By providing investors operating abroad with additional security and security under international law, AI companies can encourage companies to invest abroad. While there is a scientific debate on the extent to which AIFs increase the volume of FDI flows to the host countries of the signatories, policymakers tend to consider that AEAs encourage cross-border investment and thus also support economic development. Among other things, foreign direct investment can facilitate capital and technology inflows into host countries, contribute to job creation and have other positive spillover effects. Accordingly, governments of developing countries are endeavouring to put in place an appropriate framework to encourage such flows, including by concluding the IIA. Historically, the emergence of the international investment framework can be divided into two distinct eras. The first era — from 1945 to 1989 — was marked by differences of opinion among countries on the degree of protection that international law should afford to foreign investors. While most industrialized countries have argued that foreign investors should be entitled to a minimum standard of treatment in each host economy, developing and socialist countries have tended to assert that foreign investors do not need to be treated differently from domestic companies. In 1959, the first NTBs were completed and, over the next decade, many of the contents that form the basis of the majority of the ILO currently in force were developed and refined. In 1965, the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States was opened for signature by countries. The reason given was to establish ICSID as an institution facilitating the reconciliation of investor-state disputes. International tax treaties focus on the elimination of double taxation, but may at the same time address related issues such as the prevention of tax evasion.
Recent normative developments, including the UN Guiding Principles on Economics and Human Rights, establish that government and market actors have appropriate obligations and responsibilities to protect human rights in all business activities, including investments. Nevertheless, the understanding of the importance of human rights for investment and what this means for investment policy is still being created. While there is a flood of activities aimed at reconciling corporate practices and UNEP, there is a serious gap in government policy. Little, if any, effort takes into account what THE NAPs represent for investment policy, including international investment agreements (IIAs) and state-investor contracts, given the differentiated human rights obligations and responsibilities of governments and businesses. A human rights-based approach to trade and investment is to examine how States` obligations under trade and investment agreements could affect their ability to fulfil their human rights obligations; What measures should States and other actors take to ensure positive effects and avoid negative effects; and take into account the measures necessary to mitigate the negative effects that occur. . . .