Bibliographie sélective OHADA

International arbitration has become accepted worldwide as the principal and, under certain circumstances the preferred method, of resolving international disputes between states, individuals, and corporations in almost every aspect of international trade, commerce, and investment. In general terms, it is expected that an international arbitration procedure is a much speedier method of dispute resolution than formal court proceedings. Although international arbitration holds many benefits for prospective users, there are some difficulties that may arise along the way. An increasingly frequent complaint concerns delays, particularly unconscionable delays and deliberate delaying tactics caused by the parties (i.e. claimant, respondent and/or the arbitrator) which frustrates the process. Arbitration derives from the consent between contracting parties. This implies that the contracting parties gave their consent that a dispute arising from the contract may be resolved by way of arbitration. This will also explain why default by any of the parties is prima facie inconsistent with the consensual nature of arbitration. It is suggested that default during international arbitration is most likely to occur and does not receive the same treatment as the equivalent in the context of formal state court proceedings. Essentially, the objective of this study is to articulate what the claimant can and should do during the arbitral process if and when the respondent is non-cooperative and obstructive in the arbitral process in an attempt to delay and/or destroy the procedure. This study also considers how tribunals should behave in order to promote fairness and the most efficient form of dispute resolution. The research method applied during this study is to conduct a comparative survey and evaluation of the leading arbitration rules available in order to establish what measures are put in place to overcome or mitigate the effects caused by the non-cooperative respondent.