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.