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.

This chapter demonstrates that NGOs’ demands revolving around labour cannot be divorced from wider citizenship rights, such as the right to voice, assembly, striking, recognition, representation and political participation. It does so by presenting three further acts: ‘educating beyond rights’, ‘advocating and petitioning’ and ‘claiming rights’ (to independent labour representation, collective bargaining and strikes). These acts are not performed through state-defined legal channels, and instead seek to transform the law itself. The chapter argues that while the activism of NGOs performed around labour affects the citizenship structure in a variegated way, some NGOs recognise citizenship transformation as a precondition to successfully tackling labour issues in China.

As a result of the criticism against investment treaties, South Africa terminated several of its investment treaties and adopted a piece of legislation on the protection of investment. Against this background, the chapter analyzes and compares the protection provided under the Act with the protection provided under investment treaties. Following a thorough examination, the chapter argues that the Act offers a level of protection definitely lower than that normally provided by international investment treaties from both substantive and procedural standpoints. The chapter ends on a pessimistic note regarding the appropriateness of South Africa’s response to the criticism against investment treaties and offers alternative options for the way forward.

The book’s conclusion reflects further on the internal and external limitations to citizenship challenge driven by migrant worker NGOs, particularly in the light of the crackdown in recent years on activists and NGOs under Xi Jinping. The chapter enquires what this crackdown signifies, given that the main organisations targeted are labour NGOs, and what role the ‘citizenship challenge’ has played in instigating the state’s harsh response. The conclusion also extrapolates the findings beyond the case of labour NGOs in China, by presenting the applicability of the citizenship framework to other instances of civic activism in China and other states facing internal migrations.

In an attempt to examine to what extent Africa could take as an example the EU proposal on the reform of investment treaty arbitration, this chapter analyzes the different aspects of the EU Investment Court System (ICS). In this context, the chapter first explores whether the EU ICS is actually innovative and subsequently asks what it would mean if this system were adopted by African States. Finally, it is argued that the EU ICS is likely to provide consistency and coherence, as well as ensuring the independence and impartiality of the Tribunal Members. The chapter ends on a positive note regarding the EU ICS. It is asserted that a regional approach by African States could also integrate broader development concerns in their investment regulations.

This chapter sheds light on the implications of the doctrine of constitutional supremacy on the enforceability of arbitral awards in Ghana in a situation where its constitution regulates the conclusion of international business transactions or international investment agreements (IIAs). After analyzing applicable municipal and international law in relation to the constitutionality of treaties and international economic transactions, the chapter contends that certain conditions have to be fulfilled for an IIA or an international transaction to come into existence in Ghana. Finally, the chapter argues that the doctrine of constitutional supremacy places limitations on the enforcement of constitutionally illegal international business transactions and IIAs in Ghana.

Despite the growing demands for a coherent approach on international investment policy, African States are yet to clearly develop a unified and original approach towards the development of an authentic initiative that evinces an African experience. It is the basic argument of this chapter that the current reform initiatives in Africa, whether at the regional, continental or national level, not only lack conference, but also require further philosophical thinking. Such reforms must be based on continental consensus with a clear vision on the expected results and they must also take account of and provide avenues for the representation of all stakeholders, including foreign investors.

This chapter focuses on migrant NGOs’ claims to the city through acts of ‘integrating into the city’ and ‘claiming the right to the city’. Urban citizenship is understood here not only as the legal right to belong to the city, but also as a process of building community within the city and participating in building the city, both materially and culturally. The chapter also analyses whether various forms of engagement and intervention within urban spaces, which take place through these acts, can challenge the powerful discourses around urbanisation, prescribed practices of passivity and the legal constructs at the heart of urban citizenship. This is observed through examples of creating spaces of belonging, defending the last house standing in a demolished urban village, or establishing schools for migrant worker children in defiance of urban development policies and the constraints of the hukou system. The chapter also takes into account the obstacles to such citizenship transformation by reflecting critically upon the structural limitations put up by the state and by capital to bar migrant workers from successfully claiming the right to the city.