The research aims to identify, map, and understand in depth the new interactions and tensions that have emerged between the regional human rights courts on the one hand (i.e., the European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights and African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights) and international investment adjudication bodies on the other hand, in order to provide a methodological tool to foster constructive judicial dialogue between human rights and investment adjudicators, which in turn will lead to a more stable, functional and legitimate international economic legal system. The research explores the hypothesis that the coexistence and overlap of public authorities of different regional human rights courts and investment adjudication is not only possible but necessary for the fulfillment of human rights obligations of international instruments. The first part explores the epistemic value that human rights judgments have in investment arbitration awards. Subsequently, the project analyzes the comparative narratives in human rights adjudication in the three main regional human rights systems (i.e., the European, Inter-American and African human rights systems). Finally, the project develops a conceptual framework for a judicial dialogue between regional human rights courts and investment arbitrators.