This chapter focuses on Northern Ireland, with Scotland as a point of comparison and outlines efforts in Northern Ireland to try to ensure that citizens can shape the 'normalisation' of political life. It examines the short-lived Civic Forum and the statutory duties in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as forms of inclusive policy-making. The significance of the voluntary and community sector in policy-making is connected to sectarianism in local formal politics, the 'democratic deficits' of direct rule by Westminster and the conditions for receipt of funding from the European Union (EU). The tradition of participation and EU-inspired district partnerships led the transversal party, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition (NIWC), to propose the constitutional innovation of a Civic Forum. The chapter deals briefly with the motivations for and the contexts of reform; some similarities and differences in institutions and procedures; and the depth of 'new politics'.

In the light of the growing debate about international investment and developing economies, this chapter begins by establishing that the term ‘investment’ in investment law is a product of the extremist conception of liberalism in economics. On this basis, the chapter examines whether there are justifications in support of the arguments that Africa has been unfairly treated in international investment terms since decolonisation. The chapter also inquires whether the new international economic order of the 1970s brought any investment successes to Africa. Finally, the chapter provides a few remarks on the position of Africa post-1990s and beyond.

This chapter looks at the production of the figure of the worker-citizen as a response to the discrimination against migrants in the public discourse, and the attempts to rectify them as rightful citizens. It traces the process of how this identity of worker-citizen is constructed through acts of ‘voicing’ (of migrants’ grievances), ‘challenging marginalisation’ and ‘constructing a new identity’ for migrant workers. The NGOs which engage in this form of activism aim, though not always successfully, to liberate migrant workers from the hierarchical spatio-temporal rural/urban, backward/modern, and economically useless/useful binaries entrenched in structural citizenship. Consciously cast in the language of class and the value of labour, their figure of worker-citizen rejects both the suzhi discourse and the hukou system’s denigration of migrant workers as second-class citizens, and aims to reshape migrants’ relationship to both the rural and the urban.

This chapter sheds light on the extent of the emancipation from the international investment protection regime contemplated by the African Society of International Law (AfSIL) and situates it against the backdrop of some recent contestations of international investment law. After recalling the drafting history of the AfSIL Principles and some recent contestations, the attention turns to the content of, and possible adjustment to, the international investment protection regime vindicated by AfSIL. This short chapter ends with a few concluding remarks on the choice for an emancipatory mode of contestation rather than a reformist one.

In a largely chronological manner, this chapter presents a history of the mutual co-constitution of the citizenship regime and discourse. It argues that the current formulation of citizenship in China is founded not only on the formal legislative aspect of the hukou system, but also on the underlying citizenship discourse, which stems from the processes of modernisation, urbanisation and nationalism, underlined by the new economic divisions created by market reforms. The chapter traces genealogies of citizenship in China in order to reveal how it has been constructed through the mechanism of the spatio-temporal ‘othering’ of the rural/migrant worker population. It then presents the attempts by central and local governments to reform the hukou system, arguing that despite much debate about reform of the system since 2003, and particularly since 2014, not enough has been done to truly transform the citizenship status of migrant workers in China. It also discusses the state-prescribed citizenship practices, which are enforced both through the law and through public campaigns and school education, and reflects on what type of citizen they promote. The final section of the chapter sets out how these various historical and contemporary discourses have been entangled in local China, in the form of the municipal authorities’ policies and narratives towards migrant workers in Shenzhen, Beijing and Hangzhou, the main fieldwork sites.

This chapter analyses two acts, ‘defending rights’ and ‘educating in legal rights’, which utilise state-designated channels (in this case, labour laws), and therefore do not challenge the state directly. The chapter demonstrates the special role which labour rights play in negotiation of citizenship in China. Unlike aspirational kinds of rights, such as the right to the city or the right to self-organise, labour rights are usually framed as already existing ‘legal rights’ (hefa quanyi), which simply need to be ‘respected’, and, until recently, this made activism around them somehow less contentious. The chapter reflects critically on when ‘defending rights’ and ‘educating in legal rights’ can have a transformative effect on citizenship and when they help to maintain the status quo, by comparing cases when they help to produce active and informed citizens, and when they do not.

The occurrence of a major disagreement between the foreign investor and a host State may lead these two parties to a foreign direct investment transaction to seek judicial means to settle their dispute. Most often, the disagreement relates to the interpretation or application of either of a conventional instrument – that is, a State contract or an investment protection and promotion agreement – or of a provision of the domestic law of the host State, particularly the regulations pertaining to investments. The analysis of the current practice of foreign investors, companies and multinational firms in particular reveals a preference for the arbitral settlement of investment disputes. Arbitration reassures foreign investors in the possibility to have recourse to remedies other than internal ones, through national courts or conciliation and mediation institutions, in the event of an investment dispute. Furthermore, opting for the arbitration of investment disputes aims potentially at increasing the volume of investments flows in the continent.L’avènement d’un désaccord majeur entre l’investisseur étranger et l’Etat d’accueil de son investissement peut conduire ces deux principales parties à l’opération d’investissement direct étranger à rechercher des voies juridictionnelles de règlement de leur différend. Le plus souvent, le désaccord a pour fondement l’interprétation ou l’application soit d’un instrument conventionnel, en l’occurrence un contrat d’Etat ou un accord de protection et de promotion des investissements, soit d’une disposition du droit positif de l’Etat hôte, notamment une disposition découlant de la réglementation en matière d’investissements. L’analyse de la pratique actuelle des opérateurs privés de l’investissement international, des entreprises et des firmes multinationales révèle une préférence pour le règlement arbitral des différends les opposant aux Etats hôtes de leurs investissements. D’une part, cette ouverture à l’arbitrage constitue un élément de sécurisation de l’investissement étranger qui rassure l’investisseur sur la libre disposition des voies de recours, autres qu’internes ou par le biais d’institutions de conciliation et de médiation, en cas de survenance d’un différend investisseur/Etat d’accueil. D’autre part, le recours préférentiel à l’arbitrage des différends d’investissements permet potentiellement un accroissement du volume d’investissements en direction du continent.