Analysis

Both the proponents and critics of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) have called for a closer examination of the state of affairs in Third World countries, as opposed to the sole focus of examining the impact of colonialism and Western action, to explain and understand the impact of international law on these countries. The aim for such a call, mainly of the critics, appears to be the need to highlight the role of actors within the Third World in the existing socio-economic and political conditions and the problems in these countries. While conceding the share of responsibility of Third World leadership for the ongoing cycle of problems faced by Third World people, the call of TWAIL scholars primarily focuses on the grander objective of elevating Third World voices, narratives, and discourse into a meaningful mainstream position. Oreva Olakpe’s book makes a great contribution in this respect. It methodically examines the understanding of international law and its impact on the everyday lives of people in the Global South. It does so by solely relying on sources of knowledge in the Global South. The book makes a crucial epistemological intervention that seriously questions the status quo of knowledge production in international law, which heavily relies on the laws, policies, and experiences of the Global North, and asserts the vitality of shifting to the laws, policies, and experiences of the Global South to generate knowledge

The African Pharmaceutical Technology Foundation (APTF) was established in 2023 to improve Africa’s local pharmaceutical capacity and access to technologies needed to discover and manufacture medicines. This new initiative was prompted by the vaccine inequities experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, I highlight four critical concerns regarding the structural and operational framework of the APTF, which have the potential to undermine the Foundation's objectives and legitimacy: the misallocation of public resources due to the existence of a similar agency established by the African Union (AU), the Foundation's endorsement of BioNTech's opaque "black box" system, which conflicts with its objectives, the continental approach that overlooks the diversity of the African continent, and the lack of a clear public accountability structure in its governance framework. Consequently, I offer preliminary suggestions on how these concerns might be addressed.

Opening with the impact of untold narratives, Oreva Olakpe’s book, South-South Migrations, and the Law from Below, analyses South-South migrants in international law through a TWAIL lens. It considers ‘stories of building community, finding justice outside the protections of the state, and of their struggles against discrimination and exclusion within a state that does not recognize international migrant and refugee protections.’ (2) It weaves the experiences of undocumented migrants in the spaces that they are occupying while situating the impact of their experiences in international legal work. The book intentionally centers on undocumented communities as subjects of international law to map how they interact, shape, and resist in their own spaces. Doing so, the book critiques dominant literature that treats the Global South as objects of international law. The book attests to the agencies of undocumented migrants.

International legal scholarship on migration remains obsessively focused on migration from the global north to the global south. Even knowledge production anchored in critical traditions within international law, such as Third World Approaches to International Law (“TWAIL”), tends to skew in the direction of analysis that centers Third World encounters with the First. This general orientation comes at the costly expense of a deeper understanding of what Oreva Olakpe terms “South-South migrations” in her powerful intervention addressing this glaring shortcoming in the literature. Neglect of detailed study of experiences of international law in the global south, and in South-South relations, results in more than a merely incomplete picture of the nature of international law.

International court decisions, the corruption of the elite in the Global South, and the refusal of states to uphold their obligations towards people who are excluded from the privileges of citizenship shape how migrants experience law, as well as how they forge their paths to justice, recognition, and access. This book and symposium contribute to efforts to understand and document how international law impacts migrant communities, but also how these communities fill the lacunae created by law and migrant status through their acts of contestation and innovative approaches. It delves into the evolving approaches to migration and international obligations in the two states as they face new migration-related challenges.

This analysis dives deep into the Somalia's admission to the East Africa Community (EAC), with the objective of dissecting the admission procedure and analyzing Somalia's Accession Treaty, while scrutinizing the EAC Verification Mission Report. It was noted that while the EAC Treaty declares key principles like good governance, people-centeredness, transparency, and democracy, the specific procedures and rules that it provides for, do not do justice to those principles. This blog therefore, calls for a reform of the EAC institutions by moving the institutions further away from elitism and bureaucracy and bring it closer to the people-centeredness envisaged by the Treaty.

This long-awaited book provides a fresh view of how international law is forged, implemented and practiced in Africa, offering a global vision of the position that the African continent presently occupies in the international legal order. In addition to some contributions by European authors, the book mostly gathers young African scholars (including the editor, one of the most promising African international lawyers of our times) who consider different aspects of international law.

Justice Robin Knowles’ decision in the Nigeria v. P&ID case has received, rightly so, its fair share of international attention from arbitrators, scholars, legal practitioners and commentators alike. The decision has had a seismic effect, if not drawing significant attention, on the international arbitration landscape, for two reasons. Firstly, while the subject award is not the first to be set aside on account of fraud and/or breach of public policy of the seat of arbitration, such decisions are rare and far in between. One would have to go back years, if not decades, to find an award set aside on these grounds. Secondly, the decision has significantly redefined arbitration as we understand it, shaking it to the core, reigniting discussions on its viability and suitability, particularly in matters regarding investor-state disputes.

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.

African heads of state are slated to meet this weekend for the 37th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union and they could be prompted to make an unforced error that could weigh heavily in the continent’s plans to promote digital industrialization and the bridging of the digital divide.