International investment tribunals often use the language of ‘rights’ to characterize foreign investors’ claims against host states, evoking the language of human rights and, in some cases, appearing to conflate the two concepts. We investigate the cognitive framing of the relationship between investor rights and human rights in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), as characterized by investment tribunals. We first establish that arbitrators (and scholars and counsel) tend to characterize investor claims as rights claims in general and property rights claims in particular, even if this normative basis is far from precise. Second, building on behavioural economics and cognitive psychology, we argue that this characterization places human rights considerations at a structural disadvantage in ISDS. Investor rights are perceived by arbitrators as endowments that are possessed and that risk being lost, while the human rights of host state populations are viewed as aspirational demands that might only be fully realized in the future. Thus, governmental actions interfering with investments are perceived by arbitrators as actual losses, while competing human rights claims are perceived as potential gains or demands. Following prospect theory, the former (certain losses) will usually be weighed more heavily in a decision-making calculus than the latter (possible gains). This loss–gain frame provides a cognitive explanation for the prevalence of arbitral decisions that prefer investor claims over human rights, a phenomenon that is highly problematic in times in which the legitimacy of the ISDS system rests on its ability to consider the rights of non-investors.

中文翻译：

---

并非所有权利都是平等的：投资者权利和人权的得失框架

国际投资法庭经常使用“权利”的语言来描述外国投资者对东道国的索赔，从而唤起人权的语言，在某些情况下，似乎将这两个概念混为一谈。我们调查了投资者与国家争端解决 (ISDS) 中投资者权利与人权之间关系的认知框架，以投资法庭为特征。我们首先确定仲裁员（以及学者和律师）倾向于将投资者索赔描述为一般的权利索赔，特别是财产权利索赔，即使这种规范基础远非精确。其次，基于行为经济学和认知心理学，我们认为这种特征将人权考虑置于 ISDS 的结构性劣势。仲裁员将投资者权利视为拥有的禀赋，但有可能会失去，而东道国人民的人权则被视为可能只有在未来才能完全实现的理想需求。因此，干扰投资的政府行为被仲裁员视为实际损失，而相互竞争的人权主张则被视为潜在收益或要求。根据前景理论，在决策计算中，前者（某些损失）通常比后者（可能的收益）更重要。这种损益框架为偏爱投资者主张而不是人权的仲裁决定的普遍性提供了认知解释，