A/HRC/33/40 Annex II Excerpt of the Conclusions and Recommendations of the G77 High- Level Panel of Eminent Personalities of the South. The Future Architecture of South-South Cooperation: Challenges and Opportunities held in Bangkok, Thailand, 910 March 2016 In this context, Investor-State-dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration agreements should be rejected and those currently in existence should be abolished, because ISDS is incompatible with international ordre public and its mere existence has led to a dangerous “regulatory chill” and consequent violations of the international human rights treaty regime. The ontological function of States is to legislate and regulate in the public interest and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reaffirms that all suits at law (including investment disputes) must be adjudicated by independent tribunals that respect the principles of transparency and accountability. Creation of a privatized system of dispute settlement is incompatible with the obligations under the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Private arbitrators cannot replace the system of public justice, which is an achievement of the rule of law. GE.16-11938 25