Bibliographie sélective OHADA

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

The position of international arbitration awards which is different from national arbitration awards and district court decisions causes differences in the rights and obligations of the parties to arbitral awards, especially those relating to legal remedies against awards. The formulation of the problem in this study is how are the rights and obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study state that the rights possessed by the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia are related to legal remedies against decisions, namely corrections to these international arbitral awards. The corrections to the decisions here are not only limited to administrative corrections but also corrections related to the principal international arbitral awards made before the request for execution was registered at the Central Jakarta District Court. While the obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards are to carry out international arbitral awards in good faith.

Labour immigration has been on the rise and has had policy implications for public leaders of relatively stable Southern African Development Corporation (SADC) countries. In this paper, the status of populism and labour immigration in Botswana and South Africa was explored. The primary sources of labour immigration are Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Economic disparities and the disintegration of the socio-economic conditions of the neighbouring countries have been major antecedents for the labour movements of the masses. The study utilised a qualitative method and comparative case study design. The study found that populist movements have much influence on the termination of employment of foreign nationals in Botswana and South Africa as shown by their anti-immigrant attitudes, market protectionism, and close-the-borders protests. As these measures have become inefficient over the years, policies and proposals are recommended in response.

Since the earlier indirect Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions failed to hold investors responsible for human rights abuses, the recent hardening process of direct CSR clauses has resulted in incorporating CSR clauses under sections or chapters entitled “investors obligations” and tying CSR obligations to binding human rights and environmental prohibitions, as well as to human rights obligations established by the host state's legislation. This paper provides a non-exhaustive analysis of recent developments in treaty practice based on research primarily sourced from investment agreements concluded between 2012 and 2021, doctrinal input, and normative analysis. As shown in this paper the hardening process has not yet been completed, and reformations are necessary. Specifically, new investment agreements should enshrine investor human rights obligations as legally binding obligations, consider violations of these CSR obligations as part of investment disputes and provide direct remedies to victims. This study contributes to the literature on the international responsibility of TNCs with regard to human rights by examining the process of hardening up the CSR obligations within investment agreements as an approach that could lead to effective human rights protection.

This introduction provides the reader with a general characterization of the 39 Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs) created by the 1919-1923 peace treaties to address disputes between private persons and between private persons and states as a result of the First World War. Noting that the rich literature published on the MATs was followed by near-silence after 1945, it mentions the numerous questions that they still raise today, before explaining how the various contributions to the book edited by the authors address them.

EU’s competence over FDI: European technological sovereignty. Definition, origins, and scope of EU foreign investment law. EU competence over foreign direct investments. European technological sovereignty. Regulation 452/2019–screening mechanisms in national legislation with a focus of the Italian regime. Structure of regulation 452/2019. Implementation in national legislation. The screening regulation as a tool to enforce technological sovereignty. EU technological sovereignty in practice. First and second annual report on the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union. A first appraisal of the problematic interplay between FDIs and technological sovereignty.

Groups of companies are a complex corporate structure, whose regulation can be problematic, especially when it comes to liability. Indeed, liability within corporate groups draws forth a series of issues principally due to the principles of separate corporate personality and limited liability. In the context of limited liability, which is based on the notion of separate legal personality, the main issue waxes the protection of the creditors, in particular the creditors of the subsidiaries. One can find three regulatory templates for handling corporate groups and their liability: policing via general company and/or civil law (such as the English model); policing via special group legislation (such as the German model); and policing via branches of law such as insolvency law, antitrust law, and contract law, among others (which is the case in numerous jurisdictions, either coupled with the first or the second model). Lifting the corporate veil has come as an answer to corporate separateness, by permitting to ignore the shareholders’ limited liability and hold them personally liable for the debts of their companies in specific circumstances. However, one can hardly find cases in which the corporate veil has been successfully lifted, due to many factors. Other important questions that are posed in the scope of corporate groups liability are the parent company’s liability for the payment of its daughter companies’ debts when insolvency strikes and other respects, besides the matter of group liability. Furthermore, liability is as well a key player in terms of tort law, and corporate social responsibility has therefore found a place in the sun in the present climate.

This study analyzes intellectual property rights disputes between PSGlow and MSGlow in terms of Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications (analysis of case decision number: 2/pdt.sus.HKI/Merek/2022/pn.niaga Sby) which aims to explain and analyze the basic considerations of Surabaya Commercial Court judges in accepting lawsuits, explaining and analyzing how is the legal protection of trademarks that have been registered based on Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications, explaining and analyzing whether there is an element of passing off between PS Glow and MS Glow based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI /Merek/2022/PN. Niaga Sby.The legal materials in this research are primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials using normative research methods.The basis for consideration is that a lawsuit was filed from PS Glow for the use of the brand without rights against MS Glow. and legal protection for brands that have been registered under Law no. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications, namely that the penalties that will be imposed on these counterfeiters can be in the form of imprisonment, imprisonment and fines, as referred to in articles 100 to 102 of Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications. and between PS Glow and MS Glow there is no element of passing off based on Case Decision Number: 2/Pdt.Sus.HKI/Merek/2022/PN.Niaga Sby, because the MS Glow brand registers its brand in HAKI in class 32 with the classification of powdered drinks and PS Glow registered their brand on Intellectual Property Rights in class 3 with a cosmetic classification.

Competition law and intellectual property law share the objective of incentivising innovation. However, this objective is achieved in different ways, which, at times, can create tension between the two areas of law. It is imperative that this tension at the interface of competition law and intellectual property law is resolved in a manner that encourages innovation. Issues regarding the licensing of intellectual property, Standard Essential Patents, pay-for-delay agreements and no-challenge clauses are instances where the tension between competition law and intellectual property law is especially prevalent. These instances will be discussed in detail, and what is learnt from how the European Union and Australia handles it, will be applied to South Africa. The European Union, Australia and South Africa have different ways of dealing with situations where the exercise of intellectual property rights has an effect on competition. The European Union has block exemptions, which contains “safe havens” for conduct in specific circumstances. The block exemptions are often accompanied by guidelines, providing firms and individuals with greater detail in order to self-assess their compliance with the exemption. Australia has authorisation, notification and class exemption procedures. Firms can apply to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to authorise conduct that might potentially breach the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Exemptions may also be granted more broadly by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in terms of the class exemption procedures. In South Africa, the law concerning the interface between competition law and intellectual property is still in its infancy, and a lot can be learned from jurisdictions like the European Union and Australia regarding the most efficient way to handle this tension. Currently, the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in South Africa contains Section 10(4), the intellectual property exemption clause. A firm can apply to the Competition Commission for an intellectual property exemption from the application of Chapter 2 of the Competition Act “to an agreement or practice, or a category of agreements or practices” which pertains to the exercise of intellectual property rights. However, it is submitted that Section 10(4), by itself, is not the most efficient mechanism to resolve the tension that arises at the interface of competition law and intellectual property law in a way that incentivises innovation. It is proposed that the exemption provision can be made more effective if it is properly applied in conjunction with class exemptions and guidelines.

This study investigates the impact and importance of the legal regulation of trade union recognition and associated challenges in South Africa. It evaluates the current regulation of trade union recognition, including legislation and judicial attitudes apparent from the interpretation, application, and enforcement of such legislation, to ascertain its continued appropriateness in the current South African industrial relations environment. The study considers the policy choices of both voluntarism and majoritarianism underlying the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”) and the “workplace” constituency to which it applies as factors that might be contributing to challenges experienced in the current regulation of collective bargaining in South Africa. It evaluates the current model of trade union recognition and representativeness as it applies to the acquisition by trade unions of organisational rights, collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition for purposes of retrenchment consultation. It recognises that the specific model chosen to regulate the representative status of trade unions has a significant effect on the ability of trade unions to organise and conclude collective agreements and, as such, on the distributive effects of such agreements in the labour market and broader society. The study commences with an historical overview of the regulation of trade union recognition under the 1956 LRA and thereafter considers the 1995 LRA as a product of criticism against the 1956 LRA. Specific issues considered, largely based on the analysis of the relevant decisions by the Constitutional Court, include the following: the impact of Constitutional Court jurisprudence relating to trade union recognition on the process of collective bargaining and on the legal regulation of the right to strike; the role of representativeness and its link with the workplace as the constituency for recognition and acquisition of organisational rights; the often winner-takes-all effect of the current model on collective bargaining as a major cause of labour unrest; the reactive role the legislature has played over the past, almost three decades to address challenges; the extent to which intervention should take place to safeguard the institution of collective bargaining from being undermined as well as the regulation of collective agreements as the product of collective bargaining and as the primary source of terms and conditions of employment. The comparative review of Canadian law focuses on a number of issues selected specifically for their potential to provide insights into how the weaknesses in South African regulation may be remedied. This includes insights into the accommodation of special or significant minority interests and how to address recognition in the context of multi-location employers. The thesis concludes with remarks on the insights gained from the Canadian model and the 1956 LRA. Where appropriate, suggestions are made on the way forward for South Africa as to the appropriate regulation of trade union recognition and representativeness.

