Analysis

The way in which State immunity is applied can tell us something about the scale of values of the society in which we live. It is striking, for instance, to note that despite the rhetoric of human dignity in international law, the international community rejects the possibility of a “human rights exception” to immunity but accepts the commercial exception.

The book offers an updated and comprehensive view of the status of the different legal regimes that govern sovereign debt operations. While this book was not written with the outbreak in mind, it provides unique insights into the legal challenges that states and policy makers from the global south ought to consider when facing the challenges of the post Covid-19 world.  The following post offers some takeaways from the book.

The most glaring gap in global economic governance is the lack of an orderly and fair sovereign debt restructuring arrangement.  Annamaria Viterbo’s new volume, Sovereign Debt Restructuring: the Role and Limits of Public International Law, helps us understand why this is so and how we might move forward. 

In this piece, we follow up on Uzodinma’s arguments, especially as it relates to the broader significance of the prima facie case put forward by Nigeria that ‘the GSPA, the arbitration clause in the GSPA and the awards were procured as the result of a massive fraud perpetrated by P&ID.’ Nigeria further argued that ‘to deny them the opportunity to challenge the Final Award would involve the English court being used as an unwitting vehicle of the fraud.’

I am delighted to introduce the book symposium on my new monograph titled Sovereign Debt Restructuring: The Role and Limits of Public International Law. Unfortunately, the time could not be riper to discuss the role played by international law in sovereign debt restructuring. In fact, as a consequence of the ongoing economic recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is facing a new systemic sovereign debt crisis.

There is no doubt that solving this pandemic is the most pressing challenge of our time. This is not a zero sum game. Below, I elaborate on the four points for effective global solidarity to tackle the pandemic.

While WIPO’s technical assistance programme has been seen as less biased than much of the bilateral assistance on offer from the EU and the US, the history that Africa has with WIPO concerning cooperation in the provision of IP technical assistance can be said to have led to the introduction of Western-style IP norms across the continent. Our leaders and negotiators, therefore, need to proceed with caution in negotiating the AfCFTA IP protocol and the kind of technical assistance they receive. They must consult broadly and court the services of African scholars and experts on the matter.

In Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Developments Limited (‘Nigeria v. P&ID’),[1] the English court was faced with an application for extension of time to challenge an arbitration award delivered well over two years before the application. The court granted the application despite the delay, on the basis that there was a strong prima facie case of fraud involved. This paved the way for a thorough inquiry into the allegations of fraud, which if proven, would upset the validity and finality of the arbitration award. This article will review the judgment of the court in Nigeria v. P&ID and highlight its contribution to jurisprudence on determining the point at which an allegation of illegality will be allowed to threaten the finality of an award.

In theory, states may be able to invoke Article 73(b)(iii) in defence of measures that are implemented to tackle COVID-19. However, in this post, I have not sought to analyse whether or not invoking Article 73(b)(iii) is a realistic option for some states (especially those in the global south). In a separate post published here, I have suggested that, while (in theory) states might be able to invoke the security exception in the TRIPS Agreement in response to COVID-19, this is not necessarily a realistic option (especially for states that do not possess local manufacturing capacity).

To ensure that innovative capacity is developed on the continent, it is pertinent to promote regional innovation. As a starting point, negotiators of the AfCFTA may consider including in the text appropriate provisions that will allow the collaboration and nurturing of innovative capacity in Africa. Open innovation is an approach that meets the needs of Africa and is worth considering.