Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Growth in international trade has led to considerable expansion of the scope of matters capable of settlement by arbitration. In spite of sustained scholarly activity on arbitrability, the question of what is arbitrable remains controversial but relevant in many regions of the world, including Africa. Arbitrability has the potential to affect the validity of an arbitration agreement, strip an arbitrator of jurisdiction, or derail enforcement of an award. Given the significance of the concept, it is vital that entities involved in international transactions do not speciously extrapolate knowledge of what pertains in Europe and America across all jurisdictions and regions of the world. This study draws a comparison between arbitrability and its relationship with public policy in Europe and America on one hand, and the trend in Africa in an attempt to critically investigate the extent to which African states are willing to extend the scope of arbitrable subject matters. A number of trends on arbitrability are discernible. Most commercial disputes are arbitrable and this observation generally aligns with practice in Europe and America. Beyond this, there are three significant differences in the areas of scope of subject matter, approaches to arbitrability regulation and the role of public policy.

Examines the approach of Ghana's Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 to the question of arbitrability. Reflects on the concept of arbitrability under international law, the relevant trends emerging from case law, and the approach adopted by the Ghanaian High Court in Attorney General v Balkan Energy LLC. Reviews the Act's arbitrability exemptions, their implications for international arbitration in Ghana, the potential jurisdictional challenges under the legislation and how its provisions could be amended to increase its conformity with international trends on arbitrability.

In light of accelerating technological innovation and shifts in dispute resolution paradigms, this article elucidates the transformative potential of blockchain technology and smart contracts in mediation. The paper posits that these advancements offer an innovative framework for dispute avoidance and a more efficient, transparent process for resolving conflicts, particularly in commercial settings. The article critically assesses the inherent challenges and argues that overcoming these obstacles necessitates a multi-stakeholder approach, encompassing legislative measures, educational initiatives, and technological enhancements. It ultimately contends that blockchain and smart contracts hold the capacity to significantly reshape the landscape of mediation.

The research is premised on two important developments, accelerating technological innovation and shifts in dispute resolution paradigms. These advancements offer an innovative framework for dispute avoidance and a more efficient, transparent process for resolving conflicts, particularly in commercial settings. To make this case, we use blockchain technology and smart contracts as technological exemplars, and mediation as an example of dispute resolution mechanism that can be positively impacted by the use of the relevant technology. The potential of these technologies to promote dispute avoidance and the emerging legal frameworks for resolving blockchain technology and smart contract disputes were also explored. We also examine how blockchain technology and smart contracts can be integrated into the mediation process, the advantages, challenges, and possible solutions.

This paper comprehensively analyses the potential of blockchain technology and smart contracts to revolutionise dispute resolution. As dispute resolution methods evolve, blockchain and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, transparency, and fairness, are becoming more critical. That is especially the case in mediation and construction adjudication, which are less traditionally formal and tend to be carried through much more quickly than other forms of dispute resolution. The opportunity of blockchain comes from its ability to demonstrate a tamper-proof, clear record, reducing risks of misunderstanding and bias. This facilitates the transfer and verification of evidence both in the carrying out of projects and during dispute resolution processes. Smart–digital contracts with terms coded indirectly- allow for automated contract enforcement. They execute automatically upon meeting specific conditions. This automation brings a new efficiency level, cutting the time and costs of conventional dispute resolution. Nonetheless, integrating blockchain and smart contracts in dispute resolution faces several challenges. The current limited understanding and acceptance of these technologies in the legal sector is an imminent issue. Legislative changes are necessary to provide a solid legal framework for these technologies in legal processes and to address potential inconsistencies of approach. Such reform requires strong cooperation among lawmakers, technologists, and legal experts to ensure implementation that adheres to legal and ethical norms and ensures that the technologies can be applied with confidence by the stakeholders within the process. This collective effort is crucial for seamlessly integrating blockchain and smart contracts into legal frameworks.

Courts and arbitration tribunals aim to resolve disputes and make enforceable decisions in their distinctive way. However, unlike courts, tribunals lack state enforcement power to function independently. Consequently, arbitrating parties have had to approach the courts for various supports. However, while supporting arbitration, the Nigerian courts have been criticised for overwhelmingly undermining party autonomy. Thus, the determination of the extent to which Nigerian courts should participate in arbitration remains topical. This research reviewed the current regime governing the scope and limits to the court's roles in arbitration in Nigeria, aiming to find out the problematic areas where the court's roles have been a leeway to undermine party autonomy. The research found that the current practice in Nigeria generally observes party autonomy as an affirmative stance by the Nigerian courts and laws. It further found the areas where the Nigerian system has, nevertheless, created some leeway for the courts to undermine party autonomy. These include (i) the narrow phrasing and interpretation of Section 34 of the Act and some specific provisions, and their failure to set out a definite limit to courts' roles in arbitration, (ii) the application of the concept of constitutional supremacy which has been interpreted to allow Nigerian courts to participate in all cases including arbitration and override parties' agreement, (iii) absence of Institutionalised tracking and periodic recalibration of the relationship between the courts and arbitration, and (iv) judicialisation of administrative roles of the courts in arbitration. To this end, a legal and analytical review of these problematic issues was conducted, particularly using some elements of the legal comparative approach to analyse the problems in the light of the related practices in some similar or advanced jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Ghana and Malaysia. Lessons were drawn from the analysis. Short- and long-term recommendations were, therefore, made for law reforms in Nigeria, particularly towards recalibrating the court's roles in arbitration such as to wedge the loopholes in the system without which recalcitrant parties and jurists could take advantage to undermine party autonomy.