Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis critically analyses Uganda’s bilateral investment treaty (BIT) system to determine its compatibility with sustainable development imperatives and proposes a new model BIT that aligns with Uganda’s evolving development priorities. Recognising the country’s reliance on foreign direct investment (FDI) for economic growth, this study interrogates the extent to which Uganda’s current BITs—many of which were concluded during earlier policymaking eras—expose the country to legal, economic, and regulatory risks. These include susceptibility to investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims, constraints on the host state’s right to regulate, and a lack of provisions promoting environmental, social, and developmental objectives. Through doctrinal and comparative legal analysis, the study traces the historical evolution of international investment law (IIL), critiques the limitations of Uganda’s domestic and treaty-based FDI frameworks, and identifies substantive and structural weaknesses in Uganda’s in-force and model BITs. The analysis also considers international reform efforts and best practices from new-generation investment agreements, including the AfCFTA Protocol on Investment, the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement, and the SADC and EAC Model BITs. Particular attention is paid to the South African BIT reform experience as a comparator for Uganda’s reform journey. The study finds that Uganda’s BIT system is outdated, overly protective of investors, and poorly aligned with its sustainable development goals (SDGs). It recommends terminating unratified and problematic BITs, renegotiating existing ones, and adopting a new model BIT that balances investor protection with Uganda’s regulatory autonomy and sustainable development objectives. To this end, a draft model BIT is proposed as an annex to guide future treaty negotiations and reform Uganda’s investment regime in line with contemporary global standards and regional aspirations.

This thesis critically examines a much-debated issue in international law: the legitimacy of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS). The system was initially conceived to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for the protection and promotion of foreign investment. In time, this objective has incited a discussion on the legitimacy of the system as the developed world has started to experience the role of host states. Since then, they have taken the lead in the reform process to achieve a balance between host state's and foreign investors' rights. To this effect, both the European Union (EU) and the Third Way Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are for centralization of the system arguing its current problems emanate from its ad hoc and decentralized nature. Although both are aimed at system centralization, the paths they take to achieve it clearly differ. The EU seeks a permanent investment court by which ad hoc arbitration would give way to a more centralized framework. However, TWAIL advocates for a return to the pre-ISDS era, where national courts resolve investment disputes between foreign investors and states. The effectiveness of these two reform ideas in addressing the purported legitimacy concerns of the ISDS is critically examined in this thesis using Martti Koskenniemi's legal approach. Ultimately, it asserts that neither proposal is adequate to resolve the legitimacy issue of the system, as legitimacy can only be achieved by strengthening the principle of justice, which is feasible alone through a more decentralized structure.

Focusing on Bosnia and Herzegovina, this study examines how diasporas contribute to the creation of foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries. It defines FDI as the acquirement over assets in a foreign nation and highlights how diaspora populations support investment flows. It also examines diaspora investment strategies, such as diaspora portfolio investment (DPI) and diaspora direct investment (DDI), and offers a historical overview of diaspora FDI patterns and how Bosnia and Herzegovina's policies are changing to engage its diaspora more.One case study illustrates the impact of diaspora-led FDI by highlighting the success of Senad Šantić, a Bosnian entrepreneur who returned to his home country to start a tech company. While these investments support development and economic growth, there are still issues, like the possibility of putting one's own interests ahead of the interests of the economy as a whole. Particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where diaspora participation has historically been low, the implementation of effective policies and procedures is crucial, especially from a regulation perspective.The study also looks at the future of FDI, emphasizing the part that digital technology and new investment patterns will play. Opportunities for developing nations can be found in digital FDI, especially in industries like fintech and e-commerce, yet obstacles still exist in luring these investments. According to all the findings, developing nations can improve their chances for economic success by creating an atmosphere that encourages diaspora investment which will shift those nations into the global investment scene. Ultimately, FDI regulations and government programs are needed in order to fully utilize diaspora-led FDI for sustained growth.

This study provides an in-depth look at the complex relationship between business environments and foreign direct investment. The study examines this critical issue by focusing on emerging economies, such as Kosovo. In this research, analytical and empirical research methods have used to highlight the importance of FDI in promoting economic growth. FDI not only increases production capacity but also supports economic growth by increasing purchasing power and creating employment opportunities, especially in countries in transition. This analysis distinguishes between endogenous and exogenous variables to classify the various elements of the business environment. It is important to emphasize how a supportive business environment plays a vital role in attracting investment. The main factors affecting FDI include infrastructure quality, political stability, workforce skills, market potential and tax incentives. These initiatives are critical to creating a more favorable investment climate.As a result of the variables the study concludes by emphasizing the need for continuous reforms to strengthen the business environment. Such strategic efforts are crucial to optimize FDI flows and advance sustainable economic development. By strengthening regulatory frameworks and improving infrastructure, developing countries can be in better position itself to attract foreign investors. Furthermore, creating a strong business environment can also support the development of local entrepreneurs, increasing economic diversification. As a result, it not only facilitates the flow of capital, but also contributes to the long-term stability and growth of the national economy. Therefore, policymakers and governments need to prioritize these initiatives and develop comprehensive and sustainable strategies to improve the business environment.

This dissertation critically analyses new generation continental, regional and bilateral investment treaties in Africa with the aim to explore enhancements that could be made thereto in order to enable African citizens to hold investors accountable for investment-related climate change issues in Africa. The main research question answered in the dissertation is: to what extent does African investment treaty practice incorporate climate change-related provisions and investor accountability for climate change. The dissertation analysed traditional investment treaties, particularly noting their silence on climate change and investor accountability, and their partiality to investor protection. Using the AfCFTA Investment Protocol as an anchor alongside other new generation continental, regional and bilateral investment treaties in Africa, it discusses a fundamental contemporary shift in African investment treaty practice towards ensuring sustainable investments and greater investor accountability for sustainability in Africa. It also explores the various limitations in these new generation investment treaties that still make investor accountability. In the end it proposes reforms to the Investor-State Dispute Settlement provisions of these investment treaties to recognise citizen-led arbitral claims against investors, utilising the Hague Rules on Business and Human Rights as the procedural infrastructure for handling arbitration of such claims.

