Bibliographie sélective OHADA

An array of governance initiatives has emerged to address forced labour and labour exploitation in global value chains (GVCs). Drawing on the transnational business governance interactions theoretical framework, as well as Timothy Bartley’s place-conscious transnational governance model, this thesis examines the interaction between two of these hybrid forms of governance: multi-stakeholder initiatives and corporate sustainability laws. I conduct a case study of the cocoa sector, and specifically of the multinational company, Nestlé, using multiple qualitative research methods including legal analysis, key informant interviews, and documentary analysis. My research suggests that the layering of corporate sustainability laws, and particularly the French Duty of Vigilance Law, on top of CSR and MSIs in the cocoa sector, is not addressing the governance gap that permits corporations to evade accountability for human rights abuses in their supply chain. I find that the introduction of corporate sustainability laws may have contributed to a decrease in Nestlé's efforts to address labor violations in certain areas, while in others, it appears to have supported the continuation of existing practices. This raises implications for the continuous efforts in various jurisdictions to introduce these laws as a solution to the shortcomings of private, voluntary rule-making systems. Further research is required to explore how these governance mechanisms are interacting in other sectors, in companies of different sizes, and within various types of MSIs. This will help identify the factors that influence interactions and shed further light on the path forward for policymakers.

Recent empirical evidence suggests that labour markets are not as competitive as previously thought. In that context, mobilizing antitrust policy has been discussed as a possible solution. The proposition sounds counterintuitive, however. If workers are paid below the competitive level, doesn’t this promote consumers’ outcomes by reducing downstream prices? Given that antitrust policy promotes consumer welfare, why would antitrust authorities intervene against such a state of affairs? Besides, why would stepping up on antitrust enforcement improve workers’ outcomes? Their interests have traditionally been protected through their exclusion from the scope of antitrust enforcement, not by the enforcement of antitrust rules to their benefit. This thesis demonstrates that those spontaneous assumptions do not hold. Consumer welfare does not speak against the defence of workers’ interests. First, the focus on consumers is a by product of methods: it does not prevent consideration of other types of market participants. Moreover, consumers benefit from competitive labour markets. The welfare effects of monopsony power simultaneously worsen workers and consumers’ outcomes. As for the promotion of workers’ interests, it can be achieved through both positive and negative enforcement of antitrust. So far, the EU Commission has been less proactive than the American DOJ and FTC on the issue of antitrust enforcement in labour markets ( although the state of affairs is evolving). While this difference may stem from EU workers benefitting from higher levels of social protection than US workers, those higher levels of protection may not negate the usefulness of antitrust ’s intervention. The low levels of antitrust enforcement in EU labour markets may result from legal uncertainty and case law inconsistency more than an absence of harm. Just like the merger control apparatus, Article 101 and 102 TFEU can be used to scrutinize labour markets. While doing so involves some practical complexities, they can be overcome.

It seems like a long time ago that there were only a handful of climate lawsuits. Since the first climate lawsuits were filed in the United States in 1990,² a myriad of litigation has emerged at the national, regional and global levels. According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, as of May 2021 the databases on climate litigation around the world contained 1,841 cases that were either in progress or had already been decided.³ This shows the exponential development of the phenomenon through which civil society organizations, public law legal entities and private individuals are

Until now, digitization and sustainability have stood side by side in the discussion of business law. As leading discourses of the present-day business scene, both topics are leading to profound change in companies and are influencing each other in the process - a circumstance that can no longer be ignored by corporate management. The article shows the guiding ideas behind both discussions, as well as their convergences and interactions, and asks about the effects they have on management's duty to act.

