David Aven v Costa Rica: A step forward towards investor accountability for environmental harm?
| Author | Rafael Tamayo‐Álvarez |
| Published date | 01 July 2020 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12300 |
| Date | 01 July 2020 |
RECIEL. 2020;29:301–306. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/reel
|
301
© 2020 John Wile y & Sons Ltd
1 | INTRODUCTION
The case David Aven v C osta Rica1 exemplifies th e tension between in-
ternational investment agreements and regulatory measures aimed at
protecting the environment. Although the tribunal addressed several
environmenta l issues, this case note foc uses on the assessment of th e
investors’ misconduct that caused environmental harm. Particularly,
the case note high lights the merit s and limitations of th e tribunal’s con-
tribution to holding investors accountable for environmental harm.
The case note is em bedded in the wi der discussion o n international
corporate resp onsibility, and the growi ng nexus between hu man rights
and environmental concerns. This nexus is evidenced by recent devel-
opments on th e recognition of the righ t to a healthy environmen t,2 and
the protectio n of such a right through huma n rights law remedies. 3
While in the past t he idea that the conduct of tr ansnational cor-
porations coul d be subjected t o international r egulation was con-
tested,4 the idea t hat these actors have the duty to r espect human
1 David Aven and oth ers v Republic of Cos ta Rica (ICSID Ca se No UNCT/15/3) Final Award
(18 September 20 18) (David Aven v Costa R ica).
2 UNGA ‘Repo rt of the Spe cial Rappo rteur on the I ssue of Human R ights Obl igations
RelatingtotheEnjoy mentofaSafe,Clean,He althyandSusta inableEnviro nment’UNDoc
A/73/188 (19 July 2018).
3 Environment and Human Rights (State Obligations Regarding the Environment Within the
Framework of the Pr otection and G uarantee of Righ ts to Life and Per sonal Integri ty –
Interpretati on and Scope of A rticles 4.1 an d 5.1, in Relation to Ar ticles 1.1 and 2 of the
American Convention on Human Rights),AdvisoryOpinionOC‐23/17,Inter‐America nCourt
ofHumanRightsSeriesANo23(15November2017).SeealsoLJKotzéandWMuzangaza,
‘Constitu tionalIntern ationalEnviro nmentalLawfortheAnt hropocene? ’(2018)27Review
ofEuropean,C omparati veandInterna tionalEnvir onmentalL aw278,292.
4 SeeKSauvant,‘Th eNegotiationsoftheUni tedNationsCode’(20 15)16JournalofWorld
Investment a nd Trade 11.
Received:21Febr uary2019
|
Accepted:28May2019
DOI: 10.1111/re el.123 00
CASE N OTE
David Aven v Costa Rica: A step forward towards investor
accountability for environmental harm?
Rafael Tamayo‐Álvarez
Correspondence
Email:ra.tam ayo10@uniandes .edu.co Investm ent treaty arbit ration has become a lab oratory for tes ting the limits of in-
ternational corpor ate responsibility, because arbitrator s are often asked to consider
instances of investor s’ misconduct that co mpromise fundam ental social value s and
interests. The d ecision in David Aven v Costa Rica is a glaring exam ple of this case law.
The dispute originated f rom a real estate pr oject halted by loc al authorities for a d-
versely impact ing fragile ecosystems. This case note ex amines the arbitral tribunal’s
approach to environm ental harm caused by foreign investor s.
rightsis nowenshrin edinthe UnitedNat ionsGuidi ngPrincipl eson
Bus ine ssa nd Hum anR ig hts .5 Th is soft law instrume nt frames corpo-
rate duties not as a p ositive obligation tow ard the realization of
human rights , but as the negati ve responsibili ty to avoid infring ing
them.6Manystakeholdersconsiderthisvoluntaryframeworkinade-
quate to ensure ef fective corporate l iability under inter national law,7
because it exh orts socially respons ible behaviour but does not ne c-
essarily impose consequences on corporate misconduct.8
Against thi s background, an on going initiative for the e laboration
of a legally bindin g instrument o n corporatio ns and human right s9
has already pro duced a draft t reaty, presentl y under negotiati on.10
As it stands , the draft tr eaty does not in corporate leg ally binding
obligations for corporations.11 As evidenced by the failu re of similar
5 Human Right s Council (HRC) ‘Guidi ng Principles on Busin ess and Human Rights:
Imple menti ngtheU nitedN ation s“Prot ect, Respe ctandR emedy ”Fram ework ’UNDo cA/
HRC/RES/17/31(21March2011).
6 DBilchitz,‘T heNecessit yforaBusinessandHuma nRightsTreaty ’(2016)1Businessand
HumanRight sJournal20 3.
7 Seegeneral lyibid.
8 JHo,‘TheCre ationofElusiv eInvestorRes ponsibilit y’(2019)113AJILU nbound10,14.
9 HRC ‘Elabor ation of an Internation al Legally Binding Ins trument on Transnatio nal
CorporationsandOtherBusinessEnterpriseswithRespecttoHumanRights’UNDocA/
HRC/RES/26/9(26Jun e2014).
10 ‘Legally Bi nding Instrument t o Regulate, in Internat ional Human Rights L aw, the
Activitie sof Transnationa lCorpo rations andO therB usiness Enterpris es’(16J uly2018 )
pdf>.
11 NBernaz,‘Th eDraftUNTreatyo nBusinessandHu manRights:T heTriumphofRealism
over Idealism’
ess-and-human-rights-the-trium ph-of-reali sm-over-idealism>.
To continue reading
Request your trial