Regionalism as development
The Lomé Conventions I and II (1975–1985)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12186238 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rafael Lima Sakr (0000-0002-7860-0829, Royal Holloway University of London, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 33-59 |
| Publication date | 2022-11-28 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Leiden Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0922-1565 • E-ISSN: 1478-9698 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s092215652200067x |
| OpenAlex | W4310204410 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
Lomé Conventions I (1975) and II (1979) were the first regional trade agreements (RTAs) between the European Community (EC) and the group of postcolonial countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP). Specialized scholarship offers rich analyses of those Conventions; however, little is known about the role of law and lawyers in their making, and their relevance for present-day debates about RTAs. This article advances existing knowledge in two ways. First, it historicizes the more visible role of law in constituting Lomé as a legal regime for governing EC-ACP regionalism. It then argues that the Conventions were distinct from existing RTAs due to their unique centrality on social and economic development; and from present-day RTAs, because they were conceived not simply as instrumental to but also as constitutive of development. Second, by historicizing the less visible role of law and lawyers in the Lomé regime, the article identifies that a specialist conception of South-North RTAs was refined to govern which ideas, projects, norms, and institutions were applicable to Lomé. This distinct conception – called the development framework – was critical in creating the conditions of possibility for decision-makers negotiate, interpret, and manage the Conventions. Those findings challenge conventional wisdom on two grounds. They suggest that Lomé was unique not for embodying a new model but for consolidating the development framework’s dominance. They contest present-day understanding of RTAs as textual manifestations of a universal concept by demonstrating the existence of competing conceptions, which express distinct notions of RTAs’ purpose, content, and form
Centrality · CONTEST · Dominance (genetics · Law and economics · Negotiation · Political science · Politics · Regionalism (politics · Scholarship · Sociology · Global trade and economics · Law · World Trade Organization Law
| Highly cited | No |
|---|