Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This work aims to find a practical solution to the problem that exists between intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and European Union (EU) law over conflict of jurisdiction issues. Currently, there is a problem as the EU Commission has rendered intra-EU BITs incompatible with EU law. This work argues that the current conflict of jurisdictional problems within investment agreements can be overcome by the creation of an EU investment court. The reliance on this court for the resolution of this conflict, as opposed to private law mechanisms, is important as it is the way forward in handling the conflict of jurisdiction issue at its best. This work argues that an EU investment court will be a panacea to the current problems concerning the conflict of jurisdiction. These problems will be presented through a positivist method where the law is analysed in its current form, highlighting its current weaknesses and resolving these weaknesses by proposing recommendations for such a court through a comparative examination of other international courts that fulfil a similar dispute resolution function, namely the Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The purpose of this work is manifold. The work will provide an analytical examination of the relationship between EU law and international obligations within intra-EU BITs. It will further explore and assess the viability of a range of alternative solutions to intra EU BITs enforcement within the EU. It will additionally examine the operation of the OHADA, the UPC and the WTO to inform the proposal of an EU investment court. This is important as the outcome of these examinations will support the argument made in this thesis. It will also impact dispute resolution beyond academia by providing a practical solution to alleviate the current challenges with intra-EU BITs. The recommendations thus can inform changes for lex ferenda.