Volume 14, Issue 1

Religion, law and development intersect in a number of ways. Almost one-third of the world’s Muslim population resides in Africa. With a focus on Africa and taking into account Africa’s triple heritage as envisioned by A. Mazrui, a product resulting from three major influences: an indigenous heritage borne out of time and climate change; the heritage of Eurocentric capitalism forced on Africans by European colonialism; and the spread of Islam by both jihad and evangelism, this paper seeks to review the impact that African Traditional Religion (ATR) as a component of the indigenous heritage, have on the development and enforcement of law in Africa. This paper seeks to address the impact of religion on state formation, examining how colonialism, the Fulani jihads and migration have impacted on the body of law in Africa by introducing Islamic and Judeo-Christian tenets and constructs in the administration of secular states and theocracies. ATR presents itself as a lived reality, regulating the way of life, business transactions, etc. inter alia. There is close proximity between law and religion in Africa and also in the Islamic world. The practice of Islam in Africa is not static and is constantly being reshaped by prevalent social, economic, and political conditions. Generally, Islam in Africa often adapted to African cultural contexts and belief systems forming Africa’s own orthodoxies. The paper also examines how concepts of ATR have found place in the body of law through the inclusion of customary norms and usages in the law applicable, mainly through constitutional endorsement. It addresses the relevance of religion, culture to the development of the law (the intersection between religion and the law) and how the resultant body of law impacts on implementation of the law for development. The paper examines the role of the resultant body of law as a bridge and at times as a distraction to transactions between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds for development. The paper concludes with recommendations on how the intersection of religion, law and development can better be utilised to foster sustainable development, most especially the Sustainable Development Goals premised in Agenda 2030, among others.

A noticeable increase in the scope of powers of the constitutional supervisory body of Serbia is directly related with a qualitative change in the status of the Constitutional Court. The purpose of the article is to analyse the competences of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia in protecting rights and freedoms as the most important area of its activity. The article presents a study of the increased powers of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia, the purpose of which is to protect rights and freedoms. The leading method in this study is the system analysis method, which allows us to assess the significance of the constitutional complaints institution in Serbia. Studying the current regulation of the competence of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, the author concludes that the significantly expanded competence of the Constitutional Court of Serbia fully reflects its status as a constitutional body representing the fourth judicial control authority in the state. It also ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and protects the foundations of the constitutional system of Serbia, including protection of rights and freedoms in the Republic of Serbia.

In the vast literature on natural disasters one aspect is largely unexplored, and this is the two-way relationship between natural disasters and the performance of public (government) institutions responsible for mitigating these natural disasters. The first relationship is that poor performance of public institutions responsible for mitigating natural disasters worsens the impact of natural disasters. The disaster literature is silent on the second relationship that, I argue, exists between natural disasters and public institutions: natural disasters can overwhelm the public institutions responsible for mitigating natural disasters and, as a result, it may make them even more ineffective. This paper is my attempt to fill this gap. I argue that this two-way relationship creates a particularly serious problem for developing countries, having the potential to trap developing countries in a vicious cycle: poor performance of public institutions triggering natural disasters, and natural disasters making public institutions more ineffective by overwhelming them. The exploration of this two-way relationship is necessary to have a more nuanced understanding of the ways in which natural disasters can detrimentally impact developing countries. The paper concludes that to break this vicious cycle, as a first step developing countries need to focus on institutional reform. Reform proposals should aim at improving the performance of the public institutions that are directly responsible for mitigating natural disasters. To address this challenge, scholars and governments must specifically identify the public institutions that are responsible for particular activities under review. Only then can the following questions be explored: what are the weaknesses of such public institutions, and how can their performance be improved?

By the late 1990s, international financial institutions prescribed a ‘good governance’ paradigm that sought to empower the judiciary to curb ‘state capture’ by the corrupt political elites of developing countries. Good governance was supposed to act as a midwife to economic development, providing the ‘rule of law’ for the free market reforms of structural adjustment programs that had hitherto failed to provide much success. This article examines the implementation of ‘good governance’ in Pakistan, arguing that empowering the judiciary served to weaken an already weak legislature. The tangible issues of popular political representation and economic redistribution were displaced by the discourses on the control of corruption and the rule of law. Based on this experience, the article encourages a shift in law and developmental theorizing to focus on forms of legislature and democratic rule and a redefined role for the ‘civil society’ within this.

