Article 9, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) recognizes the enormous contribution that the local and indigenous communities and farmers of all regions of the world, particularly those in the centers of origin and crop diversity, have made and will continue to make to the conservation and development of plant genetic resources which constitute the basis of food and agriculture production throughout the world. This webinar will focus on Farmers’ Rights as established in the ITPGRFA and presents a unique opportunity to share and exchange knowledge on the subject.

This webinar will examine the links between Farmers’ Rights (as established in the ITPGRFA) and related international treaties alongside the right to food and gender perspectives on Farmers’ Rights.

This webinar will consider reforms of the international investment policy regime in Africa. The webinar follows up our recently concluded symposium on Investor-State Dispute Settlement designed to centre voices from the Global South in the veritable tradition of Afronomicslaw.org

At the heart of African decolonization was radical political thinking about international non-domination, and the vision of an international legal, political and economic order that secured this anti-imperialism through global redistribution. This idea of the world, that involved radical reinterpretation of the principle of self-determination, united the political thinking of the tallest leaders of Africa – Azikiwe, Nkrumah, Nyerere, and others.

As an essential outcome of strengthening the state control over natural wealth and resources, Tanzania has brought natural resource contracts into the purview of its domestic legal system. In doing so, some countries have exercised their sovereign rights to natural resources as the basis for denouncing international adjudication of investment claims based on such contracts. Indeed, biases perceived by Tanzania concerning international arbitration fora have played a great role in bringing natural recourse contracts into the purview of Tanzanian legal system. The goal of the reforms is to mitigate such partialities through using domestic dispute resolution mechanisms.

While procedural reforms are important, substantive reform should be foregrounded. If substantive reforms cannot take place then African states should exit the ISDS scene.

It is a special day when open scepticism by some African states towards investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is likened to hegemony. This characterization suggests that critical voices, once banished to the outskirts of ongoing discourse tabling reforms to ISDS in particular and to international investment law (IIL) more generally, now occupy the center of action and claim the mantle of thought leaders. But instead of cherishing this potential turning point for international law development by African states, we are urged to deny and disregard the views from Africa.

In the opinion of this contribution, African States must be more radical in their approach to investment treaty and ISDS reforms. First, they must retain the role of domestic courts in the resolution of investment disputes in line with their national constitutions. Second, where the case for an international dispute settlement mechanism is made, they must consider a state-state trade and investment dispute settlement bodies at the regional and continental levels for all transnational business disputes. Appeals from domestic courts could lie before regional appellate bodies and from a regional appellate to a continental dispute settlement body. This should provide assurance to investors and other business entities that their disputes can and must be resolved within the African continent.

If Africa is genuinely interested in the reforms of ISDS then the words of the Kenyan delegation at the UNCITRAL working group must be our yards stick; the desired outcome will only be achieved when we begin to consider the substantive issues in an open, frank, free, and transparent manner, noting the need to fast track the conclusion of a holistic reform process of the ISDS. Perceptions and plausible folk theories aimed at nothing but creating hegemony in ISDS must be shunned. My crystal ball tells me that ISDS is here to stay, thus we must make no mistakes, but shape ISDS to suit our future interests.

We are excited about our forthcoming symposium which centres the voices of amazing scholars from the Global South on the Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform.