TWAIL scholarship share three central themes. First, it engages in historical analysis to disinter partial narratives of international law. Second, the historical analysis exposes avenues through which particular aspects of international law are unjust to everyday realities of Third World peoples. Third, some TWAIL scholarship attempt to reform or transform unjust international law to suit the needs and realities of Third World peoples.

Utilising interdisciplinary methodologies for IEL research in the African context is not without its challenges. Access to empirical data is still difficult. Meandering your way past the bureaucracy and protocols that ‘gatekeep’ vital information is also tricky. However, all these challenges and experiences all add up to our journey as researchers

There is no single ‘correct’ approach to legal scholarship. The beauty of international economic law research and study lies in the availability of diverse theories and methods of other non-legal disciplines that can be carefully deployed to effectively engage in debates arising in today’s complex social, political and economic environment.

Critical perspectives can be both distinct from and form part of the broadly defined ‘socio-legal’ approach to social inquiry. To adopt a critical perspective is to commit to the project of demystifying and disrupting dominant narratives, interpretations and ways of both knowing and understanding legal phenomena. It represents a quest for truth and offers alternative ways of seeing the world around us. As such, critical perspectives encompass doctrinal, empirical and interdisciplinary approaches to the study of law. In short, it is the purpose of critical approaches to challenge and disrupt that which has been taken to be a ‘given’ in mainstream discourses and narratives

This Symposium, and the contributions carry on the conversation by examining the ways in which the contributors have harnessed theory and method in their critical scholarship on IEL in Africa. Continuing to build the knowledge base on IEL that is both rigorous and relevant to Africa has a lot to do with the lens through which research work is conducted.

We write to thank our readers and contributors for a really productive 2019.

Although developing countries are very eager to attract FDI through BITs, for most parts, they deliberately water down the environmental concerns. However, recently we have witnessed the incorporation of environmental standards and provisions in BITs. This ambitious effort however is usually frustrated by decisions of international arbitration tribunals.

Though promising, trade and investment relations between African and Caribbean countries remain under-tapped. Indeed, according to UNCTAD’s IIA Navigator, there are only twelve signed bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between Caribbean and African countries, of which only four are in force. Recently, however, there have been budding signals of interest on both sides of the Atlantic in deepening commercial relations. This article examines the current Africa-Caribbean investment treaty network and proposes three possible options for transforming Africa-Caribbean investment relations.

Food security is at the very core of human existence. Agriculture is thus a critical part of sustainable development. It is estimated that Agriculture contributes about 33% of the world’s gross-domestic product. A significant number of countries with the most arable land belong to the categorization of low to middle income nations, while a significant number of the high-income nations are dependent on food imports from the former. As a result, domestic and foreign agricultural land investment contracts are common as countries seek to achieve food security. The UNIDROIT/FAO/IFAD Legal Guide to Agricultural Land Investment Contracts (ALIC) is thus a welcome framework for ensuring that these investments contribute to the sustainable development goals. On the overall, the legal guide provides comprehensive instrument that effectively highlights the critical components of such agricultural land contracts and is thus commendable.

All in all, what should be kept in mind is that, as the wise Canadian thinker and diplomat Ivan Leigh Head once noted, an element of law (and of accountability), some measure of it, will be needed in the effort to realize the right to development. It is for this reason that the African example of establishing meaningful regional-level accountability mechanisms in the development field, undergirded by hard law, ought to be replicated at the UN level.