Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Codes, laws and guidelines governing international commercial arbitration developed by such organizations as the International Court of Arbitration, the International Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce have been drafted against the background of Common Law and Civil Law values. In balancing these two great legal traditions, it was assumed that together they represent a composite legal tradition governing international commercial arbitration. The result of that assumption was decades of fine work enshrining international arbitration doctrines, principles, and rules of law and procedures that blend these two important legal traditions. More recent concerns have begun to raise such questions as: How pervasive are the Common and Civil Law traditions? Part I of this article asks: What is a legal tradition and how should it be distinguished from a legal culture in relation to international commercial arbitration? Part II reflects on the influence of legal culture on international commercial arbitration. Parts III, IV and V investigate the Common and Civil legal traditions in relation to national, regional and international commercial arbitration. Part VI evaluates the public traditions that surround international commercial arbitration. Part VII considers whether change in the traditions of international commercial arbitration represent culture change or culture shock. Part VIII emphasizes the value of building an inclusive international arbitration tradition. Part IX suggests ways in which international commercial arbitration can accommodate diffuse and changing local, regional and global influences upon it. Codes, laws and guidelines governing international commercial arbitration developed by such organizations as the International Court of Arbitration (ICA), the International Bar Association (IBA) and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) have been drafted against the background of Common Law and Civil Law values. In balancing these two great legal traditions, it was assumed that together they represent a composite legal tradition governing international commercial arbitration. The result of that assumption was decades of fine work enshrining international arbitration doctrines, principles, and rules of law and procedures that blend these two important legal traditions. From the doctrine of freedom of contract to specific rules of evidence and procedures that govern arbitral hearings, the international arbitration community has sought to maintain the respected legal traditions that lawyer-arbitrators and counsel find familiar and comfortable. More recent concerns, partly expressed by William K. Slate II, President of the American Arbitration Association, have begun to raise such questions as: How pervasive are the Common and Civil Law traditions? Are they sufficiently uniform in nature and operation to justify their dominant status in formulating codes, laws and rules governing international commercial arbitration? And has international commercial arbitration become unduly reliant upon both the Common and Civil Law traditions at the expense of other legal traditions that operate against the background of different and changing legal cultures? Part I of this article asks: What is a legal tradition and how should it be distinguished from a legal culture in relation to international commercial arbitration? Part II reflects on the influence of legal culture on international commercial arbitration. Parts III, IV and V investigate the Common and Civil legal traditions in relation to national, regional and international commercial arbitration. Part VI evaluates the public traditions that surround international commercial arbitration. Part VII considers whether change in the traditions of international commercial arbitration represent culture change or culture shock. Part VIII emphasizes the value of building an inclusive international arbitration tradition. Part IX suggests ways in which international commercial arbitration can accommodate diffuse and changing local, regional and global influences upon it.

Ex aequo et bono is a long-lived legal concept that enables arbitrators to decide a dispute based on notions of fairness instead of a strict application of legal norms. Jurists generally agree that arbitrators authorised to decide commercial disputes ex aequo et bono can more easily tailor arbitral procedure to achieve an efficient and fair dispute resolution process. They therefore agree that ex aequo et bono arbitration maximises procedural flexibility. However, this flexibility is now perceived more as a negative rather than a positive, despite the potential of ex aequo et bono to mitigate growing concerns about the ‘over-judicialisation’ of arbitration – the increasing formalisation and inefficiency of arbitral procedure. Commentators usually assert that ex aequo et bono introduces excessive unpredictability into arbitration and encourages arbitrators to abuse their discretion. As a result, ex aequo et bono has remained unpopular to this day. This thesis challenges this overly negative conception of ex aequo et bono. It does so particularly under the UNCITRAL Model Law, as an important foundation stone of the global commercial arbitration regime. The thesis investigates significant divergence in the understanding of ex aequo et bono across state jurisdictions and international arbitration institutions. It also analyses the core trends in actual legal practice and in thinking about the principle. The thesis thereby demonstrates that the Model Law requires arbitrators to ensure that their arbitral awards are based on three objective elements: contract terms, trade usages, and mandatory rules of law. Accordingly, while the Model Law allows arbitrators deciding ex aequo et bono to invoke their subjective conceptions of fairness as the ultimate gap-filler when discerning the intention of the parties, the scope for doing so is not unduly expansive. Further, the refinement of various legal theories underpinning international commercial arbitration has enabled parties to determine and challenge more readily the arbitrators’ subjective ideas of fairness. The thesis therefore concludes that the flexibility inherent in ex aequo et bono needs to be both re-evaluated and rejuvenated. It urges the international arbitration community to adopt a revitalised conception of ex aequo et bono to counter-balance the encroaching ‘over-judicialisation’ of arbitration.