The development of infrastructure under the Belt and Road Initiative has had a significant impact on post-conflict reconstruction in Asia and Africa. However, the Initiative’s reliance on bilateral government-to-government agreements has had the effect of marginalising affected communities from project governance. This paper explores how a state-centric model engenders governance distortions in fragile institutional environments. It draws evidence from the Thar coalfield development in Pakistan, the Kyaukpyu port project in Myanmar, the Standard Gauge Railway in Kenya, and Hambantota port in Sri Lanka to support this investigation. Each case demonstrates that rapid infrastructure deployment without meaningful community consultation produces displacement, environmental degradation, and erosion of citizen trust in state institutions. It also examines civil society responses across three areas: domestic litigation that challenges procedural deficiencies in environmental and land acquisition processes; transnational advocacy campaigns that link local grievances to international human rights discourse; and mobilisation strategies rooted in culturally specific claims to territory and belonging. An analysis of the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations reveals that neither organisation has successfully transitioned from facilitating dialogue among member states to establishing enforceable standards governing infrastructure investment. Four reforms are proposed: the institutionalisation of community voice through tripartite project committees, the mandating of cultural heritage assessments alongside environmental review, the development of regional investment protocols with accessible grievance mechanisms, and the embedding of conflict sensitivity into project design where historical injustices shape contemporary land tenure.
Lu Yi (Tue,) studied this question.