A/HRC/30/44 57. A State that fails to ensure the human rights of the population living under its jurisdiction is a failed State, even if it meets all its financial obligations. In order to prevent the emergence of a dystopian situation whereby a State cannot effectively protect human rights and transnational enterprises dictate public policy, States must reassert their sovereignty in a manner consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, in particular with Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. They must revise and, when necessary, terminate agreements that conflict with human rights. 58. Bearing in mind that the essence of capitalism and investment is risk taking, States must insist that investors accept the risk and subject themselves to national legislation in a manner similar to the Calvo doctrine,61 which holds that jurisdiction in international investment disputes must lie with the country in which the investment is made. This doctrine has been adopted into the Constitutions of many Latin American States, and merits being used as a model for international investment agreements. Transnational enterprises cannot claim that State measures to protect the environment, health and hygiene standards entail unpredictable risks. 59. Modification or termination of international investment agreements may be a complex task, but much less problematic than, for example, dealing with armed conflict. The world economy has had to adjust time and again to advance the cause of human dignity. So it was with the prohibition of the lucrative slave trade, the abolition of slavery and decolonization, which were replaced by other economic models. For centuries slavery was the de facto economic model with implicit legality; colonialism was de facto the international order. Today these practices are seen as crimes against humanity. For decades, investor–State dispute settlement arbitrations have de facto upset the international order, but they cannot trump the Charter of the United Nations. Just as other economic paradigms were abandoned, eventually investor–State dispute settlement will be recognized as an experiment gone wrong, an attempted hijacking of constitutionality resulting in the retrogression of human rights. The consequences of not modifying or terminating bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements are more serious than soberly accepting the necessity of revising them. 60. By way of conclusion, it would be appropriate to reaffirm that while free trade and investment agreements have their raison d’être, the primary role of the State is to act in the public interest. There are ample opportunities for corporations and investors to make legitimate profits and enter into genuine “partnerships” with States and not into asymmetrical relationships. The rule of thumb should be to: (a) give to corporations what belongs to them – an environment in which to compete fairly; (b) give back to States what is fundamentally and inalienably theirs – sovereignty and policy space; (c) give parliaments what belongs to them – the faculty to consider all aspects of treaties without undemocratic secrecy and fast-tracking; and (d) give to the people what is theirs: the rights to public participation, due process and democracy. VII. Plan of action 61. Seventy years after the entry into force of the Charter of the United Nations, it is appropriate to reaffirm its Purposes and Principles which, pursuant to Article 103, prevail 61 Patrick Juillard, “Calvo Doctrine/Calvo Clause”, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. I, pp. 1086–1093, Oxford, 2012. D. R. Shea, The Calvo Clause: A Problem of interAmerican and International Law and Diplomacy, Minneapolis, 1955. C. K. Darymple, “Politics and foreign direct investment: the multilateral investment guarantee agency and the Calvo Clause”, Cornell International Law Review, vol. 29, pp. 161–189. 19