The Changing Pattern and Future of Foreign Investment Law and Policy in Ghana: The Role of Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses the implications of investment promotion and protection agreements ( ippa s) for domestic investment law and policymaking in Ghana. It reviews the terms of domestic investment legislation prior to and after Ghana entered into ippa s to ascertain the differences in the content of domestic laws and the role of the ippa s in the changing pattern of foreign investment law and policy in Ghana. The review shows fundamental differences. Whereas, for example, under the pre-investment treaty domestic investment laws, a proposed investment could be admitted only if it would contribute to the national economy, the post-investment treaty domestic investment law requires only minimum capital for admission. What explains the fundamental change in the content of the post-investment treaty domestic law? The literature reveals that the change in government policy from a regulatory to a more investment promotion-oriented policy explains the shift in the content in investment law in Ghana. The post-investment treaty domestic law was enacted against the backdrop of structural adjustment policies that emphasised liberalization. The article argues complementarily that the coming into force of the ippa s of Ghana also explains the changing pattern in the content of domestic investment law. Given the definitions of investment and the substantive obligations under the ippa s, Ghana could not, even without independent policy change, retain the content of domestic investment law as was the case when she was not party to any ippa s. The thesis is that ippa s have the effect of limiting regulatory autonomy and will limit future legislative powers of the State in defining the content of domestic investment law and policy. This will ultimately determine the pattern and trend of domestic investment law and policy in Ghana. The article proposes that the ippa s should be renegotiated to take into account the constitutional responsibility of the Government to protect the welfare of the people of Ghana.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".