Bilateral Investment Treaties

The opacity of the ISDS regime is not a mere oversight but rather a structural feature that prioritizes the investor-centric nature of its proceedings while giving limited consideration to the broader social, environmental, and economic impacts of investment disputes. Local communities often bear the brunt of disruptions caused by these projects, only to face the added burden of compensating the very investors responsible. Such payouts often divert public funds away from essential services, prioritizing corporate interests over the welfare of ordinary citizens. Arbitral tribunals reinforce this exclusivity by systematically excluding the voices of those most affected. While treaties and rules formally acknowledge the role of amicus curiae to lend a veneer of legitimacy, they actively stifle such participation by withholding key information and imposing procedural demands that resource-strapped local communities, academics, and civil society organizations are often unable to meet.

There is quite some work that has been done on investment regulation and human rights protection in the context of Africa. One of such works is Fola Adele’s book, International Investment Law and Policy in Africa, Exploring a Human Rights Based Approach to Investment Regulation and Dispute Settlement (2018), where he discusses sustainable development and human rights protection. Most significantly, Adeleke acknowledges that the role and importance of public interest issues, sovereignty of states and other binding obligations that interfere with investment treaty norms have not been given adequate attention. This is why I welcome Dr. Dominic Npoanlari Dagbanja’s book “The Investment Treaty Regime and Public interest Regulation in Africa” with lots of admiration. This work does not only provide a wealth of resource for scholars seeking to research on such a thorny issue, but also serves as a fresh reminder of the important yet difficult conversation about the need for African states to recast future investment treaties in the light of their constitutional mandates and responsibilities.

The News and Events category publishes the latest News and Events relating to International Economic Law relating to Africa and the Global South. Every week, Afronomicslaw.org receive the News and Events in their e-mail accounts. The News and Events published every week include conferences, major developments in the field of International Economic Law in Africa at the national, sub-regional and regional levels as well as relevant case law. News and Events with a Global South focus are also often included.

With the recent decision by the African Heads of States to adopt the Protocol on Investment to the Agreement Establishing the African Continental Free Trade Area, Dr Dominic Dagbanja’s monograph on The Investment Treaty Regime and Public interest in Africa is a welcome addition to the growing list of monographs on Africa’s foreign investment law regimes. This book which is a based on Dr Dagbanja’s 2015 doctoral dissertation provides an original contribution to existing literature by focusing on the constitutionality of investment treaties. It deals with themes and issues which are critical for understanding Africa’s complex foreign investment protection and promotion laws. Although scholars have examined the linkages between constitutional law and international investment law notably using case studies from Europe and Latin America, this is the first monograph to focus on this issue from an African perspective.

A fundamental premise of The Investment Treaty Regime and Public Interest Regulation in Africa is that national constitutions “are supreme in the hierarchy of legal norms within the domestic context, and governmental actions in Africa, including the making of investment treaties, are governed by these fundamental legal norms.” In this monograph, I addressed, then, the question of the limits that national constitutions and the right of African states to regulate in international law place on the authority of African states in their conclusion of international economic treaties such as investment treaties. I examined four different and fundamental areas of public interest: national judicial systems, the environment, human rights, and development. Based on a constitutional-general international law imperatives analysis, I developed the imperatives theory as a theoretical framework to explain the conflict of legal norms and interests through a critical analysis of the intersections of public law and policy and international investment treaties. The issue addressed by the imperatives theory is whether the fundamental human rights and corresponding obligations of African states towards citizens under African constitutions, international environmental treaties and international human rights treaties do place or should place, limitations on the competence of African states to conclude investment treaties the terms of which constrain the exercise of the states’ public interest regulatory authority.

This contribution has looked at the extent to which the MIC can improve the participation of African local communities in ISDS and ensure a better protection of their rights and interests. It started by discussing the current participation of these communities in ISDS with a view of identifying the challenges these communities are facing before analyzing how the MIC can address some of these challenges. Emphasis should be placed on the selection of MIC members and encourage the appointment of members with broad expertise in (public)international law and public issues and not experts with only commercial background. Indeed, most recent investment agreements contain provisions that protect local communities. The challenge therefore lies in how these agreements are interpreted and applied. In addition, the MIC investment advisory centre should extend its services to local communities and assist them in the drafting and submission of their briefs to investment tribunals.

The American Branch of the International Law Association (ABILA) is excited to announce that registration is now open for International Law Weekend (#ILW2023) which will be held October 19-21, 2023 in NYC. The unifying theme for ILW 2023 is Beyond International Law.

Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring process is burdened with several challenges. They include typical political and legal challenges, as well as evident geopolitical tensions and possible disruptive investment arbitration based on Sri Lanka’s BITs. Indeed, these atypical challenges will possibly make Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring process more complex and perhaps prolonged, leaving the country more vulnerable. Besides these challenges, debt restructuring might have immediate repercussions on the economy, such as difficulties in attracting foreign investors and losing access to international financial markets. Furthermore, although sovereign debt restructuring could bring the country’s distressed economy back to debt sustainability if appropriately managed, there is no guarantee that it will end the calamities of an insolvent nation grappling with several intertwined crises. Finally, Sri Lanka’s more daunting debt restructuring process will test the existing global financial infrastructure, questioning its adequacy to accommodate the current global economy’s challenges.

These recent procedural and substantive trends encompassed in the WAU conference demonstrate a renewed and welcomed interest for arbitration of mega disputes in the African continent and the MENA region, both international arbitration hubs that are gaining prominence. Whilst challenges remain, biases against arbitrating disputes in these regions are being debunked by the experience of Africa and MENA with dispute resolution, the advent of institutions and “arbitration friendly” jurisprudence.

This blog reflects on recent efforts for international investment agreements (IIAs) to extend human rights and sustainable development obligations to foreign investors. Prior to the recent adoption of the Nigeria-Morocco BIT in 2016, human rights language and foreign investor obligations were notably absent in Nigeria’s IIAs. This discrepancy - between attempts to attract foreign investment through IIAs and the failure to link these investments to socio-economic priorities in Nigeria – has led to palpable tensions within Nigeria’s dominant economic sector, oil production, but recent international law developments suggest a slow shift is happening.