International investment law has appeared to be in recent years “the fastest growing area of international law at this time”. Not surprisingly, therefore, conflicts in the law have arisen, in that context, at a fast rate. Inadequate treatment of rules giving rise to dissonance (or “disappointing platitudes,” – to borrow a term used by Alain Pellet)- may have arisen in the practice of investment arbitration.
Dissonance, however, may not be a sign of failure but of growth.
Monica Feria-Tinta's Article looks into the fundamental relationship between human rights and investment law in the wake of the recent Philip Morris v. Uruguay and Urbaser v. Argentina cases. In doing so it addresses questions such as: Are human rights and investment arbitration animals of a different nature? Are human rights arbitrable within an investment claim?
Please find below an excerpt from the chapter (The full chapter is attached below).