Symposium Posts

In the last decade, there have been seven major leaks of financial documents in tax havens which have exposed the international web of financial flows, mechanisms to facilitate these flows and the major role players in these activities. In each leak, questions often arise on how both legal loopholes and illicit means are used to facilitate the outflow of funds from low- and middle-income countries to tax havens by corporations, wealthy individuals, and politically exposed persons (PEPs). These leaks are often the result of whistleblower-led investigations and the release of these financial documents has become a primary resource in understanding how financial corruption works globally. The effects of these leaks have seen heads of government sacked or resigned in some cases while little to no action takes place in other countries. However, what is undeniable is the role of whistleblowers is increasingly becoming central to curbing illicit financial flows (IFFs) especially as the global digital economy and stronger privacy-enhancing technologies make the detection of IFFs harder. Within Africa, very few countries have comprehensive national laws for whistleblowers despite the majority ratifying international agreements for the protection of whistleblowers. Using Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa as case studies, this note reviews the regulatory landscape in the countries and the extent to which current laws and practices aid or hinder whistleblowing on IFFs.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Illicit Financial Flows (IFFs) constitute a major impediment to Africa’s sustainable development. In fact, IFFs have a direct impact on a country’s ability to raise, retain and mobilise its own resources to finance sustainable development. Its negative impact further includes draining a country’s foreign exchange reserves, reducing domestic resource mobilization, preventing the flow of benefits of foreign direct investment, and worsening insecurity, poverty and economic inequality.

Contributors to the symposium offer unique perspectives and draw on different theoretical and methodological approaches to the practice and scholarship related to IFFs in African states and beyond. Several themes were addressed by the contributors, including tax justice, technology, corruption, accountability, political will, repatriation, recovery of Assets, migration, whistleblowing, international investment, and real estate.

Globalisation of commercial activity extends into international investments, evidenced by over 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BIT) or International Investment Agreements (IIA) in the international investment regime. Within these BITs is an embedded Investment State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system executed through an Arbitration Mechanism. The ISDS system serves as a dispute resolution tool for achieving the purpose of the IIA. The purpose of the IIA is for the protection of foreign investment from the harmful policies and governance of host states. In addition, many IIAs contain certain common standards and principles that regulate the investment relationship, such as the notorious fair and equitable treatment (FET), stabilization clauses, and so on. Thus, the overarching aim behind the norms and principles of international investment management is the creation of a system of legal safeguards against the actions of the host states. This simplistic paradigm of international investment law regime has become increasingly problematic due to the expansion and inclusion of various indirect stakeholders in the investment agreements, the growing recognition of public socio-economic realities like regulatory rights, and development rights, that are being pushed for larger consideration from ignored stakeholders mostly like the public.

The process of the establishment of the Multilateral Investment Court (MIC), to replace or operate in parallel to the current Investor State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS) system, is ongoing under the auspices of the United Nations Commission Trade Law (UNTRAL) Working Group III (Working Group III). In this forum, parties are invited to make submissions with a view to building support for on the establishment of the court. As expected, the submissions reveal varying concerns, perceptions and interests of states.

The aim of this post is to illustrate how the MIC can be used as a tool for harmonising international investment law (IIL) with general international law and other branches of international law. The increase in investor state arbitrations has led to a growing increase in the overlap between investment obligations and environmental, human rights and other international obligations. This may cause conflicts between the different branches of international law where more than one branch of international law is implicated in the investment dispute. This has led to the fragmentation of international law with calls to rebalance the system to allow for the consideration of broader public international law in the settlement of investor-state disputes.

Most in the International Investment Law community would be aware of the ongoing work by the United Nations Commission on Transnational Trade Law’s (UNCITRAL’s) Working Group III on reforming the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system. This work has been actuated by criticisms of the ISDS system (or, more precisely, the Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) system). A major proposed reform is the establishment of a standing Multilateral Investment Court (MIC) to replace or co-exist with the ISA system.

This essay discusses the opportunity the proposed multilateral investment court (‘MIC’) presents for states to holistically address the imbalances in international investment law by granting local communities a binding international remedy for corporate human rights violations and other investment-related harms. It argues that concerns about granting local communities such a right are overstated especially since it can be done with sufficient guardrails to prevent an upset to the ISDS system. For African states, this should be a priority in the MIC negotiations given corporate abuses of their local communities, especially in natural resource-rich areas, and their obligation under Article 21(5) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981 (‘African Charter’) to prevent or remedy such exploitation.

In March 2018, African nations embarked on a historic journey to reshape their trade landscape through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). Originally scheduled for implementation in mid-2020, a pandemic-induced delay pushed the launch to January 2021. Aggregating over 1.2 billion people, the AfCFTA promises to create a massive market with a combined GDP of over $3 trillion. With 54 signatories and 47 countries ratifying the agreement, the AfCFTA aims to foster a pan-African free trade zone, enhance regional development prospects, and promote intra-African trade. Key mechanisms are progressively dismantling trade barriers and promoting investment. This blog post delves into the current state of investment dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms across Africa, the potential of the AfCFTA and its investment protocol to catalyse change, and the need for a balanced multilateral approach. Through collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to equity, Africa can create a new paradigm for investment dispute resolution that truly reflects the continent's values and aspirations.

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system in its current form has been viewed as being malignant to the Global South. Africa in particular, has been a strong critic of the system with the most radical action against ISDS coming from South Africa, which has stated that investment arbitration awards are “directly opposed to the legitimate, constitutional and democratic policies of the country”. The United Nations Commission on Trade Law (UNCITRAL) has now mandated its Working Group III (WG3) to lead ISDS reform efforts. One of the key areas of reform under the purview of WG3 is the inconsistency, incoherency, unpredictability and incorrectness of investment arbitration awards.