SBORNÍK 66 SVOČ 2016

to confirm this statement. In section II it describes the relationship between human rights and rights given by investment treaties, and asks why there may be tensions between them. Section III analyses situations where the issue of human rights was raised in investment arbitration in the past. It classifies them into two categories and examines whether such situations can be seen as danger to the global level of protection of human rights. Section IV examines the investment cases as to their outcome and aspires to find the reasons behind them. Section V then focuses on amicus curiae and its role in the proceeding, it examines the role amicus curiae played in the past cases and assesses whether this non-party actor can serve to promote harmony between human rights and investment rights. II. Relationship between Human Rights and Investment Rights Protection of human rights and protection of investment rights are two different systems, albeit both are integral parts of international law. 6 When one appreciates the differences between them, it becomes apparent why the two systems may be viewed as conflicting. Both systems serve a different purpose. International investment law was created to offer a specific protection to a very specific figure: an investor. An investor is an entity from one state that has made an investment in a different state with the aim of generateing profit. 7 International investment law then protects this investment from different kinds of interventions from the state. System of protection of human rights was created since the recognition of dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all humans is the ‘foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.’ 8 An obligation to observe human rights is seen as an erga omnes obligation, vis-à-vis the international community as a whole. 9 The two systems create a net of obligations that are imposed on a state. It is not surprising therefore that certain event may trigger more than one responsibility, each from a different system. International investment tribunals may be confronted with arguments supported by provisions of human rights treaties. Then it will be their task to strike balance between these two branches of international law. Analysis in section III shows that such situations have indeed occurred in the past. They were also envisaged by academics, who warned that objects of an investor may not always coincide with interests of the population and that investment projects may have adverse consequences on the state of human rights. 10 Investment arbitration 6 Simma (n 3) 576; cf Surya P Subedi, International Investment Law Reconciling Policy and Principle (Hart Publishing 2008) 153. 7 Profit is often considered to be one of the features of an investment; cf Dolzer and Schreuer (n 1) 60, 66-67. 8 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A(III) preamble. 9 Hirsch (n 4) 109. 10 M Sornajah, The International Law on Foreign Investment (3rd edn, CUP 2010) 228; cf Barnali

145