scholarly journals African Countries and International Investment Law: Right to Regulate or Appropriate Regulation or Both?

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-54
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Laryea ◽  
◽  
Oladapo Fabusuy ◽  
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.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 596-611
Author(s):  
Nitish Monebhurrun

With international investment law as the background to this study, the present article examines how the full protection and security standard can be construed from the perspective of developing states hosting foreign investments. The research delves into classical public international law to argue that the diligentia quam in suis rule can be used as a means of interpretation to strike a balance between foreign investors’ and developing states’ interests when construing the full protection and security standard. The rule provides that any expected due diligence from the state party is necessarily of a subjective nature. This means that developing host states must deploy their best efforts to offer maximum protection to foreign investors not on an in abstracto basis but as per their local means and capacity. Accordingly, the standard is presented as an adaptable and flexible one which moulds its contours as per the level of development of the host state. Such flexibility does not imply condoning states’ abuse and negligence. The article explains how the diligentia quam in suis rule enables a conciliation between the full protection and security standard and the host state's level of development while rationalising the standard's application to developing nations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document