Since the start of the millennial era, technical advancements have led to exponential growth in electronic commerce, or e-commerce. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), e-commerce sales reached about US$25 trillion globally in 2021 [1] and are expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 9% through 2027, which is twice as fast as the 4% annual growth rate predicted for traditional in-person retail [2]. Online dispute resolution (ODR) techniques that aim to settle disagreements and lower the likelihood of expensive lawsuits are becoming more and more necessary as both individuals and corporations use online shopping platforms. Due of its legally binding nature, arbitration is the most formal method, as was briefly discussed [3]. Online arbitration is carried out using electronic methods, like email and digital tools designed to make the duties of arbitrators and parties to a dispute easier. It adheres to the same rules and processes as traditional arbitration. On the plus side of e-arbitration, advancements in technology allow for time and cost savings without sacrificing the ease of remote filing. The conclusion of e-arbitration agreements raises several negative issues, including privacy and data protection issues for the consumer signing the agreements and power imbalances between corporate entities and the consumer. The degree to which artificial intelligence (AI) is effectively and sufficiently analysing a dispute between parties is up for debate because it's unclear how new this adjudication process is.

Workplace bullying is not considered a form of harassment that is commonly acknowledged nor does it attract specific legislative protection. The aim of this mini-dissertation is to ascertain the degree to which victims of workplace bullying are protected by South African labour legislation and whether other measures are necessary to ensure that employees are adequately protected. A comparative analysis between South Africa and the United Kongdom's legislative frameworks that governs workplace violence and harassment and, by implication, bullying is a critical aspect of this mini-dissertation.

The OAPI member states constitute a space for theharmonization of copyright in Africa. This harmonizationis yet to be completed, as attested by the conventionalrules relating to the publishing contract. In addition,investigating about the publishing contract in the OAPIspace requires an examination of both the text of theBangui Agreement and that of the national laws of the 17member states. Some differences must be pointed outkeeping in mind the question of possible conflict of laws.

Tax authorities have always assessed and enforced taxes based on the physical address of businesses over the years. Nevertheless, the idea of tax jurisdiction has taken on a new meaning with the development of information and communication technology, and its profound impact on every facet of human existence – including but not restricted to trade and business. This development has undoubtedly increased capital mobility, especially in corporate form, and exposed more the weaknesses in national tax laws by enabling the artificial relocation of important economic components and potential exemption from taxes. Since it is getting harder to separate the digital economy from the rest of the economy for taxation reasons, the process of digitalization has emerged as one of the primary growth drivers. This expansion, together with aggressive tax planning strategies used by multinational enterprises (MNEs) to move revenues to low-tax jurisdictions and the development of business models requiring less physical presence, has increased the workload for tax administrators; furthermore, it has reduced governments’ capacity to raise funds in the traditional manner. In this regard, I assess how “adequate” the selected African countries’ frameworks are vis-à-vis the ongoing OECD and UN negotiations. Beyond the consultations, I call for a more inclusive and Africanised approach and the need for African countries to improve their tax administration mechanisms.

States poured millions of dollars to attract foreign renewable energy investments for climate change mitigation, however, when it becomes too hefty for some states, they have modified regulations to reduce the level of support. These regulation changes have led to dozens of investors filing arbitrations against the host states, alleging breaches of investment treaty obligations. This thesis examines whether the current investor-state dispute settlement (‘ISDS’) regime adequately addresses environmental concerns when adjudicating renewable energy investment cases. While renewable energy investments can help protect a global common (the atmosphere) and mitigate climate change, the regulation changes also seek to protect a domestic public good (financial stability of the host state). Therefore, when the protection of a global common conflicts with a domestic public interest in renewable energy ISDS cases, what are the rights and obligations of the host state and the investor? Are the existing approaches of the ISDS regime toward environmental concerns and other public interests fair and adequate, and if not, what interventions can be made? This thesis explores these questions by conducting doctrinal analysis on more than 60 renewable energy cases and the arbitral jurisprudence regarding international environmental obligations. It uses the constitutionalisation of international law to break the self-contained regime of international investment law and argues that common values should be regarded as equally important as investment protection goals in ISDS. This thesis finds that the ISDS regime considers international environmental obligations to be insignificant in supporting the host state’s defences in non-compliance of bilateral investment treaties or the investor’s claims for investment protection. This thesis shows that the current approach furthers discrepancies between climate change mitigation and international investment law. Not only does this approach fail to acknowledge the environmental connections of renewable energy investment, but it also creates opportunities for fossil fuel investors to seek compensation against environmental regulation changes using the same arguments. As an intervention against the current approach, this thesis proposes to reconstrue the concept of legitimate expectations to place common values on equal grounds with investment protection incentives. This thesis makes two significant contributions to knowledge. Firstly, it extends existing analyses of the conflicts and synergies between international investment law and environmental protection and contributes to the growing body of scholarship on this topic. Research on this topic has mainly focused on how the state safeguards environmental interests against investor protection claims. While this narrative comprises many cases, it does not capture the full picture and overlooks the possible contributions of private parties in protecting global commons. Instead, this thesis examines whether international environmental obligations can serve as a ‘shield’ for the state’s non-compliance in investment protection, or as a ‘sword’ for investors to compel the state to fulfil its international obligations. Secondly, this thesis makes an intervention to reconstrue ‘legitimate expectations’, where common values are reinforced and not only the interests of investors are protected but also the ‘legitimate expectations of a responsible investor’ from the state and local communities are taken into account.

