A/HRC/33/42 Investment dispute settlement 96. Investment dispute settlement bodies addressing cases having an impact on indigenous peoples’ rights should promote the convergence of human rights and international investment agreements by: (a) Adopting approaches based on international human rights law when weighing up all rights related to a given dispute, addressing issues of necessity based on human rights imperatives such as the elimination of racial discrimination, applying the principle of proportionality and acknowledging the profound impacts of largescale projects on indigenous peoples’ self-determination rights and well-being; (b) According due consideration to international human rights law when interpreting investment protections and the definition of an investment and ensuring that their decisions respect the State’s duty to regulate under that law, irrespective of whether the right to regulate is explicitly affirmed in the relevant international investment agreements; (c) Taking into account the human rights responsibilities of investors as outlined in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; (d) Ensuring that applicable law includes all international human rights law treaties ratified by either State party, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an interpretative guide for their application to indigenous peoples; (e) Attaching weight to the legitimate expectations of States in relation to their ability to protect indigenous peoples’ rights; (f) Recognizing the right of intervention of the indigenous peoples concerned through amicus submissions and by according full consideration to their arguments; (g) Interpreting investor State contract clauses, including stabilization clauses, covered by such agreements through umbrella clauses, in a manner that does not place limitations on the State’s ability to protect indigenous peoples’ rights; (h) Being cognizant of foreign corporations’ contribution to violations of indigenous peoples’ rights and the jurisdictional, financial, cultural, technical, logistical and political obstacles facing indigenous peoples when attempting to hold them to account; (i) Avoiding awards that contribute to regulatory chill in relation to indigenous peoples’ rights or effectively endorse corporate involvement in indigenous rights’ harms; (j) Refusing to accept commercial confidentiality in all but the most extreme situations as a barrier to transparency in the context of regulatory actions related to fundamental human rights. 97. States should: (a) Promote the above practices through interpretative text; (b) Ratify the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration; (c) Appoint arbitrators with knowledge of indigenous peoples’ rights and cooperate jointly to interpret relevant international investment agreements in relation to indigenous peoples’ rights; 21