Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The States, international organizations and interest groups are increasingly concerned with treaty claims of foreign investors, who sometimes seek compensation for the States' legitimate regulatory measures, such as tobacco plain packaging, nuclear energy phase out and environmental regulations. International investment law has yet to develop a comprehensive and predictable framework addressing some of the basis questions related to compensability of legitimate regulatory measures. The thesis carries out a comparative legal analysis to identify the key features of the prohibition of uncompensated expropriation as a general principle of law, and explores the rationale of that principle in political philosophy. Equipped with the results of this analysis, it proceeds to propose an analytical approach addressing practical questions related to the compensatory protection of foreign investments.

The study analyses the process through which investment arbitral tribunals identify and resolve conflicts between investment standards of protection and norms from other international regimes relevant for the merits of the dispute. It questions the validity behind the current approach that tribunals adopt, under which arguments based on extraneous norms are overwhelmingly unsuccessful and proposes its' transformation in three respects. First, rather than being a mere means of interpretation, as in current practice, a broader pool of international norms must be applied to the substance of investment disputes. Second, the concept of normative conflict must be broadened if one is to address the actual challenges that inter-regime conflicts pose for international law. Third, fleshing out the modalities under which one could use private international law as a source of inspiration in public international law context, the study offers best practices for approaching the types of conflict commonly found in investment disputes.