Volume 19, Issue 1

The aim of this article is to establish a link between business-to-business arbitration and sustainable development, and to demonstrate the potential impact of a functionalist business-centred approach to this relationship. While the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 acknowledges the importance of civil access to justice for sustainable development, it does not fully define access to justice, thereby leaving open to interpretation what types of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms Agenda 2030 envisages, and which parties should have access to them. Building on Cappelletti and Garth’s work on waves of access to justice, the article proposes a ‘functionalist business-centred approach’ to access to justice. Using legal functionalism, this article argues for a novel interpretation of access to justice in the sustainable development discourse that would expressly include business-to-business arbitration as a civil justice institution on the premise that without business-to-business arbitration, access to justice as a sustainable development goal as expressed in SDG 16.3 cannot be fully actualised.

In September 2021, the Chinese government launched the Global Development Initiative (GDI), a program aimed at financing the 2030 Agenda and promoting greener and more sustainable development. This article analyses the compatibility of the GDI with the 2030 Agenda, identifying points of convergence and departure. Despite the GDI’s rhetorical packaging as human-rights based and people-centred, the GDI appears to represent a predominantly needs-based approach to development focused on improving socio-economic wellbeing through targeted poverty alleviation programs. While the GDI is most likely to excel in the area of poverty alleviation, this article cautions that the decoupling of institutions and governance from development may prevent China from translating its investment in material wellbeing into long-run development in states with poor governance and weak institutions.

The principles of sovereignty, equality, and self-determination – which have long been the basis for nonintervention in the affairs of sovereign states – have more recently been widened to condemn outside interference by national governments in the affairs of indigenous communities within their territories. These same principles, however, may equally be employed as arguments by sovereign states to justify their engagement in the affairs of indigenous communities residing within their borders, thereby creating the potential for considerable legal, ethical, and political tension. States are urged to respect the autonomy of indigenous people as well as their right to develop, preserve and transmit their history, traditions, and values to future generations; yet states also owe obligations towards indigenous people to facilitate their enjoyment of certain established rights, even as the provision of these obligations may be incompatible with indigenous peoples’ established practices, values, interests, priorities, and beliefs. Multilateral agencies face a similar dilemma in their engagements with national governments: when to respect the sovereignty of national governments and when to champion international law and covenants (e.g., regarding the rights of women and sexual minorities)? Drawing on cases from education, health care, and environment protection, this paper proposes an analytical framework for articulating and reconciling multi-level rights-based development commitments in low-income countries, where the presence of multilateral agencies and intensifying imperatives to attain global development goals generates forces exacerbating (potentially) competing national and sub-national obligations. The paper juxtaposes the relationship between states and multilateral against the relationship between national governments and indigenous groups in exploring the question of whether the principles of international law can be extended to indigenous peoples in the same degree.

This article examines the implementation of the right to development in the AfCFTA Investment Protocol using an inductive approach. The protocol prioritizes sustainable and inclusive development, offering a novel framework for regulating foreign investments that balances national and regional interests with social and environmental responsibility. Articles 28 and 35 highlight the dual right of host states to regulate investments for development and address developmental disparities. Additionally, Article 31 underscores investors’ obligations to uphold human rights, labor standards, and environmental protection. By providing preferential treatment for local communities and minorities and requiring investors to align with sustainable development goals, the protocol plays a crucial role in protecting marginalized groups. Within this framework, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights exercises its supervisory role to ensure the realization of these rights, while future arbitration mechanisms emphasize transparency and accountability. The protocol redefines traditional principles of international investment law, offering a model for investment governance that harmonizes economic freedom with social justice and environmental sustainability.

