlements involving indigenous peoples' rights
- Paragraph number
- 44
sorted by
Date added
132 relationships, 132 entities