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is impacting on food systems and has exposed the poor state of food security and lack of food system infrastructures. Consequently, sub-Saharan Africa countries face the compounded risk of COVID-19 and hunger. The syndemic will pose serious challenges for achieving food security imperatives of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. This article discusses the dynamics of food security imperatives brought about by COVID-19 pandemic. It examines the mitigating efforts of sub-Saharan African governments in addressing COVID-19 and how this effort impacts the attainment of SDGs One, Two, Three and 12. It finds that while the pandemic provides an opportunity for governments to strengthen their commitments, it raises questions on the ambitious global efforts to deliver SDGs by 2030. It recommends that African governments need to maximize intra-African trade with investments in agricultural biotechnological infrastructure in order to close the gap between the targets and the realities, in the efforts towards achieving the SDGs.

The decision of a country to join regional trade agreements (RTAs) is guided by its expected welfare gains, though potentials of both trade creation and trade diversion cannot be ruled out through such arrangements. The slow progress of the World Trade Organization negotiations has created a demand for mega-regional trade agreements in the last decade, but the recent US and Indian pullout from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), respectively, raised a question on their attraction. One of the major underlying objectives of RTAs is to deepen intra-bloc participation in regional value chains (RVCs) and International Production Networks (IPNs), through adoption of reformed rules of origin (ROO) provisions and mutual recognition agreements (MRA) for standard harmonization. This article, through an analysis of the RVC–IPN participation of the RCEP countries, attempts to understand to what extent the Indian pullout from RCEP can be linked to its unfulfilled expectations. The observations indicate that, relatively modest participation in the RVCs, declining domestic value added content of exports and the associated adverse trade balance scenario have critically shaped the Indian standpoint. The evolving Indian orientation towards trade remedy mechanism can be viewed in this backdrop. The analysis concludes that in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) period, the Indian decision to consolidate domestic manufacturing sector needs to acknowledge the reality rather than being guided by the rhetoric.

Increasingly, the economy of industrialised countries moves away from being based on a multiplicity of independent innovators to one characterised by cross-licensing and the pooling of intellectual property (IP) rights. Competition law is accorded a more limited role. Refusals to license or restrictive licence terms are tolerated. This paradigm emphasises the innovation at the expense of the dissemination rationale of IP and competition law. The pressure on developing countries is to follow suit. However, this approach jeopardises overcoming the technology dependence of these states. Yet, the political consensus underlying the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was that, in exchange for IP rights protection, a transfer and dissemination of technology benefiting the global South would occur. This has not taken place so far. Taking this promise seriously requires according an enhanced, more social role to competition law. Articles 8(2), 31 and 40 of TRIPS – the TRIPS competition rules – could be interpreted in a way to accomplish this. This article argues in favour of a “prodevelopment” approach to IP-related competition law. This could be viewed as a demand of the rule of law at the international level. On the one hand, treaties such as TRIPS are to be interpreted in good faith. On the other, public interest and human rights considerations justify, as it were, require, such an approach. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS can play a crucial role in this regard. They reflect such public interest considerations as “object and purpose” of TRIPS. They also provide a link to international human rights law (IHRL). IHRL protects a (group) right to development, confirming “policy space” for World Trade Organization (WTO) members and the freedom to opt for a competition law model that facilitates dissemination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further protects various economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). These rights may be said to give rise to “transfer and dissemination of technology” as a human right. Duties under the right to development and “territorial” and “extraterritorial” human rights obligations (ETOs) under the ICESCR support an understanding of competition law which is pro development, which takes account of local access and welfare needs. The article concludes with a set of 10 consolidated considerations for a “prodevelopment” IP-related competition law.

Property rights are contentious in any jurisdiction. But the right to property in India, adopted as a fundamental right in Article 31 of the Constitution of the India, 1950 (“Article”), has had a particularly tumultuous legal and political history. It holds the distinction of being the second most debated Article in the Constituent Assembly, the most amended provision of the Constitution and the only fundamental right to ever be deleted. The history of the Article is commonly understood as arising from an ideological institutional conflict between a Parliament in pursuit of socialism and a judiciary safeguarding individual freedoms. However, looking at the Article and its initial amendments from a “law and development” perspective provides a critique of the current narrative of “conflict” and offers an alternative interpretation of the history of Article 31. The paper argues that rather than arising from the pursuit of either authoritarian socialist planning or an egalitarian social revolution, the travails of the Article came in the context of India’s quest for economic modernity through a process of “passive revolution”. The powers of eminent domain reinforced in the Article empowered the state to modernise economic relations in industry and agriculture by restructuring a semi-feudal pre-capitalist property rights regime established during colonialism along productive capitalist lines. In this process, the Article helped to consolidate the powers of the developmental state in the domain of economic policy; forged the relationship between state, market and the individual; and helped shape the regime of private property rights in India. Understanding the evolution of the fundamental right to property in India therefore, not only tells a key part of India’s development story but also contributes to the “law and development” literature by assimilating diverse historical experiences within its framework, which, as critics have long argued, tends to have a strong Eurocentric bias.