Abstract As the rules of the global trading system continue to undergo substantive and normative shifts, the future of trade and development hangs in the balance. Conflicting narratives and norms are challenging the foundation of trade and sustainable development at a critical time. Trade’s traditional focus on efficiency and liberalization has not left adequate room for economic and social development, equity, differentiation, and broad-based benefits. Efforts to make trade rules more sustainable and inclusive, however, have been criticized for lacking precision and impact, as growing nationalism, rising protectionism, and geopolitical tensions threaten to undermine the delicate balance of incremental progress. Studying and tailoring trade and development interventions based on social and distributional design features could deliver impact beyond high-level commitments and bridge these divides. Over the past several decades, sustainable development has been integrated into trade rules to varying degrees at the multilateral and regional levels. New legal instruments, particularly new regional trade agreement models, have expanded the connection between trade and a range of issues, including labor rights, environmental sustainability, Indigenous rights, and women’s economic empowerment. This trend, coupled with greater coordination at the multilateral level and a growing body of international soft law instruments, has also advanced new, more pluralistic legal models at a time when the multilateral system is under siege. These approaches are a notable step forward and could be expanded and adapted to better address distributional challenges. What is missing, however, is a road map on how to get there. This article addresses gaps in both scholarship and practice by combining a typology for comparing international legal instruments with more “micro” domestic and stakeholder-focused approaches. In doing so, it builds upon previous work to develop a functional and qualitative comparison of trade agreements and related areas of domestic law, incorporating a “micro international law” conceptual framework that assesses social and distributional aspects at a more granular and procedural level and places greater emphasis on stakeholder interests and input. This focus on the socio-legal and contextual dimension of trade and development, which is often largely overlooked or loosely relegated to domestic law, holds the possibility of identifying and diffusing legal innovation at the domestic and international levels to achieve non-economic goals. These dynamics are deserving of greater study, with trade agreements more carefully evaluated to avoid broad, aspirational constructions and domestic law assessed through a stakeholder-focused and procedural lens.

Abstract Science and technology are key driving forces behind change in modern society, influencing our expectations, politics, economy, and culture. A recent study by the World Health Organisation finds that nearly a quarter of global deaths – especially among children under five – stem from preventable environmental causes. On April 10, 2024, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC warns that the world has only 2 years to act decisively to prevent more severe climate consequences. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, propelling global warming and climate change, which carry not only humanitarian but also serious financial consequences. The G20 nations and the Financial Stability Board, which monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system, have highlighted climate change as a major threat to global financial stability. In response to the impending climate catastrophe, Australia enacted the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024, requiring corporations to make mandatory climate-related financial disclosures. These reforms – which include, inter alia, a new legal duty imposed on company directors – are scheduled to be implemented in phases beginning in January 2025. This article analyzes how the directors’ duty of care and diligence aligns with their responsibilities to disclose climate-related information. Drawing on a doctrinal analysis methodology informed by archival sources, it also critically examines how the directors’ duty of care and diligence could be applied under Australia’s corporations law before and after the 2024 legislation, and how this statutory overhaul may influence legal reforms in other jurisdictions. The study concludes with its key findings and the broader policy implications. The legislative reforms may guide the shaping of climate-related disclosure law within the Asia–Pacific region.

Abstract Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are being currently developed by most central banks in the world as a promising development mechanism: they may foster innovation in a somehow stagnant financial sector, stimulate diversification in products and services offered to consumers, and grant citizens broader access to sophisticated market products that are up to this moment available only to professional investors. All these potential benefits, however, come along with raising concerns. CBDCs are looked down by those who see relevant risks for data privacy. Critics also highlight the underpinning risks for financial stability, considering that radical changes in money issuance may affect the most prominent actors of the financial system – the banks, which may no longer play such a relevant role in the economic process. Though sometimes far-fetched, these issues are still relevant in the current debate. When supporters and critics brandish their perspectives in general terms, however, the high level of experimentalism involved in designing CBDCs is overlooked, in spite of its importance to understanding monetary innovation. This paper proposes a more empirical and less abstract approach to institutional aspects of CBDCs. The main goal of this work is to emphasize how official digital currencies should consider the regulatory framework under which they will effectively operate. This regulatory perspective reveals not only the varied legal landscape of official digital money but also how the potential contribution of CBDCs to development is conditioned by their institutional design, reflecting policy ambitions and also deep political and economic constraints. Within this empirical agenda, the paper analyzes one particular case of CBDC implementation, the Brazilian “Drex,” exploring its main strategic decisions as well as the policy choices for regulatory design.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.