Bibliographie sélective OHADA

There is extensive literature on conflict of legal norms and interests in international investment law. The dominant discourse is on the implications of treaty-based investment protection for sovereign regulatory autonomy. Mainstream scholarship critical of the scope and effect of investment treaties has taken the legal status of these treaties for granted. Little systematic attention has been paid to the capacity of states to make investment treaties and the obligations states can or cannot agree to under those treaties in light of their public interest obligations. Yet, this issue is of fundamental importance for three reasons. First, the case for states’ regulatory autonomy arises out of their primary duty to regulate in the public interest. This duty has its legal justification in national constitutions and international law. Second, treaty obligations are founded on the existence of legal norms necessary for the treaty to come into existence and which define the juridical consequences attached to the conclusion of the treaty. These matters are also determined by national constitutions and international law. Third, the limitations inherent in state-specific defences in international investment disputes settlement compel a proactive rethink of the conclusion of investment treaties and how they are interpreted. The question this thesis assesses with reference to Ghana then is: does a state that is legally required to act both under the terms of its constitution and international law in the public interest have the capacity to conclude investment treaties that expressly prevent or abridge the exercise of its public interest regulatory powers, and how should treaties adopted in breach of these obligations be interpreted? To address this question, three areas of public interest regulation that have featured prominently in investment arbitration serve as case studies: the jurisdiction of municipal courts, environmental protection and development policy. Based on the impact and potential limitations of standards of investment protection on these areas, the thesis argues that some treaties are incompatible with the public interest regulation obligations of Ghana under the Constitution and international law. The core proposition of the thesis is that the legal source and public purpose of the State’s powers prevent it from concluding agreements that directly prohibit public interest regulation or indirectly achieve that effect. Accordingly, the thesis proposes that the express and implied limitations on the duty to regulate in the public interest placed on investment treaty making powers of the State must inform the making of investment treaties and their interpretation. By its approach, this thesis establishes a principled basis for reflection on the limits to the State’s capacity to conclude investment treaties and on how they should be interpreted.

There is substantial scholarship on the limitations that international investment agreements (IIAs) place on States’ authority to regulate in the public interest. An area of fundamental importance that has not received scholarly attention in connection with IIAs is public procurement regulation. Given that public procurement is about the needs of States and their citizens, States would want to retain their authority within municipal public procurement laws to decide with whom to contract to meet those needs, and to pursue socioeconomic and industrial policies through procurement. However, most States are parties to IIAs, which impose obligations on them with respect to the protection of foreign investment. This article explores this seminal issue of whether IIAs stand to limit the authority of States in the implementation of procurement legislation and policies. Based on textual analysis and arbitral case study, it argues that treaty-based standards of investment protection can limit States’ authority on the implementation of methods of procurement (such as national competitive tendering or restricted tendering) and socioeconomic policies in procurement. A question that needs fuller engagement is the extent of conflict between specific IIAs and public procurement laws and policies, either regionally or globally, and how to reconcile conflicting obligations to promote foreign investment and sustainable development. This article provides the foundation for such future research.