For several decades, environmentalists have raised the alarm regarding the impending environmental catastrophe that results from the Anthropocene. Much attention has been given to the role that States play in contributing to ecological damage being wrought upon the Earth. However, we have only looked at the environmental destruction perpetrated by multinational companies (“MNCs”) in the past decade. Natural disasters like the Deepwater Horizon explosion have placed MNCs' dangerous impact on the environment in sharp relief. At the same time, revelations in the Carbon Majors Report and global litigation quantify the damage MNCs cause to the environment. Multinational companies (“MNCs), as a result of globalisation and trade liberalisation, are powerful entities within the global economy. Despite their size, MNCs remain primarily unregulated in international human rights law. Debates regarding who bears the duty for human rights intersect with a battle of political will between the Global North and Global South for developing binding human rights duties for MNCs. As a result, they can commit environmental harm, especially in the Global South, with relative impunity due to a lack of effective liability mechanisms. The doctrine of separate legal personality creates specific issues for holding MNCs liable for environmental harms in the Global South. Domestic courts in home States struggle to exercise jurisdiction over the environmental harms MNCs commit. In contrast, systemic barriers in host States create situations where victims are unable to seek redress within their State. To address these concerns, this thesis proposes a global liability regime founded on the principle of integrated regulation. This regime will utilise regulation at the institutional, national and international levels to enforce the environmental obligations of MNCs, rooted in the right to a healthy environment. This gives rise to multiple intersection human rights obligations which will regulate the behaviour of MNCs. This thesis recognises that such a framework requires a drastic reform in how the law and companies are conceptualised. However, such a reform would have wide-reaching implications for vindicating human rights violations.

This thesis investigates the relationship between cross-country mandatory environmental, social and governance (ESG) regulations and firm-level outcomes, such as ESG performance, corporate finance, and investment, for both developing and developed countries. ESG performance is initially examined to determine whether mandatory ESG regulations affect it and to what extent. Second, the study investigates the impact of mandatory ESG on corporate finance and investment. Lastly, the study explores whether mandatory ESG regulations affect firm-level outcomes based on countries' governance and economic systems, and industries. The study uses a large sample of 69,010 firm-years across 73 countries, over the period 2005 – 2020 to address the foregoing issues. In addressing the impact of mandatory ESG regulations on ESG performance, the study employs a difference-in-differences (DiD) design. The DiD technique can isolate the effect of regulatory shocks to firm-level outcomes. According to the DiD analysis conducted, cross-country mandatory ESG improves firm-level ESG performance in developed countries, but not in developing countries. The study also concludes that mandatory ESG regulations have a positive impact only on ESG components in developed countries and have a more dominant impact on environmental (E) component. The findings are robust to a range of checks and test cases, including a triple DiD design set-up and propensity score-matched sample. The study employs an investment Euler equation framework and generalised method of moments (GMM) estimators to explore how mandatory ESG impacts corporate finance and investment. Euler frameworks account for the dynamic nature of investment, whereas GMMs account for endogenous dynamics in dynamic models. The study demonstrates that mandatory ESG increases corporate investment by increasing firms' access to external funds. The findings are robust to a battery of tests, including a triple DiD design set-up, propensity score-matched sample and the parallel trends assumption. Using an investment Euler equation framework and the GMM estimators, the study explores whether the impact of mandatory ESG on corporate finance and investment is dependent on a country's governance and economic system. When mandatory ESG is affected by country factors such as governance systems and economic well-being, the effect of mandatory ESG on investment via internal finance channel persists, according to the study. However, while consistent results are found in developed countries, inconsistent results are found in developing countries. According to the study, oil, gas, and mining firms are likely to respond effectively to mandatory ESG regulations because of increased scrutiny and pressure. Overall, the findings from the study imply that cross-country mandatory ESG has had a positive impact on corporate ESG performance, finance, and investment. For firms located in developed countries, these findings hold consistently, while for those located in developing countries, the opposite holds true. Also, the study reveals that firms in the oil, gas, and mining industries effectively respond to regulatory requirements. As a result, this study provides policy makers and accountants with an understanding of how mandatory ESG impacts firm ESG activities and performance, which is crucial for regulatory reforms.

This paper discusses the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. The main purpose is to highlight and clarify the gaps between CSR regulations and human rights abuses caused by business organizations.

The health of a country’s banking system is a key determinant to the development of the country. A fragile banking system portends danger not only to the financial system but the entire economy. This study investigates the state of the Nigerian banking system in terms of stability or fragility from 1981 to 2020. We used the banking system fragility index (BSFI) proposed by Kibritçioğlu (2003) to analyze Nigerian banking industry aggregate data from three risk areas: credit, market and liquidity. We estimated that out of the 40 years examined, the banking system was fragile for 23 years given their BSFI less than 0 while it was not fragile for 17 years with BSFI = 0 or greater. We found that most of the years when the Nigerian banking system was fragile were periods of relaxed monetary policies, deregulation and credit expansion. Secondly, the years of banking system stability were when the county’s banking system was subjected to stiff regulation and consolidation. Given the number of years that the system was fragile, we observed that sustained economic growth and development requires that the banking system remain strong as long as possible, and that the Nigerian situation could not promote this important objective. We recommend that the financial regulatory authorities put in place more stringent policies as banks are more fragile during the deregulation of the banking industry.

