A/HRC/33/42 the legal vacuum arising from the lack of recognition or enforcement of their land rights facilitates arbitrary land expropriation, enabling national and local officials to make those lands available for investment projects. At the same time, the vast majority of those lands are protected under international investment agreements, and related investor-State dispute settlement disputes in agribusiness and extractive sectors are expected in Africa and Asia, while in Latin America there is a growing number of claims concerning settlements in relation to such activities in or near indigenous territories. 29. Special Rapporteurs, United Nations treaty bodies and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have made numerous recommendations urging home States to adopt regulatory measures for companies domiciled in their jurisdictions aimed at preventing, sanctioning and remedying violations of indigenous peoples’ rights abroad for which those companies are responsible or in which they are complicit. 6 30. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has noted that addressing related jurisdictional issues may require negotiations between States during bilateral or other agreements and before foreign companies are accepted for business. B. Impacts of international investment agreements and investor-State dispute settlements 31. International investment agreements can have serious impacts on indigenous peoples’ rights as a result of three main interrelated issues: (a) the failure to adequately address human rights in the preambles and substantive provisions of such agreements; (b) the actual or perceived threat of enforcement of investor protections under investorState dispute settlement arbitration, leading to regulatory chill; and (c) the exclusion of indigenous peoples from the drafting, negotiation and approval processes of agreements and from the settlement of disputes. 32. These potential impacts of international investment agreements must be considered in the light of the current inadequate recognition and lack of enforcement of indigenous peoples’ rights in domestic legal frameworks. Such agreements, and investor-State dispute settlements, tend to block necessary advances and developments in domestic legal frameworks as they relate to investment activity. They limit the State’s will and freedom to impose and enforce human rights obligations on transnational corporations and to progressively realize human rights. By entrenching investor protections, they also entrench rights-denying aspects of extant legislative frameworks and contribute to preventing the needed reform from a human rights perspective. 33. International human rights law and international investment agreements play significant roles in governing the behaviour of host States in relation to resource extraction in or near indigenous peoples’ territories. Agreements serve to protect and regulate property rights of investors related to the exploitation or use of land and resources. Those rights can come into direct conflict with the pre-existing — but not necessarily formally recognized and titled — inherent customary law and possession-based property rights of indigenous peoples protected under international human rights law. 34. International human rights law recognizes that in certain contexts restrictions can be placed on indigenous peoples’ property rights. However, to be legitimate, such restrictions must be: (a) established by law; (b) necessary; (c) proportional to their purpose; and (d) non-restrictive to the peoples’ survival.7 It affirms that, in the context of indigenous 6 7 8 See A/HRC/24/41, para. 48, and CERD/CAN/CO/19-20, para. 14. See Saramaka People v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2007).