A/70/301 dispute settlement tribunals have been used to challenge me asures to improve public health. As cited in the Independent Expert’s report, in the Philip Morris (Switzerland) v. Uruguay (2010) case, the multinational tobacco company sued Uruguay under the Switzerland-Uruguay bilateral investment treaty claiming that the Uruguayan anti-smoking legislation devalued its investments. The same company also filed a claim against Australia for its efforts to curb tobacco. Public health issues, such as smoking, are currently increasing in indigenous communities, and the prevalence of such problems can be higher than in non-indigenous populations. Therefore, such investor-State dispute settlement claims have the potential to disproportionally affect indigenous peoples. B. Systemic effects of investment and free trade regimes 44. International investment and free trade have a number of direct impacts on the human rights of indigenous peoples, as discussed above. While that is highly alarming in itself, it is also important to consider the systemic implications of the collective impact of such agreements and practices at the national and international levels. As some of the most historically marginalized groups within the international system, those systemic impacts strongly affect the human rights of indigenous peoples, who are already often highly vulnerable and bear a disproportionate burden of the overall effects of investment and free trade regimes. Asymmetry between the State and private actors 45. International investment and free trade agreements confer upon foreign investors and transnational corporations very strong rights and enforcement mechanisms. However, the rules governing the responsibilities of private actors are often contained in so-called “soft” international law. The standards, which include a number of voluntary or non-binding standards or recommendations, fall short of legally binding instruments that allow for achieving balance in the rights and responsibilities of those actors. While investors are therefore able to access a strong and arguably disproportionate form of remedy, States and/or indigenous peoples are often unable to effectively legally challenge corporate practices that severely undermine the realization of human rights. That contributes to a dangerous accumulation of power among international corporate actors, which impedes States’ abilities to act as an effective regulator and protector of human and indigenous peoples rights. Constriction of the policy and legislative space of States 46. Provisions within international investment and free trade agreements can constrict the policy and legislative space in which Governments operate. That has been referred to in literature about international investment agreements as a “chilling effect” whereby the State becomes constrained in its ability to rule in the public interest owing to a wish to avoid sometimes billion-dollar arbitration and settlement costs. As described by the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, “international investment agreements and investor-State dispute settlement systems benefit transnational corporations at the cost of States ’ sovereign functions of legislation and adjudication” (see A/69/299, para. 4). 15-12526 15/24