Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In international arbitration, arbitrators have procedural powers that allow them to manage and conduct the arbitration proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. These powers are typically set out in the arbitration rules that the parties have agreed to, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) rules. Arbitrators have the authority to determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration, including the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence presented. They can also decide on the language to be used in the arbitration and the location of the hearings. In addition, arbitrators can issue orders and directions as needed to ensure the fair and efficient conduct of the proceedings. This may include ordering the production of documents or witness testimony, or setting time limits for the submission of evidence. The present paper critically examines the lex arbitri, the law that governs the arbitral proceedings, and makes out a case that lex arbitri cannot be challenged in court, as the parties to the arbitration have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts. However, if the tribunal exceeds its powers or acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the lex arbitri, the parties may have grounds to challenge the tribunal's decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or due process. The paper summarises some key judgments in which Courts have upheld or quashed the Tribunals procedural orders. It will be concluded that the procedural powers of arbitrators in international arbitration are real and not perfunctory, though bounded within powers extended by Parties to the arbitral tribunal.

The surge in online interactions has led to a parallel rise in civil and commercial disputes that transcend geographical boundaries. As traditional dispute resolution mechanisms face challenges adapting to this evolving paradigm, conflicts increasingly migrate to online platforms. Within this proliferating landscape, it is crucial to recognize the scarcity of research devoted to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) providers and the myriad types of services they currently offer to users worldwide. Despite the ongoing geographical expansion of ODR, the inquiry into how procedural justice principles manifest in these digital dispute resolution systems remains notably under-explored. A growing body of literature underscores that procedural justice is critical for building users’ trust, enhancing the legitimacy of organizations among communities, and fostering compliance with outcomes. The ability of ODR providers to meet users' expectations in terms of procedural justice can significantly shape users' perception of ODR institutions as trustworthy and dependable. This bears paramount implications for the ongoing development of ODR, whose acceptance varies widely across jurisdictions. This doctoral thesis delves into the intricate intersections of procedural justice within the realm of international civil and commercial ODR, examining the nuanced dynamics that emerge in virtual spaces. Ultimately, it seeks to understand how procedural justice principles, rooted in the notion of fairness, manifest and evolve in the context of ODR, exploring the impact of digital interventions on the perceived fairness of dispute resolution processes. Understanding procedural justice in ODR is not merely an academic pursuit; it holds profound implications for legal practitioners, policymakers, and society at large. This research aims to contribute valuable insights that can inform the design of fairer and more effective ODR systems.

Securing fast, inexpensive and enforceable redress is vital for the development of international commerce. In a changing international commercial dispute resolution landscape, the combined use of mediation and arbitration, and particularly a combination where the same neutral acts as a mediator and an arbitrator (same neutral (arb)-med-arb), has emerged as a dispute resolution approach offering these benefits. However, to date there has been little agreement on several aspects of the combined use of processes, which the literature often explains by reference to the practitioner’s legal culture. There is a heated debate in the international dispute resolution community as to whether it is appropriate for the same neutral to conduct both mediation and arbitration. When the same neutral acts as a mediator and an arbitrator, caucuses become a primary concern. This is largely due to the danger that an arbitrator will appear to be, or actually be biased, and the risk that the process may offend the principles of due process.A review of the literature shows that the combined use of mediation and arbitration raises more questions and concerns than it offers answers and solutions. This thesis proposes remedies for this situation. The purpose of this thesis is twofold. First, to investigate ways to address concerns associated with the same neutral (arb)-med-arb, which should allow parties to benefit from time and cost efficiencies of the process and the ability to obtain an internationally enforceable result. Second, to examine whether the perception and use of the same neutral (arb)-med-arb varies depending on the practitioner’s legal culture. The research involved an analysis of legal sources complemented by a two stage empirical study conducted through questionnaire and interview.The thesis identifies three major ways to address concerns associated with the same neutral (arb)-med-arb: 1) the involvement of different neutrals in combinations, 2) procedural modifications of the same neutral (arb)-med-arb, and 3) the implementation of safeguards for using the same neutral (arb)-med-arb. It demonstrates that not all of these ways will achieve the goals of fast, inexpensive and enforceable dispute resolution. The results support the conclusion that the perception and use of the same neutral (arb)-med-arb varies throughout the world depending on the practitioner’s legal culture. This and other factors ultimately affect the choice of ways to address concerns associated with the same neutral (arb)-med-arb. Further to these significant results, the thesis argues that the same neutral (arb)-med-arb is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ process. Other combinations discussed in the thesis require more attention from practitioners and academics.This thesis makes a substantial and original contribution to the understanding of combinations in international commercial dispute resolution in four ways. First, the empirical study is the first study to investigate specifically the use of combinations in international commercial dispute resolution. Its results shed light on the use of combinations in international commercial dispute resolution, their common triggers, the way in which the processes are combined most frequently, and the most common forms of recording the outcome of combinations. Second, the thesis synthesises existing ways of addressing concerns associated with the same neutral (arb)-med-arb in international commercial dispute resolution and groups them into the three major categories mentioned above. Third, having identified that there is scope for a more widespread use of combinations in international commercial dispute resolution, the thesis provides recommendations on how to enhance the use of combinations. Finally, the thesis highlights several areas where future research is needed.