Thread by @loyaladvisor

My class today looked at foreign investment and the goal of development. The initial focus was twofold: first, the HOW, WHY, and WHAT countries sign up for when they conclude investment treaties; and second, the impacts of investment treaties on governance & development.

The groundwork was laid out by @laugepoulsen @JBonnitcha @WaibelM09 great book, The Political Economy of the Investment Treaty Regime. But I paired the introduction and review of the politics of developing countries with a case study on South Africa.

We started with @laugepoulsen article (which is a shortened piece from his book). We discussed the history in South Africa and elaborated on the experience of officials to negotiate these treaties, academic.oup.com/isq/article/58…

We discussed how the case study explained lack of consideration, inter alia due to lack of expertise, as to how SA laws would interact with treaty obligations, especially relating to reforms about equitable access to all SA natural resources in the years of post-apartheid regime.

But we also discussed the pivotal moment for SA that changed treaty-making from a photo opp to a serious endeavour: the rise of investor-State dispute settlement, and in this case, the Foresti claims. investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dis…

In considering this case study, we questioned how States calculate the benefits and risks of investment treaties, bringing in scholarship from @emma_aisbett @KylaTienhaara @nicolasmperrone @LCotula and Yackee to illuminate experience on the ground all up to the signing official.

We also drew from @AntheaERoberts @taylor__stjohn work on UNCITRAL and their elucidation of plausible folk theories. And whether ISDS is believed to attract capital, and how can that be the case. ejiltalk.org/uncitral-and-i…

But to not stop at this case study, we considered SA's SADC Model treaty template, and I asked them to consider what was different - what surprised them - what was missing and why. iisd.org/itn/wp-content…

We also raised the new models from India (I offered @pranjan12781 works as further readings) as a comparator State learning from time and experience with investment treaties and the new requirements for exhausting (and we mean EXHAUSTING) local remedies first.

I also spoke to them about SA and its recent submissions at UNCITRAL; and we debated whether reforms to the existing dispute settlement mechanism was enough -some students saw real value in creating consistency of decision-making or adding new methods for improving upon treaties.

We also took note of another element to countries "developing" - the improvement of domestic governance. And for this consideration, we weaved in @JBonnitcha careful case study on Myanmar, which TL:DR, shows treaties have little to no impact on government decision-making.

To deepen our discussion on the idea of investment law in the lens of on development, I shared M. Sornarajah, On fighting for global justice: the role of a Third World international lawyer, to discuss the NIEO, Western powers, and standards of global governance.

I closed with a thought: while States can cooperate as students we must be conscious of generalizations that fail to explain experiences of each country. Historical context explains future policy choices. On that note, we turn next unique efforts of China BRI, Brazil, and ACFTA.