Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis, exploring the rule of law for international rules, offers a human bond of common good between determinacy of substance and legitimacy of structure of rules in order to evaluate international obligations of States in international law on foreign investment. In an in-depth exposition of the theoretical underpinnings and practices underlying the normative structure of rules in international law, the thesis critically questions the legal reasoning embedded in—and the authority of rules borrowed from—principles and precedents or moral and political evaluations by arbitrators in interpretation of States' contractual, customary, and treaty obligations in investment arbitrations. With crucial moral, political, social and economic ramifications for the constitutional functions of States and concomitant interests of their human members implicated in the concept of expropriation in international law, the thesis provides a framework of legitimacy in a common good approach with structural criteria of recognition and coherence for the interpretation of States' obligations in investment arbitration. Coherence brings to the fore conflicting demands of justice requiring fresh evaluation divesting a general rule of its authoritative force, and recognition brings to the fore the validation of the power to engage in moral and political evaluation. Together, these structural criteria offer a common good approach of legitimacy to test the authority of States' obligations and the power of arbitrators in hard cases. By virtue of these criteria, the thesis characterizes the nature of substantive property rights of corporations and corresponding obligations of States in foreign investment as contingent and consensual in contrast with the absolute and constitutional rights of human beings in human rights. Through coherence and recognition, the thesis also portrays a supreme status for customary international law for the normative structure and substance of States' contractual or treaty obligations in the interpretation of hard cases in international law on foreign investment. The thesis espouses a new horizon for legal reasoning in foreign investment arbitration that eschews the lex lata veneer for lex ferenda propositions manufactured from precedents and principles, on the one hand, and the sheen of law for the conception of justice of investor-State arbitrators, on the other, in cases of hard confrontation between the demands of justice.