| Summary: | The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCOFTA) came into force in August 2011 amidst concerns that the provisions protecting Canadian investment in Colombia could exacerbate the precarious human rights situation. The Agreement concerning Annual Reports on Human Rights and Free Trade between Canada and Colombia was negotiated to address such concerns by enshrining the first ever human rights impact assessment (HRIA) of a free trade and investment agreement (TIA) in an internationally binding instrument. This thesis builds on a growing body of international legal scholarship that has considered the duty of home states of private investors to regulate their activity in the host state so as to prevent them from causing or contributing to human rights and environmental harm. It examines state obligations found in human rights, environmental and general principles of international law to propose that while an obligation might exist for the home state to exercise unilateral regulation of its investors, in the presence of a TIA that could cause or enable private human rights or environmental harm, investor regulation through the TIA can be seen as duty for both the home and host states. In view of the absence of such regulation in the CCOFTA, this thesis will consider if the annual HRIA mechanism is an alternative for preventing human rights and environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA. It is submitted that while HRIAs of TIAs are a novel concept for which little international practice exists, this mechanism has the capacity to provide concrete evidence of human rights or environmental harm caused or enabled by the TIA, but only if based on a methodological model that uses existing state international human rights law obligations as indicators to measure a change in the human rights situation, draws unequivocal causal links between the investment protection provisions and human rights indicators, and allows for broad public participation, especially from the most marginalized and underrepresented groups in the host state to validate its methodology and findings. While under international law all investment-exporting states might have a duty to conduct HRIA on the effects of a proposed TIA as part of the due diligence to prevent transnational harm, the enshrinement of such assessments in an internationally binding instrument triggers a duty for the home state to, on one hand use the HRIA mechanism to prevent transnational human rights or environmental harm and, on the other hand, structure its annual assessments according to the described model in order to give effect to the duty to prevent. Broad and inclusive participation of the local affected communities from the host state in the HRIA becomes an integral component of the home state duty to prevent that can be expected to reveal any negative effects on the human rights situation from the TIA provisions, as well as the type of action required from both states parties to address them.
|
|---|
