A/HRC/30/44 human rights impacts, also on third parties, including a “chilling effect” with regard to the exercise of democratic governance. Arbitration tribunals are credible institutions only when they operate in a demonstrably independent, transparent and accountable manner, as required under article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning suits at law. Investor–State dispute settlement tribunals do not operate in a separate legal context, but are bound by the erga omnes obligations imposed by the international human rights regime, 12 which permeates all areas of human activity, including by non-State actors. Some observers consider certain arbitration awards frivolous and manifestly ill-founded, yet not appealable. 6. A fundamental problem arises concerning the tension between legally binding human rights treaties and the operation of international investment agreements. As Bohoslavsky has observed: “There is a need for coherence in order to avoid the fragmentation of an international legal order that aspires to legality and, consequently, consistency.”13 II. Investment protection versus human rights protection 7. “Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers – namely, the rest of us.”14 8. International investment agreements are not new phenomena in the international arena. Bilateral investment treaties currently number over 3,200. After years of experience with investor–State dispute settlement, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and other arbitrations, it has become apparent that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been compromised. The problem has been aggravated by the chilling effect of certain awards that have penalized States for adopting regulations to protect the environment, food safety, access to generic medicine and reduction of smoking, as required under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The legality of such awards is questionable as contrary to domestic and international ordre public, and may be considered, in some cases, contra bonos mores. 9. Observers have noted retrogression in the protection of rights including the rights to life,15 food (A/HRC/25/57), water and sanitation,16 health, housing, education, culture, 12 13 14 15 6 Bruno Simma and Theodore Kill, “Harmonizing investment protection and human rights: first steps towards a methodology”, in Christina Binder et al. (eds.), International Investment Law for the 21st Century: Essays in Honour of Christoph Schreuer (Oxford University Press, 2009). Bohoslavsky (see footnote 4 above), p. 10. See also the report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission on fragmentation of international law: difficulties arising from the diversification and expansion of international law, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2006, vol. II (Part Two), para. 251. Joseph Siglitz, “On the wrong side of globalization”, New York Times, 15 March 2014. See also Pope Francis’ statement http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-276806-2015-07-10.html The right to life is impacted when a person dies because of lack of access to medicine because pharmaceutical monopolies have “privatized knowledge” and, through “evergreening” of patents, delay or make the introduction of significantly cheaper generic medicine impossible. The right to life is also violated when farmers and other labourers have their livelihoods destroyed by “free trade” without protective governmental action. For instance, bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements impacted millions of farmers in India and caused a significant rise in suicides, see