Search

Controversy persists as to whether international law is Eurocentric in nature and international relations stacked against the interest of developing states generally and African states in particular. This article examines these issues and seeks to prove that there are grave inequities in the established systems of international adjudication/arbitration. The paper examines the record of three leading institutions of international dispute resolution with particular reference to their work involving developing states of Africa and beyond. The first two, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) are scrutinised from the perspective of their staffing and organisation, the applicable jurisprudence they maintain and particularly their jurisprudence in relation to two recent disputes involving African states. The aim is to establish whether the international courts continue to maintain a bias towards the interests of richer western states and whether the law continues to perpetuate the injustices of the colonial era. The paper also examines the GATT/WTO dispute resolution systems in order to establish whether the international law espoused by these institutions through their dispute resolution mechanisms have also been tainted by a bias towards the interests of the richer western states. The hypothesis to be tested, therefore, is that both inadvertently and sometimes deliberately these leading institutions have underdeveloped international laws to maintain the strategic and political interests of a few leading western states. The paper, therefore, suggests alternative futures to reduce the effects of the problems highlighted and