Symposium Posts

While each post focuses on distinct contexts and frameworks, several overarching themes emerge. First, the posts reveal divergent conceptualizations and applications of the concepts of double standards in international legal practice, which in turn raises further questions about how best to examine the role of double standards in fields as disparate as international economic and criminal law. Second, the posts underscore the tension between the ideals of universality and the realities of power in international law: whether in the Human Rights Council, international criminal tribunals, or through state practice, double standards reveal the gap between abstract normative aspirations and political constraints that undermine consistent and principled action in specific cases. Third, the posts begin to identify the rhetorical and practical tools used to navigate or exploit this tension. From Esponda’s exploration of argumentative strategies to Schüller’s critique of procedural openings, the posts show how states and institutions justify selective actions while striving to maintain legitimacy. Fourth, some posts broach the question to what extent double standards are a remediable aspect of practice or, alternatively, an unavoidable feature of the international legal system.

In this essay, I argue that while the Zero Draft and Elements Paper recognize the role of trade as a driver of economic growth and development, particularly through regional integration and increased trade finance, these documents fall short of addressing the structural barriers that prevent marginalized trade actors—such as informal cross-border traders (ICBTs), women, and SMEs—from fully participating in and benefiting from trade-driven development. To ensure that trade genuinely fosters inclusive development, the financing for development agenda must move beyond broad commitments and explicitly integrate policies that support marginalized trade actors, particularly within frameworks like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The following sections critically assess the strengths and gaps in the Zero Draft and Elements Paper and propose targeted policy interventions to enhance inclusivity in trade finance and development.

Some of the core objectives of FfD4 are enabling a renewed global financing framework that is underpinned by a commitment to multilateralism and collective action and aligned with national priorities. The African context is especially disadvantaged regarding barriers to meeting these objectives because the political elite, who set the said national priorities and spearhead ‘collective action’, is at the forefront of perpetuating illicit financial flows. The Pandora papers and similar exposés have revealed that African leaders are often at the forefront of illicitly hiding money abroad and moving it around illegally. This creates a paradox, as the very individuals responsible for driving meaningful progress in addressing illicit financial flows are frequently the biggest impediments to such efforts. Peter Ekeh’s concept of the ‘two publics’ provides a compelling theoretical framework for understanding this dynamic.

The essay also emphasizes the importance of leveraging regional initiatives. These initiatives provide a complementary layer to global frameworks by fostering context-specific solutions, enhancing coordination among member states, and facilitating the exchange of best practices. For instance, regional bodies could play an essential role in mediating disputes between creditors and debtors and advocating for equitable treatment of African nations in multilateral debt restructuring forums. The Convention would cure this by institutionalizing capacity-building programs through regional debt advisory centers equips nations with the tools to circumnavigate complex debt negotiations.

The Elements Paper and the Zero Draft present an opportunity for meaningful debt governance reforms, yet their reaffirmation of the IMF’s central role perpetuates the marginalisation of Africa in financial decision-making. This blog has made calls for a transformative approach that decouples debt governance from the Bretton Woods institutions and centres it within the United Nations. A truly inclusive and equitable debt architecture requires decentering the IMF, establishing an independent Global Debt Authority hosted within the UN, and reforming debt sustainability assessments to reflect the needs and priorities of Africa. Without these changes, African debt-dependent economies will continue to face unjust financial constraints, limiting their capacity to achieve sustainable development goals.

In their current form, the proposals in the Elements Papers and the Zero Draft inadequately cover the complex and interconnected issues of climate finance and debt distress, which are crucial for realizing sustainable development in Africa. Therefore, the framework should leverage grant-based climate finance to avoid perpetual concession loans. Unlike loans, grants do not add to the already rising debt burden but instead offer a more stable and sustainable avenue to finance climate action. This will be important to break the vicious cycle of "borrow-and-under-develop" that continues to hold Africa back from realizing both its climate and development aspirations.

This symposium aims to provide a platform for African voices to engage with and critique these foundational proposals. Bringing together perspectives from undergraduate and postgraduate students and early career researchers, the symposium reflects the intellectual dynamism of African youth contributing to global financing debates. These contributions underscore the necessity of ensuring Africa’s priorities and perspectives are central to the FfD4 agenda.

In this analysis, migration and its relation with climate change and development are examined through Sen's (1999) capabilities framework for human mobility. Migration is a people-centric activity where one may want to reside in or relocate to a desired area. Discussions around the connection between climate change and migration are growing in academic and governance contexts. Scholars are increasingly recognising migration's role as a strategy for adaptation and development. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) suggests that there is no direct relation between climate changes and migration decisions. Viewing migration as merely adaptation can understate the varied causes of forced migration, which include sociology, economics, politics, and ecology. Addressing climate migration effectively requires considering political and economic processes and their interrelations.

Traditionally, the world of international cooperation has been split in a binary, where refugee responses and the creation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) were situated in the humanitarian action field, with the consequence that help provided to refugees was reduced to specific situations of short-term displacement, assuming that the initial situation would eventually resolve and refugees would be able to go back to their countries of origin. For many crises, however, this has not been the case, given their complexity and scale. These ‘protracted’ crises, despite the language of urgency, have been at the centre of the humanitarian stage for decades. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the longest protracted situation are the more than 2.4 million Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan, but the situation of Syrian, South Sudanese, Somalis, Sudanese, Congolese or Eritrean refugees also qualifies as ‘protracted’, according to the definition that the UNHCR has been employing since 2004. The evidence of this long-term persistence of crises has been the search for durable solutions, which have been traditionally three: resettlement in another country, voluntary repatriation to the countries of origin and local integration. Yet, these solutions have not been curated by refugees themselves, but rather from the interests of the so-called ‘developed’ nations or the Global North, who have established the policies of the UNHCR through its governing body, the Executive Committee (ExCom).

Refugees as a particularly vulnerable group have increasingly found their way into recent discussions in philosophy, public policy, law, judicial decisions, etc. In fact, the Global Compact on Refugees aims to present a preliminary version of the importance of refugees in contemporary ideas of human agency-based development. Building on this, I propose that deeper engagement through a refugee lens must underlie two interlinked conceptions that are informing law and policy on various rights issues, i.e., ‘human dignity’ and a human capability-based development theory, the Capability Approach (CA). These conceptions are relevant since they have been reifying the way development is viewed to simultaneously address global issues and promote human agency. Yet, till now, even these two ideas are confronted by a (non)citizenship blind spot, particularly in relation to refugees. Thus, I wish to emphasise that the complementary understanding of dignity and CA needs to incorporate the category of ‘refugees’ to be fully coherent as theories of development. I particularly utilise Martha Nussbaum’s foregrounding on dignity in her theory of the CA to highlight its relevance yet the need for further work to include the legally ‘non-citizen’ refugee who does not neatly fit into the idea of nation states and the closely connected citizenship paradigm.