From a paper by Anne Van Aaken and Tobias A. Lehmann, entitled "Investment and Sustainable Development: Developing a New Conceptual Framework":
It is already questionable whether the only purpose of [International Investment Agreements] IIAs is the protection of investment. Rather, as most preambles reveal, protection of investment is rather a means to an end, i.e.,welfare, development, or prosperity (of home and host states). ...
Why would a state conclude a treaty to protect foreigners for the sake of protecting foreigners? The purpose of IIAs must be seen as contributing to the welfare or prosperity of home and host states by means of investment protection and promotion.
So what happens in the situation where there are multiple purposes to such an agreement? One government has one purpose in mind, another government is thinking of a different purpose. And what about the views of the interest groups who are the real force behind the agreement, who have their own purposes in mind? How does a tribunal weigh and balance all of these to determine an official purpose? I suppose one answer is to just focus on the text, and avoid talking about the actual purposes. But even when taking that approach, don't the tribunal members have in the back of their minds these actual purposes?
