Between sustainable development, financialisation and sovereign debt crisis: the case of blue finance as yet another iteration of the Washington Consensus

As far as international economic law (IEL) is concerned, the ‘Washington Consensus’ generally refers to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s development finance policies and tools. It covers their application to their clients and borrowers with the support of Western governments. This acceptation is of particular interest to IEL scholars and practitioners alike for its recurrence questions the idea of a paradigm standing the test of time in offering multiple (re)incarnations of the same concept. Whilst there is not much binding law in development finance but rather various sets of voluntary guidelines and soft law principles, this form of regulation together with the study of institutional engagement and interactions between donors and receivers is of prime importance. Their evolutions on a recomposing global scene leaving more space for the Global South both as receiver and donor of aid and finance are of particular importance. In this regard, another incarnation of the ‘Washington Consensus’, largely initiated and guided by the same institutions and their regional counterparts, is appearing today with the concept of ‘Blue Finance’ as a new derivative of ‘Sustainable Finance’ or ‘Green finance’ designed to support the Blue Economy transition. In addressing the question of Blue Finance as a new iteration of the ‘Washington Consensus’, this article interrogates Blue Finance as Sustainable Finance (1) while later questioning the actors, rules, and beneficiaries of ‘financialisation’ (2) and reflecting upon the risk of sovereign debt spiralling (3). It concludes on the challenges posed by Blue Finance for the Global South notably considering its current approach to and practice of international economic law.