The 2016 ICSID Tribunal’s decision in Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v The Argentine Republic (hereafter: Urbaser) was hailed by many human rights lawyers and activists as a landmark decision in the fight for increased human rights protection. Soon after, however, substantial criticism was raised against the reasoning of the Tribunal, specifically against the Tribunal’s main argumentation based on soft law conventions allegedly imposing international human rights obligations on corporations... 

This paper explores the background and relevance of Urbaser and discusses the substantive criticism brought against the Tribunal’s decision. An analysis of the current international legal framework proves that there are no existing, legally binding human rights obligations for corporations. Furthermore, this paper shows that introducing human rights in the manner outlined by the ICSID Tribunal in Urbaser would also not be feasible when considering the adverse economic consequences. Finally, two alternatives for introducing human rights in international investment law (hereafter: IIL) and international investment arbitration (hereafter: IIA) are discussed: domestic laws and so-called ‘new-generation’ international investment agreements, of which the latter seems most promising in order to achieve the desired increase of human rights protection...