The international investment regime is in flux. The mainstream practice of investment law and arbitration works on the basis of the regime's foundations in contract and property law. However, critical scholarship in the field has unearthed the coloniality of power that permeates both the practice of international investment law and the current reform exercise led by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III. These critical scholars warn of the imminent reproduction and entrenchment of the systemic inequities, power asymmetries, and investment law's investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) regime which is skewed against post-colonial host states. The two books1 under review offer a range of thought-provoking approaches for analyzing the past, present, and future of investment law. This Review Essay categorizes these books into two modes of critical scholarship on international investment law: moderate and radical.2 In Part II, I flesh out the conceptual categories of moderate and radical critique. In Part III, I analyze the books under review through the lens of these two conceptual frameworks. In Part IV, I turn to the question of race and investment law. This Review Essay suggests that race should not be neglected in our analysis of the past, present, and, most importantly, the future of investment law—a core theme that both books under review does not engage with. Part V briefly concludes.

This Essay explores whether the African Court of Human and People's Rights’ (African Court) Registry and Legal Division have a similar expansive role in the dispute settlement mechanism as the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Secretariat. The African Court is the African Union's regional body for enforcing human rights. This Essay contributes to the scholarship on African international courts by testing the central arguments in Pauwelyn and Pelc's “Who Guards the ‘Guardians of the System’? The Role of the Secretariat in WTO Dispute Settlement”1 through a comparative analysis of the role of the Secretariat within the African Court.2 Despite the growing jurisprudence and influence of Africa's international courts, they continue to be neglected by mainstream scholarship of international courts and tribunals. This is evident in Pauwelyn and Pelc's article, which does not refer to any of Africa's seven international courts and tribunals. For that matter, the article makes no reference to any international tribunal outside Europe or the United States.3 Our analysis illustrates the fact that the influence of the African Court's Registry and Legal Division (Registry) in the process for dispute settlement is not as significant and concerning as that of the WTO Secretariat. As such, the influence of the Registry on the outcome of a case is significantly limited and does not raise any legitimacy crisis like the WTO. We attribute this disparity to the operational and structural disparities between the African Court and the WTO. In the following paragraphs, we examine each of the factors that Pauwelyn and Pelc raise concerning the influence of the WTO staff in WTO panel and Appellate Body proceedings4 in the context of the functions of the African Court Registry.

The judgment in Houngue Éric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin adds to the growing body of human rights jurisprudence on national electoral processes in Africa's international courts. Houngue Noudehouenou's (Houngue) case was sparked by a series of amendments to the 1990 Constitution of the Republic of Benin (Benin), Law No. 2019-40 (Revised Constitution), and changes to Benin's electoral law (para. 1). Houngue argued that the cumulative effect of the amendments violated his right to stand for election in the upcoming 2021 presidential election as an independent candidate, as well as his right to freedom of expression and freedom of association.