In this essay, I argue that while the Zero Draft and Elements Paper recognize the role of trade as a driver of economic growth and development, particularly through regional integration and increased trade finance, these documents fall short of addressing the structural barriers that prevent marginalized trade actors—such as informal cross-border traders (ICBTs), women, and SMEs—from fully participating in and benefiting from trade-driven development. To ensure that trade genuinely fosters inclusive development, the financing for development agenda must move beyond broad commitments and explicitly integrate policies that support marginalized trade actors, particularly within frameworks like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The following sections critically assess the strengths and gaps in the Zero Draft and Elements Paper and propose targeted policy interventions to enhance inclusivity in trade finance and development.

Some of the core objectives of FfD4 are enabling a renewed global financing framework that is underpinned by a commitment to multilateralism and collective action and aligned with national priorities. The African context is especially disadvantaged regarding barriers to meeting these objectives because the political elite, who set the said national priorities and spearhead ‘collective action’, is at the forefront of perpetuating illicit financial flows. The Pandora papers and similar exposés have revealed that African leaders are often at the forefront of illicitly hiding money abroad and moving it around illegally. This creates a paradox, as the very individuals responsible for driving meaningful progress in addressing illicit financial flows are frequently the biggest impediments to such efforts. Peter Ekeh’s concept of the ‘two publics’ provides a compelling theoretical framework for understanding this dynamic.

Accordingly, this article aims to situate the regulatory challenges that emanate from this divide within the international human rights standards that inform the use and development of emerging digital technologies. Given the necessity for brevity, particular focus will be afforded to two proposals set out in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Elements Paper for the outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4). Namely, (1) technology transfer and (2) the promotion of equitable access to artificial intelligence (AI), including the development of a regulatory ecosystem that promotes safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems. The analysis will also briefly address the Zero Draft Outcome Document for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (Zero Draft FfD4) because it acknowledges the transformative potential of technology in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

To better address the recurrent sovereign debt crisis many developing countries are facing, the proposals contained in the FfD4 Zero Draft need to be strengthened. This is because proposals to address the debt crisis must recognize that is not an aberration but rather an integral feature of the global financial and debt architecture. The Zero Draft needs to abandon the assumption that the primary reason for this indebtedness is that developing countries have overborrowed. Instead, the proposals in the Zero Draft need to take into account that the debt crisis is symptomatic of deeper structural features and weaknesses both of the global financial and debt architecture as well as of the economies of these indebted countries.

My comments focus on Chapter II on Domestic and Financial Private Business and Finance. I will focus on the proposals relating to domestic financial sector, enabling environments and access to financing in paragraphs 31, 33 and 34 of the Zero Draft. My overall comment is that these proposals are a wish list for foreign investors not proven avenues of raising financings.

In context, the African financial architecture and AMFIs are Africa’s response to the contemporary global financial architecture with privileged hierarchies that have historical roots in the post-colonial order of the post-Second World War era. Likewise, the claim that the IMF offers concessional loans misses the point of the historical and structural privilege that they enjoy. As such, an ahistorical approach to assessing the PCS status and treatment of AMFIs creates a presumed sense of superiority in comparison to other MDBs. Further, such an approach deepens the privilege and the structural and inequity issues in the current international financial architecture.

The 10th Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law (AsianSIL) is scheduled to take place in Ha Noi, Viet Nam, in 9-10 October 2025. Hosted by the Diplomatic Academy of Viet Nam, this event aims to provide a platform for intellectual exchange among scholars, practitioners, students, and individuals interested in international law.

The essay also emphasizes the importance of leveraging regional initiatives. These initiatives provide a complementary layer to global frameworks by fostering context-specific solutions, enhancing coordination among member states, and facilitating the exchange of best practices. For instance, regional bodies could play an essential role in mediating disputes between creditors and debtors and advocating for equitable treatment of African nations in multilateral debt restructuring forums. The Convention would cure this by institutionalizing capacity-building programs through regional debt advisory centers equips nations with the tools to circumnavigate complex debt negotiations.

The Elements Paper and the Zero Draft present an opportunity for meaningful debt governance reforms, yet their reaffirmation of the IMF’s central role perpetuates the marginalisation of Africa in financial decision-making. This blog has made calls for a transformative approach that decouples debt governance from the Bretton Woods institutions and centres it within the United Nations. A truly inclusive and equitable debt architecture requires decentering the IMF, establishing an independent Global Debt Authority hosted within the UN, and reforming debt sustainability assessments to reflect the needs and priorities of Africa. Without these changes, African debt-dependent economies will continue to face unjust financial constraints, limiting their capacity to achieve sustainable development goals.

In their current form, the proposals in the Elements Papers and the Zero Draft inadequately cover the complex and interconnected issues of climate finance and debt distress, which are crucial for realizing sustainable development in Africa. Therefore, the framework should leverage grant-based climate finance to avoid perpetual concession loans. Unlike loans, grants do not add to the already rising debt burden but instead offer a more stable and sustainable avenue to finance climate action. This will be important to break the vicious cycle of "borrow-and-under-develop" that continues to hold Africa back from realizing both its climate and development aspirations.