The interaction between investment law and obligations and other fields of international law has over the past year gained importance. Increasingly, conflicts between States’ obligations under investment protection agreements and other obligations of States, notably in the areas of human rights, rights of indigenous peoples, environmental law or labour standards, have become visible. For instance, a State may argue that in view of its human rights obligations or obligations under environmental law, it was under an obligation to withdraw a concession or permit given to a foreign investor in order to protection the population’s access to water or guarantee it’s right to health.

There are many ways in which non-investment considerations have become relevant. These will be discussed in relation to the question of how investment tribunals operating based on an investment treaty can (or not) take into account such rules. I address (1) the limited jurisdiction of tribunals, and (2) non-investment considerations as part of the applicable law. This is again is discussed by examining (a) the inclusion of non-investment obligations in investment agreements (b) conflicts between investment obligations and non-investment obligations, (c) the role of treaty interpretation in using non-investment considerations to interpret investment norms, and (d) non-investment obligations as a defense against responsibility?