In its current form, the international investment treaty regime may stymie the business and human rights agenda in various ways. The regime may incentivize governments to favour the protection of investors over the protection of human rights. Investment treaty standards enforced through investor-state arbitration risk adversely affecting access to justice for project-affected rights holders. More… read more
Investment & Human Rights - Page 2
Briefing for Grass-Roots Organizations – Bridging the Information Gap: How Access to Land Contracts Can Serve Community Rights
Land contracts (also known as investor-state contracts, or concession agreements) show what commitments a forestry, farming or renewable energy company has made and what the government has said the company can do on the land. These promises define the positive and harmful effects the company’s project could have on community members’ livelihoods and human rights,… read more
Date: April 1, 2019, 6:15pm – 8:00pm
Location: Ford Foundation Center for Social Justice, New York
Is Liberalism Making the World Less Fair? Three Authors Discuss Their Recent Books on Investor vs. Human Rights in the Global Economy
Date: February 19, 2019, 12:10pm – 1:10pm
Location: Columbia Law School, Room 105
By Thierry Berger and Jesse Coleman
March 5, 2018
During investor-state arbitrations, the rights and interests of local communities are often overlooked. A recent webinar discussed mechanisms that are getting the concerns of local communities on the table.
Date: February 6, 2018, 7:00am-8.30am EST/ 12:00pm-1:30pm GMT
By Jesse Coleman and Kaitlin Cordes
October 10, 2016
As food systems become increasingly globalized, and commodity markets more complex, policymakers face the ever more difficult task of identifying and addressing multiple risks to food security. One risk that has largely escaped attention in global food policy discussions is the potential for high-frequency trading to exacerbate commodity market volatility, with corresponding negative impacts on the world’s hungry.
By Lise Johnson, Kaitlin Cordes and Jesse Coleman
August 22, 2016
Are a country’s obligations under international human rights law relevant in interpreting its potential liability under investment treaties? Does a company’s responsibility to respect human rights come into play when assessing which of its expectations should be protected in an investment dispute? When important public interest implications of investment treaty interpretations are at stake in the resolution of a company’s treaty-based claims against a government, can amicus curiae –“friend of the court” –briefs help fill in gaps in the parties’ own submissions?