A/70/301 funds to private actors on a large scale diminishes the amount of public funding available to broadly promote the public good, and human and indigenous rights more specifically. 51. The injustice of that is accentuated by the fact, discussed above, that historically the majority of countries who have been sued under investor -State dispute settlements are developing countries. As many indigenous peoples live in developing countries and are among the most marginalized within those States, they are highly vulnerable to the effects of the loss of public funds. That vulnerability is compounded by the specific risk, discussed above, of autonomous indigenous governments losing funding in the context of national Governments trying to recoup resources lost in investor-State dispute settlement hearings through withholding funding to local authorities, which can include tribal governments or other indigenous governing bodies. Democratic deficit and weakened rule of law 52. The processes governing international investment and free trade agreements can be at odds with a human rights approach in many ways. 53. There is a lack of transparency, social dialogue and legislative oversight during the negotiation and drafting process of international investment agreements. Indigenous peoples and formal representatives are not commonly, if ever, included in negotiation and drafting processes despite the fact that the resulting agreements are legally binding upon their jurisdictions. 54. Judicial oversight in relation to international investment agreements is also extremely lacking, thereby undermining the rule of law. As discussed above, investors have direct access to investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms and do not have to exhaust national remedies first; therefore, judicial review of international investment agreements is completely circumvented. The absence of any judicial oversight raises many procedural concerns relating to how investor State dispute settlements are implemented, including the lack of an appeals process, the diffuse nature of proceedings owing to the lack of any form of coordination and oversight body, the opacity of proceedings and the lack of comprehensive and publically available information about all rulings. In addition, there are serious concerns about bias and conflict of interest among legal professionals involved in cases. As stated by the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, “the dispute settlement is controlled by a small clique of arbitrators and lawyers, and the same person may be counsel, arbitrator and adviser to an investor or State at different times. Many arbitrators share close links with business communities and may be inclined towards protecting investors’ profits” (see A/69/299, para. 62). 55. Given the public interest and human rights concerns involved in international investment agreements and their enforcement, as well as the huge sums of public money sometimes at stake, the lack of legislative oversight and judicial review is indefensible. Practices that systematically undermine democratic principles and the rule of law progressively limit the ability of States and local authorities to protect human and indigenous rights. 15-12526 17/24