An Assessment of the Legal and Interpretive Requirements for Treating Tanzania’s Investment Legislation as a Unilateral Offer to Arbitrate in International Investment Arbitration

Abstract

This study examines whether Tanzania’s investment legislation can operate as a unilateral offer to arbitrate in international investment arbitration, with particular focus on the Tanzania Investment and Special Economic Zones Authority Act, No. 6 of 2025. The study seeks to determine the legal and interpretive requirements necessary for statutory consent to arbitration and to assess whether section 40 of the Act provides sufficient legal basis for investors to initiate arbitration without further agreement from the Government. The study was conducted through doctrinal and comparative research methods, involving analysis of Tanzanian legislation, judicial decisions, arbitral decisions and comparison with selected foreign jurisdictions. The study found that statutory reference to arbitration alone does not amount to a unilateral offer to arbitrate unless the legislation clearly demonstrates the State’s intention to provide advance consent. It further found that section 40 of the TISEZA Act creates uncertainty because arbitration appears to depend on agreement between the investor and the Government rather than a clear statutory offer capable of acceptance by an investor. Comparative analysis showed that jurisdictions recognising statutory offers to arbitrate use precise legislative language defining the scope and effect of State consent. The study concludes that Tanzania requires greater legal clarity on the status of statutory consent to investment arbitration. It recommends amendment of section 40 of the TISEZA Act, harmonisation of investment and natural resource laws, development of consistent interpretation guidelines and strengthening institutional capacity in investment arbitration to ensure certainty while protecting Tanzania’s regulatory powers.