Recent scandals have brought rankings to the forefront of the legal profession. Several of the most prestigious academic institutions have withdrawn from being ranked, citing the problematic nature of the rankings. However, rankings persist for both legal academics and practice, and there is substantial sentiment to improve the methodologies, with little detail as to how to improve. In this paper, we rank law firms on their clients’ IPO performance. We focus on the most relevant outcomes: litigation, first-day returns, disclosure, and legal fees. The focus on these measures provides benefits relative to other methodologies, which typically focus on inputs or size-related characteristics. Namely, this ranking is less manipulable and more accurately captures performance metrics that matter most to clients’ shareholders. Our rankings control for observable and unobservable deal characteristics, which helps ensure we capture law firm quality, not client traits. With the rankings based on legal fees, potential clients can compare the benefits of a particular law firm (e.g., lower litigation or higher selling prices) against the additional cost of hiring a higher-quality law firm. Hence, our rankings allow for a value-for-the-money comparison of law firms for clients selling shares in an IPO.

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have recently gained prominence in global markets and feature among the world’s most influential enterprises. The aim of this research project is to analyse the international norms in force regulating whether SOEs are considered state or non- state actors, and their conduct state or non-state conduct, the interpretation and application of these norms by adjudicators in different international regimes, and to provide alternative prisms through which these rules and decisions can be assessed and re-thought by political actors. I show that, in relation to SOEs, the concepts ‘state and ‘act of state’ have been ascribed diverse meanings by adjudicators and other international actors, who have employed legal standards with divergent wording and thresholds when dealing with similar questions. I argue that the fragmented meaning of these terms should be understood, in part, as a result of the inherent malleability of these terms and the different expert vocabularies employed across regimes. It is exhibited that adjudicators in the international trade and investment regimes are more inclined towards piercing the corporate veil of SOEs, potentially evidencing the existence of biases against SOEs, which are perceived as inherently economically inefficient and politically motivated actors in an indiscriminatory manner. In the last chapter, I introduce alternative lines of thought regarding the regulation of SOEs in international law. I suggest that, instead of engaging in theoretical discussions on the proper delineation between the public and the private sector, it is more useful to focus on the distributional impact of international rules on various actors, especially on developing and emerging economies where the presence of SOEs is very high. Such alternative prisms of analysis open paths for future research and practice, with the goal of designing an international economic order that incentivises institutional experimentation in the pursuit of economic development and distributional equity.

The author of Third Party Funding in International Arbitration challenges the structural inconsistencies of the current practices of arbitration funding by arguing that third party funding should be a forum of justice, rather than a forum of profit. The author introduces a new methodology with an alternative way of structuring third party funding to solve a set of practical problems generated by the risk of claim control by the funder.

Indonesia has ratified the WTO/TRIPs Agreement convention and is in full compliance and non-reservation, the insistence of developed countries’ owners of Intellectual Property Rights against Indonesia, and the need for national Intellectual Property Rights. By looking at the above, legal protection is needed for every product and service, especially licenses for trade secrets in the Intellectual Property Rights component. The state imposes criminal sanctions on violators of Trade Secret rights as stipulated in chapter 17 (1) constitution number 30/2000. However, it is also hoped that the act of imposing sanctions by the state will return to the interests of the protected party by making the crime a complaint offense chapter 17 (2) constitution number 30/2000. There are repressive legal actions that can be carried out as chapter 11 constitution number 30/2000 states that the holder of trade secret rights or the licensee may sue anyone who deliberately or without rights commits the actions referred to in the article in the form of (a). Compensations claim and/or; (b). Cessation of all actions referred to in chapter 4 constitution number 30/2000.

The main purpose of this research is to explain and identify the major Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) problems in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government is committed to providing legal security for the resolution of foreign investment disputes. The dispute resolution system's assessment is very important for foreign investors because they pay special attention to the dispute resolution system and consider it a criterion for their investments. This research will be the first comprehensive study about the Investor-State Arbitration problems in Afghanistan. In the writing of this research, the library method has been used. To extract reasons, laws, books, articles, and reliable scientific sources have been used. Afghanistan is a good market for foreign investment because it has good investment opportunities in different sectors. Foreign investors can choose the easiest and best mechanisms, such as arbitration in their contracts to deal with disputes. But the resolution of foreign investment through arbitration has some problems, and sometimes foreign investors are facing challenges with the settlement of their disputes through arbitration internationally and domestically in Afghanistan.