Africanisation of international investment law for sustainable development: challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-64
Author(s):  
Emmanuel T. Laryea ◽  
Oladapo O. Fabusuyi

Purpose The purpose of this study is to critically examine the move to Africanise international investment law (IIL) aimed at promoting sustainable development on the continent. Design/methodology/approach The study analyses the move by African countries to “Africanise” IIL by incorporating specific and innovative provisions and features in their international investment agreements (IIAs) for the benefit of African economies. This is evidenced by provisions in African regional investment instruments such as the 2007 Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa Investment Agreement and the 2008 Economic Community of West African States Supplementary Act on Investments produced by the different African regional economic communities (RECs), new-generation IIAs such as the 2016 Nigeria-Morocco IIA and the China-Tanzania IIA and the African Union’s Pan-African Investment Code 2016. The common features of these instruments include linking the objective of investment promotion and protection to sustainable development; excluding portfolio investments; including provisions on investor-obligations; and reserving wide scope of regulatory space for host-states, including the ability to take emergency measures without incurring liability to investors. Some of these provisions are rare in IIAs. Findings The study finds that, while the efforts are commendable, there are real challenges. Firstly, there are inconsistencies in the regimes existing on the continent due to differences in the contents of the international investment instruments promulgated by the different RECs, and also differences in the content of IIAs signed by some member-states of the RECs with countries external to the RECs. Secondly, there are governance gaps and a lack of enforcement in practice, which would undermine the effectiveness of the laws being forged. Thirdly, the Africanised IIL alone would not attract investment if other important determinants, such as critical infrastructure, remain lacking. Fourthly, there is under-representation of Africa in the arbitral institutions that develop and enrich the laws, which, if it continues, would undermine the effectiveness of the Africanisation provisions being included in IIAs. Research limitations/implications While the research discusses both law and policy, more is discussed of the law, owing to space limitation. Practical implications It is anticipated that this research will impact the content of the investment protocol under the African continental free trade area and beyond and will prompt review of existing and future IIAs by member states of the various RECs to align them for consistency. It is also hoped that this research will impact the review of various investment instruments of the RECs with the aim of harmonising them. It is further hoped that this research would contribute to addressing the challenges that militate against the achievement of the goals of Africanising ILL for sustainable development. Originality/value The study is original. It has not been published previously and the authors have found no existing publication that addresses the issues covered in this study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-481
Author(s):  
Makane Moïse Mbengue

Abstract Africa has often been presented as an ‘investment rules taker’, despite its longstanding contribution to the formation and shaping of the international investment regime. The present contribution seeks to analyze why Africa has been perceived as such and attempts to shed light on the active role that African countries have played since their independence in the development of the investment regime and also in the promotion of the ICSID system. The contribution also explores new avenues that are provided through the ‘Africanization’ of international investment law and their impact on the current redesign of the investment regime. It finally suggests options regarding the current negotiations of an Investment Protocol at the level of the African Union and ways to reinforce synergies between ICSID and the African Union.


2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-90
Author(s):  
Pia Acconci

The importance of the widespread reliance upon direct arbitration, particularly arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and of the practice of “arbitration without privity” is at the root of the search for a definition of investment, as underlined by the 2013 Resolution of the Institut de droit international (IDI). The Resolution refers to a development-friendly definition of investment. This article aims to explain to what extent a definition based upon references to sustainable development would constitute an acceptable specification, albeit a partial one, of the term “development” used in the IDI Resolution, in light of the need of a reconciliation between private and public interests within current international investment law. The article also deals with the issue of whether the ICSID Convention provides for an autonomous definition of investment that cannot be overridden by the terms of a given international investment treaty, and if so, which criteria should be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining whether an investment exists within the meaning of Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention.


1970 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-154
Author(s):  
Felix O. Okpe

This article contends that the omission to define investment in the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the ICSID Convention) has a trickledown effect on the Nigerian Investment Promotion Act (the NIPC Act), in the context of investment treaty law and arbitration. Its greatest impact is the relegation of the contribution to economic development element of the definition of “investment” to a backseat contrary to the purpose of the ICSID Convention. This article proposes a simple thesis: the omission to define investment in the ICSID Convention has fostered an amorphous definition of investment under the NIPC Act, thus creating uncertainty, irrelevance and ambiguity. The uncertainty is a potential problem in the conduct of foreign direct investment under the ICSID Convention. The article recommends a review of the definition of “investment” under the Act and the adoption of a definition that restricts foreign investment within the territory of Nigeria and makes acontribution to economic development its core element in line with the fundamental objective of the ICSID Convention.Keywords: Nigerian Investment Promotion Act, Law and Development, Investment Law and ICSID Arbitration


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document