The UNCITRAL Model Clauses on Specialized Express Dispute Resolution (SPEDR) (2024) (the “Model Clauses”) have been developed and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Model Clauses, accompanied by explanatory notes, offer customized solutions designed to be adapted and adjusted to suit the particular circumstances and preferences of the parties, building on the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules. Designed as a resource for businesses and practitioners engaging in international dispute resolution, especially when speed and technical expertise are crucial factors, the Model Clauses provide parties with tailored means to settle disputes in an expeditious manner, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of their dispute resolution processes, while catering for their unique needs. The Four Model Clauses presented are: Model Clause on Highly Expedited Arbitration Model Clause on Adjudication Model Clause on Technical Advisers Model Clause on Confidentiality

The UNCITRAL Model Clauses on Specialized Express Dispute Resolution (SPEDR) (2024) (the “Model Clauses”) have been developed and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Model Clauses, accompanied by explanatory notes, offer customized solutions designed to be adapted and adjusted to suit the particular circumstances and preferences of the parties, building on the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules. Designed as a resource for businesses and practitioners engaging in international dispute resolution, especially when speed and technical expertise are crucial factors, the Model Clauses provide parties with tailored means to settle disputes in an expeditious manner, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of their dispute resolution processes, while catering for their unique needs. The Four Model Clauses presented are: Model Clause on Highly Expedited Arbitration Model Clause on Adjudication Model Clause on Technical Advisers Model Clause on Confidentiality

The UNCITRAL Model Clauses on Specialized Express Dispute Resolution (SPEDR) (2024) (the “Model Clauses”) have been developed and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Model Clauses, accompanied by explanatory notes, offer customized solutions designed to be adapted and adjusted to suit the particular circumstances and preferences of the parties, building on the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules. Designed as a resource for businesses and practitioners engaging in international dispute resolution, especially when speed and technical expertise are crucial factors, the Model Clauses provide parties with tailored means to settle disputes in an expeditious manner, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of their dispute resolution processes, while catering for their unique needs. The Four Model Clauses presented are: Model Clause on Highly Expedited Arbitration Model Clause on Adjudication Model Clause on Technical Advisers Model Clause on Confidentiality

The UNCITRAL Model Clauses on Specialized Express Dispute Resolution (SPEDR) (2024) (the “Model Clauses”) have been developed and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The Model Clauses, accompanied by explanatory notes, offer customized solutions designed to be adapted and adjusted to suit the particular circumstances and preferences of the parties, building on the UNCITRAL Expedited Arbitration Rules. Designed as a resource for businesses and practitioners engaging in international dispute resolution, especially when speed and technical expertise are crucial factors, the Model Clauses provide parties with tailored means to settle disputes in an expeditious manner, ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of their dispute resolution processes, while catering for their unique needs. The Four Model Clauses presented are: Model Clause on Highly Expedited Arbitration Model Clause on Adjudication Model Clause on Technical Advisers Model Clause on Confidentiality