鑒於資本的跨國界流通熱絡，輔以國際人權意識的高漲，國際間伴隨而來的經濟、社會與文化價值之衝突漸趨明顯。尤其在全球資本主義浪潮下，跨國企業對全球經濟的影響力不斷擴大，而跨國投資行為所偏好之自然資源多位處原住民居住地，使得外人投資計畫往往影響甚至侵害原住民之固有土地、文化或生活環境，導致原住民於《國際勞工組織第169號公約》與《聯合國原住民權利宣言》下之文化完整性、土地和資源等權利遭受破壞。從而涉及原住民權之國際投資爭端，每每引發投資人投資權益之保障與原住民權利之維護兩者間的衝突與調和問題。因此，本文旨在探討國際投資仲裁架構下，原住民權利是否以及如何在投資仲裁案件審理中受到保障，以及現行國際投資仲裁制度如何進一步將原住民權利之保障納入投資爭端解決之考量。檢視具體個案所涉及投資協定內的徵收條款、公平與公正待遇原則或完整保障與安全原則等爭議，探討原住民權利在國際投資法下的現況與問題。

歸結過往案例，本文認為原住民權之主張對於投資仲裁判斷結果之影響有限，因投資仲裁爭議之裁決主要仍取決於系爭投資協定下相關投資保障條款的解釋與適用。仲裁庭確曾以欠缺管轄權為由駁回原住民權之主張，亦曾拒絕援引相關的國際人權法規作為適用法，且為爭取原住民權所發起之抗議亦會招致違反完整保障與安全原則義務的控訴。另一方面，仲裁庭對法庭之友的認定有所侷限，且其並無採納法庭之友意見的義務，故在法庭之友未能發揮其效用的前提下，倘若原住民未兼具投資人之身分，則除非地主國願意以原住民權作為抗辯，否則原住民之權利不易在投資仲裁程序中被納入考量。盡管如此，從相關案件之仲裁判斷中看來，本文發現仲裁庭仍積極回應原住民權保障之相關論述，相較過往已有所突破，可以看出仲裁庭對於人權議題之探究仍抱持開放的態度，值得肯認。深究投資仲裁案件不易調和人權議題之原因，乃國際人權法與國際投資法之本質不同，且國際投資協定也欠缺可供仲裁庭適用的人權保障條款。因此，若要調和人權與投資人的權利，得從解釋論的層面將人權法納入仲裁判斷之考量、從制度面改善仲裁機制與引進人權影響評估協議或藉由修法解決人權保障不足的疑慮。

With the rising awareness of international human rights and the increase of cross-border capital flows, the tensions grows rapidly in the international community due to the potential conflicts between economic, social and cultural values. Under the trend of global capitalism, the multinational enterprises play a more influential role in shaping the contour of economy worldwide. Due to the fact that many natural resources are located in the indigenous peoples’ residential areas, the rampant development of foreign direct investment projects is more likely to increase potential conflicts with indigenous’ ancestral land, cultural integrity, rights of land and resources recognized under the “International Labor Organization Convention No. 169” and the “UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. This paper aims to examine the investment disputes involved with the rights of indigenous people, and finds that most disputes despite the indigenous rights being concerned, mainly addressed substantive claims regarding the protection of investor’s rights such as whether the specific cause of action constitutes expropriation under the investment agreement and whether it violates the principle of fair and equitable treatment or the principle of full protection and security.

After analyzing precedent international investment arbitration cases, it holds that the indigenous rights have only limited role to play in the investment arbitrations and have little influence on the outcome of arbitration award. Instead, the outcome depends on the substantive claims based on the rules under the investment agreement and how these rules are interpreted and applied in solving the dispute. Indeed, the arbitration tribunal declined to hear the human rights claims on the ground of the lack of jurisdiction, and to refer to international human rights law as an applicable law under the investment dispute. Last but not the least, the protest to fight for indigenous right may also triggers the claim of violating the obligation of full protection security. On the other hand, owing that the arbitral tribunal has no obligation to adopt the opinions submitted by the amicus curiae, it is difficult for the indigenous people to defend their rights through amicus curiae unless they also possess the identity of investor or the host state is willing to claim the rights of the indigenous people as a defense. Nevertheless, judging from the award of such cases, this paper discovered that the arbitral tribunals still made many efforts to respond arguments associated with the indigenous rights in its findings. Thus, this is a sign of a positive development in the practice of investment tribunals, indicating their willingness to address the human right issues in the investor-state dispute proceedings.

In respect to the difficulties of reconciling human rights issues in investment arbitration cases, it is believed that the essence of international human rights law is different from that of international investment law. Apart from the improvement of arbitration system, there is also a lack of solid human rights protection found in the international investment agreements. To reconcile human rights with investors'' rights, human rights laws must be taken into consideration via treaty interpretation, or modify the arbitration system, adopt human rights impact assessment agreement and amend the treaties that may fundamentally solve the problem of insufficient human rights protection.