Developing countries have implemented their digital transformation initiatives thoroughly, particularly in the context of public services, but those countries have undergone daunting challenges such as digital inclusion, data governance, cybersecurity, and service interoperability in the process. This qualitative study employed a structural comparative legal approach, examining international frameworks such as the OECD Digital Government Index, the EU Digital Government Strategy, and the UN e-Government Survey 2024 to compare and contrast the current exemplified Vietnam’s e-Government initiatives. In addition, secondary quantitative data were systematically analyzed using the most-similar and most-different systems design to evaluate Vietnam’s National Digital Transformation Program at the grassroots governance level compared with international benchmarks. The results reveal that although Vietnam’s digital transformation has gained significantly with the development of international digital transformation frameworks in terms of e-Government services, challenges such as limited digital infrastructure, the digital divide, and cybersecurity gaps still exist, particularly in rural areas. Developing countries like Vietnam must invest in digital infrastructure, address digital literacy gaps, adopt interoperable systems, and strengthen data governance to enhance grassroots governance. It is also advisable for developing countries like Vietnam to comply with global frameworks and foster public–private collaboration so that they could achieve a more inclusive and efficient digital governance model to improve public service delivery, transparency, and social inclusion.

This paper analyses the development of Indonesia’s legal and economic frameworks from the Soekarno era through the presidency of Joko Widodo (Jokowi), with a focus on the intersection of legal reforms, investment policies, and developmentalism. Under President Soekarno, the legal framework reflected a nationalist approach that limited foreign investment, while the New Order era, although initially marked by economic growth, suffered from systemic corruption and inconsistent policy enforcement. The post-Reformasi era saw significant legal changes aimed at decentralization, but these efforts led to regulatory fragmentation and conflicting legal norms at the regional and central levels, undermining investment climate stability. Jokowi’s administration has continued the developmentalist agenda, emphasizing deregulation and debureaucratization to improve the legal and regulatory environment for investment. However, despite these legal reforms, challenges persist, including overlapping regulations and inconsistent legal implementation. Furthermore, Jokowi’s approach to developmentalism has raised concerns regarding the erosion of human rights protections and democratic principles, echoing historical patterns of legal and economic centralization. The paper concludes that, while legal reforms have made progress in facilitating investment, further harmonization and institutional strengthening of the legal system are necessary to achieve sustainable economic development while safeguarding democratic governance and human rights in Indonesia.

Africanization of international investment law (IIL) refers to efforts by African States to reform the international investment regime to suit Africa’s interests. Innovative international investment agreements, like the draft investment protocol of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), exemplify this trend. These agreements aim to promote investments that support the sustainable development of African States. However, sustainable development remains obscure within both scholarly literature and in the context of the African IIL reforms. While most of the innovative African agreements foreground sustainable development, its meaning and scope are unclear in those agreements. Consequently, this paper advances a conceptualization of sustainable development that is consistent with the principles underlying the International Law Association’s 2002 New Delhi Declaration, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDGs 12 and 13. While sustainable development should not be understood as a fixed concept, but rather as a dynamic and contextual process, the principles underlying the International Law Association (ILA) Declaration and the SDGs provide a clear, flexible, and adaptable framework for clarifying the meaning of sustainable development in the Africanized instruments and creating opportunities to combat climate change. They also facilitate coherence in the integration and implementation of sustainable development in African IIL reforms. However, the paper does not suggest that the ILA Declaration and the SDGs offer a conclusive set of standards and principles.

The odious debt doctrine holds that sovereign debts incurred for illegitimate purposes, such as human rights abuses or the personal enrichment of rulers, should not bind successor governments. Although its legal status remains contested, the doctrine has been invoked in various cases where prior regimes misused borrowed funds. This article considers whether similar principles can be applied to foreign investment, particularly when investors support oppressive regimes or engage in harmful activities. It examines how arbitration tribunals have addressed investor misconduct and argues that the reasoning in several arbitral awards points to an emerging doctrine of “odious investment,” justifying the repudiation or limitation of investment treaty obligations with odious investors. Recognizing such a doctrine would provide a legal basis for states to challenge investor claims while also offering a new interpretive and discursive framework for shaping legal arguments and policy. By bridging the fields of sovereign debt and international investment law, the article calls for a systematic approach to investor accountability and the legal consequences of odious financing.

