Decolonising Petroleum Arbitration: Nigeria’s Experiences with ICSID and the Case for African Regional Alternatives

This study critically examines Nigeria's experiences with ICSID investor-state arbitration in petroleum disputes and develops an original theoretical case for African regional arbitration alternatives that better reflect the developmental interests and legal traditions of African petroleum-producing states. Drawing on TWAIL critique, the African Union's Agenda 2063, and African legal philosophy, the research argues that ICSID arbitration structurally disadvantages African states by applying investment protection norms derived from capital-exporting country interests. The methodology combines doctrinal analysis of 22 ICSID cases involving Nigeria and other African petroleum states from 2000 to 2024, critical discourse analysis of ICSID award reasoning, and elite interviews with 30 investment law practitioners, African Union officials, and petroleum law academics. Theoretical engagement draws on TWAIL scholarship from Mutua, Anghie, and Gathii, applied comprehensively to African petroleum arbitration for the first time. The original theoretical contribution is a decolonial investment dispute resolution framework adapted to African petroleum sovereignty interests, with a model treaty framework for an African Petroleum Investment Court. This study makes a substantial original contribution to international investment law, TWAIL scholarship, and Nigerian petroleum law literature. Keywords: ICSID, investor-state arbitration, decolonisation, Nigeria, TWAIL.