
This section brings together a collection of insights, analytical foundations, and policy and legal analyses examining how international investment law operates in practice under real-world institutional and political constraints, and how these dynamics shape governance outcomes, decision-making, and the distribution of power between states, investors, and affected communities.

Investment-related harm begins in lived experiences, loss of land, water contamination, and displacement, not in legal disputes. Yet when these harms enter formal dispute resolution, they are narrowed, relocated, and filtered through the interests of investors and states, leaving affected… Read more

Once participation has legitimised the project, conflict migrates. Resistance is recast as breach. Community harm becomes investor loss. The village disappears; the tribunal takes its place. In investment arbitration, the dispute is no longer about displacement, contamination, or consent. It… Read more

Investment law is often described as technical, specialised, even neutral. Yet the rules that govern cross-border investment are not impartial; they reflect particular interests and priorities, protecting capital while leaving communities vulnerable to disruption. Large-scale investment reshapes governance itself: it… Read more
Structural critiques such as Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and postcolonial legal theory… Read more…
Investor‑state protections in treaties and contracts safeguard cross-border investments and manage risks. Key standards like… Read More…
Investment treaties do not merely regulate economic activity; they structure political and economic power. Through…
International investment law operates through a complex architecture of treaty standards, arbitral doctrines, and governance… Read more…

East African states face the dual imperative of attracting foreign investment and safeguarding regulatory autonomy to pursue sustainable development. Legacy bilateral investment treaties (BITs) contain broad substantive protections and unfettered access to Investor‑State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which have cumulatively constrained policy space, exposed governments to costly arbitration, and generated regulatory chill.
Against this backdrop, states including Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania are reassessing treaty commitments, renegotiating legacy agreements, and participating in global reform discussions at UNCITRAL Working Group III. This brief argues that East African governments must shift from reactive litigation management to proactive treaty design that aligns investment protection with sustainable development objectives.
Key reform proposals to international investment governance include: (1) narrowing and clarifying fair and equitable treatment (FET); (2) requiring exhaustion of local remedies; (3) embedding investor obligations and host‑state counterclaims; (4) articulating public‑interest carve-outs; and (5) engaging in multilateral ISDS reform. This piece outlines sequenced implementation roadmap to guide institutional action.