The rhetoric of sustainable development has emerged as a primary consideration in governance, particularly in relation to natural resources. Lithium, for its part, is a critical mineral in the goal of decarbonisation and energy transition driven by the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, which is embedded in the broader context of the transition to a ‘green economy’. The countries of the Lithium Triangle – Bolivia, Argentina and Chile – with 50 % of the world’s lithium reserves, are positioned as key players in this objective. The major powers are seeking supplies of this critical resource to meet their energy and economic objectives as part of the energy transition and have therefore adopted various geopolitical and geoeconomic measures to secure supplies of this mineral. The countries of the lithium triangle want to use this strategic resource to move closer to development through the exploitation and subsequent production of the resource and value-added products. However, lithium extraction generates serious social and environmental tensions that need to be urgently addressed. This article develops a comparative analysis of the lithium governance models of the Lithium Triangle countries and their alignment with the sustainable development framework. This is done through an analysis of the epistemological basis of sustainable development, followed by a cross-pillar (economic, social and environmental) examination of the governance models of these countries. The aim of this study is to highlight the contributions and challenges of lithium governance for the lithium triangle countries and the planet within an integrated framework of sustainable development analysis.

The fair and equitable treatment (FET) standard has emerged as one of the most frequently invoked and scrutinized protections in international investment law, offering a flexible yet controversial means of protecting foreign investors. Although it is often referred to as a “lawyers’ dream clause,” due to its expansive intepretative potential and the lack of precise legal language has led to inconsistent arbitral interpretations and an increasing number of investor claims. These challenges are particularly notable in the energy sector, where states’ sovereign right to regulate intersects with investors’ expectations of legal stability. This article critically examines the evolving contours of the fair and equitable treatment standard in energy-related investment disputes, identifying the factual and legal circumstances under which tribunals have found fair and equitable treatment violations. It asks whether the existing jurisprudence provides sufficient legal predictability and coherence, particularly in balancing investor protection with the host state’s sovereign right to regulate. This article provides a doctrinal and case-based analysis of the fair and equitable treatment standard, examining its normative evolution, treaty formulations, and interpretative patterns in arbitral practice.

Contemporary investment law is marked by deep fragmentation: a network of thousands of treaties that are not always primarily focused on governing international investment relations, overlapping treatment and protection standards, as well as only partially crystallised customary rules shaped by arbitral practice. Currently this fragmentation is increasingly exacerbated by growing global geopolitical competition and international conflicts, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, thereby intensifying the tension between state security imperatives and the evolutionarily established system of foreign investor protection. The article introduces the concept of the investment standards construct – a holistic methodological model for the systemic analysis of International Investment Agreements (IIAs) and for the design of their modernised content. The proposed legal engineering approach moves beyond conventional element-by-element examination of investment treatment and protection standards (such as fair and equitable treatment, national treatment, prohibition of expropriation, etc.) and instead considers them in their dynamic interplay with procedural and other guarantees as well as legal limitations, including right to regulate and security exceptions. The new model’s applicability is demonstrated through doctrinal analysis and arbitral practice, including the current Ukrainian case cluster and other significant disputes. The study shows how the construct functions as an operational tool for both assessing disputes in contexts of economic development and conflict, as well as for designing more resilient and balanced IIAs capable of aligning investor protection with contemporary regulatory needs.

This study examines the practical challenges of using artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial decision-making in Jordan. While many publications focus on the ethical risks of AI in courts, this paper concentrates on the realities of implementation. Using doctrinal sources and materials that reflect conditions in Jordan, it identifies four connected areas of challenge: (1) technology and funding: uneven digital infrastructure, inconsistent data quality, and the full life-cycle costs of procurement, licensing, operation, and maintenance; (2) organization and culture: judicial scepticism and resistance to change; (3) training needs for judges, court staff, and technical teams; and (4) legal and regulatory uncertainty about data governance, accountability, and evidentiary rules.The findings show that these challenges are varied, mutually reinforcing, and arise both before and during the rollout of AI tools. Although the analysis centers on Jordan, the obstacles it identifies and the remedies proposed are broadly representative of conditions in many developing countries facing similar institutional and resource constraints. The paper offers targeted recommendations for each area and argues that real progress requires clear long-term plans, strong coordination across state institutions, and careful adaptation of international experience to Jordan’s legal context. It concludes that the most credible path is a gradual, use-case-driven adoption in which AI serves as a decision-support tool for judges, rather than a replacement, thereby improving efficiency and consistency while preserving judicial independence.