Stand-Alone Posts

The African International Economic Law Network (AfIELN) is pleased to announce the publication of selected papers from their Fourth Biennial AfIELN Conference which held at Strathmore Law School, Nairobi, Kenya in July 2019. The conference theme was Africa’s Participation in International Economic Law in the 21st Century. The AfIELN is one of the regional networks of the Society of International Economic Law (SIEL).

Every April 26, we celebrate the World Intellectual Property Day to learn about the role that intellectual property rights play in encouraging innovation and creativity. This year, the World Intellectual Property Day puts innovation – and the intellectual property rights that support it – at the heart of efforts to create a green future. Why? Because the choices we make today will shape our tomorrow. The earth is our home. We need to care for it.

The Beijing Treaty deals with the intellectual property rights of performers in audiovisual performances, notably by bolstering five kinds of exclusive economic rights for the beneficiaries’ performances fixed in an audiovisual format: the rights of reproduction, distribution, rental, making available and broadcasting and communication to the public.  As home to Africa’s largest movie industry (Nollywood), the third largest movie industry globally, as well as one of the most dynamic global entertainment industries, this Treaty bears significant implications for actors and creative performers in Nigeria.

Given the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the present need for online educational materials and resources, the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law (AVL) is happy to draw our attention to their free online educational resources. 

The Mandela Institute is a leading university centre undertaking research, policy development, and capacity building at the intersection between economics and law. Its mandate is to advance the field of economic regulation.

In response to the COVID-19 crisis, the American Journal of International Law (AJIL) is issuing a worldwide call for papers for an Agora symposium to be published in the October 2020 issue of the Journal.  The topic – “The International Legal Order and the Global Pandemic” – recognizes that the present crisis raises foundational questions for the international legal order that extend beyond the immediate challenges to public health and economic stability.

The Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal (PER/PELJ) invites contributions from authors with regard to the impact of the COVID-19 on the future regulation of foreign investment in developing states.

In this brief post, I want to make sense of Prabhash Ranjan’s brief critique of TWAIL perspectives on international investment law. My main aim is not to mount a defense of TWAIL project(s) on investment law because that might be done more eloquently by others. Instead, I want to make some brief comments about the political valence of, and the assumptions behind, the reservations that Professor Ranjan articulated in this post, and which also appear in his recent book on India and Bilateral Investment Treaties.

It is trite to mention that the benefits and costs from trade expansion may never be evenly distributed across ACs. However, the estimated revenue loss should not be considered as an absolute loss for ACs as the long-term benefits, facilitated by adjustment support remain significant. It will allow comparative advantage to thrive, thereby granting customers and firms access to cheaper products/raw materials in the continent.

States could rely on secondary rules on State responsibility to defend preventative measures relating to COVID-19, yet their successful invocation depends on satisfying several conditions set out in the ILC’s Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this post. Meanwhile, the applicability of the doctrine of margin of appreciation, developed by the European Court of Human Rights, to the claims arising under BITs has been accepted, justifying why investment tribunals should pay deference to governmental judgments of national requirements in the protection of public health when the “discretionary exercise of sovereign power, [is] not made irrationally and not exercised in bad faith”