The purpose of this article is to determine the correspondence of the princSixty years after the signing of the first bilateral investment treaty, investor-State dispute resolution regime is under a process of change and strong criticism, particularly the disputes in which investors question State measures that protect human rights (access to drinking water, public health, and environment among others). In this context, this paper aims to analyse if there is a confluence or bifurcation of roads in investor-State disputes involving human rights. The answer to that question will be given through the selection and analysis of the two cases, Eco Oro versus Colombia and Bear Creek versus Peru, clear examples of fragmentation of International Law.