Africanacity of International Investment Law: A Reflection on Investment Agreements in Africa

Abstract

In recent times, we have been witnessing the re-making of international investment law (IIL) architect maiden from Africa. The reforms shift the IIL paradigm by establishing adequate policy space to the host state, reiterating state sovereignty and, significantly, introducing obligations imposed on the foreign investors. Alongside these reforms, Africans are persistently negating the speculative imbalanced international investorstate dispute settlement (ISDS) system by suggesting local alternatives. These reforms can be traced to the Pan African Investment Code of 2016, which shapes the African IIL agenda. Thus, this monograph discusses Africa's recent surge of reforms on IIL which transform the traditional regime. These commendable reforms give African states an opportunity to "regulate" IIL and guard their own interests. Yet the reforms are already showing some signs of incoherence, particularly on the binding nature of investment treaty models and on ISDS mechanisms, which may potentially negate the thrust of what this monograph dubs as the "Africanacity" of IIL.

The human rights-based approach to sustainable development: Lessons from recent African investment treaty practice

“…The concept of “Africanization of IIL” [ 5 ], “africanacity of IIL” [ 17 ], or “continentalization of IIL” refers to the wind of reform that has led the African Union to introduce a continental investment instrument model in Africa (the Draft PAIC). The “Africanization of IIL” is thus viewed as a trend in African investment treaty practice, “a moderate and radical reform” [ 2 ], and a transition of African countries from being “rulers takers” to becoming “rulers makers” [ 6 ].…”