The study explores the reaction of stock markets to anticipated or unexpected rating announcements by the market in a crisis context by conducting an empirical study on the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) stock market over the period from December 2010 to August 2022. The results show that the crisis context support the anticipation of bad ratings and neutral ratings as opposed to good ratings. These results validate the asymmetry in investor reaction to announcements of anticipated rating downgrades compared with announcements of upgrades in times of crisis. This reaction highlights the irrational behave of investors in times of crisis. In fact, when investors detect a risk concerning the financial situation of a stock, they anticipate a downgrade and react quickly, even before the official announcement of the downgrade, by selling their shares on masse. This action will cause the share price to fall. Similarly, the market’s weak reaction to early good announcements is explained by the fact that this type of announcement does not provide them with any unknown information to guide their financial decisions.

This study investigates the impact of the arbitration cases under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) scheme on cross-border direct investment in the form of merger and acquisition deals. The initiation of ISDS claims has significant and negative effects on direct investment from the claimant home country to the developing or weak-institution responding country. Indirect expropriation claims often have stronger effects than direct expropriation claims. The investor-win arbitration cases produce a significant substantiation effect by reducing merger flows, while the state-win cases produce an acquittal effect that encourages the subsequent capital inflow to the respondent state. Both effects are more striking in weak-institution or less developed target countries. We also detect some spillover effects of ISDS arbitration.

This study evaluates the South African income tax regime for investments using trusts. It considers whether reforms are required, and if so, how can this be done to create a tax framework that will encourage investment, limit tax avoidance and curb capital outflows, while considering South Africa’s unique context and challenges.

International investment agreements employ dispute settlement procedures that differ markedly from their counterparts in trade agreements. A prominent and controversial difference arises with respect to the issue of “standing”: Who has the right to complain to adjudicators about a violation of the agreement? While trade agreements limit standing to the member governments (state-to-state dispute settlement), investment agreements routinely extend standing to private investors as well (investor-state dispute settlement). We develop parallel models of trade and investment agreements and employ them to study this difference. We find that the difference in standing between trade and investment agreements can be understood as deriving from the fundamentally different problems that these agreements are designed to solve. Our analysis also identifies some important qualifications to the case for including investor-state dispute settlement provisions in investment agreements, thereby offering a potential explanation for the strong political controversy associated with these provisions.

This article argues for a fundamental raison d'être reconceptualization of international investment law (IIL) through Martha Fineman's 'vulnerability theory'. The theory helps identify the structural sources of IIL's shortcomings, whilst philosophically challenging the one-sided view that foreign investors are entitled to protections, but are free from obligations vis-à-vis the communities affected by their undertakings. Emphasizing the productive power of the state to take positive action that acknowledges ordinary citizens' embeddedness within, and dependence upon, surrounding structures, the vulnerability theory challenges the hegemonic perception of the state as a source of danger - a view which has hitherto undermined both the potency and the enforceability of investor obligations. Used as a heuristic device in studying both IIL's existing structures and the potential avenues for reimagining it, Fineman's theory not only shines a novel light on the foundational premises of IIL, but also grants theoretical traction to existing ideas about improving the system.

Private investors’ land rights vary from country to country, depending on the legal system in place. The degree of openness of land laws determines the degree to which both domestic and foreign investors are attracted, as the latter aims to invest in countries with legal systems offering the most secure and sustainable interests. How can Congolese land laws be made more attractive to private investors in the real estate sector? Using exegetical and comparative methods, we will test our hypothesis that reform to increase the rights of private national and foreign investors to access land would be an asset. By comparing Congolese land law with other legal systems, and with current social and economic realities, we have concluded that accommodating land rights is a prerequisite for increasing both domestic and foreign private investment in real estate and an essential step towards boosting and modernizing real estate investment in the DRC.

It is trite that environmental challenges remain one of the major global concerns and no doubt of great impact on human existence and wellbeing. This impact is a result of human activities on the natural ecosystem. This article examines the legal framework by the Nigerian state in regulating the activities of the multinational investors in the oil and gas industry in the Niger Delta region of the country. It discusses the international, regional, and national legal framework in the protection of environment and environmental rights of the host community and foreign direct investment rights. The author demonstrates the imbalance in the protection of environmental and foreign direct investment rights from which suggestions are made towards correcting this injustice as caused by the existing legal framework.

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.

Derrière les controverses qui jalonnent l’histoire de l’idée de Constitution économique émerge la question éminemment politique de la marge de manœuvre laissée aux autorités publiques dans la sphère économique. La notion cristallise ainsi une tension fondamentale : entre démocratie et État de droit, quel doit être modèle d’organisation et d’ordonnancement juridique de l’économie? Des physiocrates aux néolibéraux, de la République de Weimar à l’intégration européenne, des constitutions nationales à la Global Governance, cet ouvrage collectif nous invite dès lors à explorer la généalogie du concept polémique de Constitution économique. Les auteurs ouvrent alors, à travers un dialogue interdisciplinaire constant, une réflexion globale autour des enjeux juridiques et politiques du processus actuel de constitutionnalisation de l’ordre de marché en Europe.

Conséquence de la compétition que les États se livrent pour attirer le maximum d’investisseurs, la mise en concurrence des systèmes juridiques nationaux s’est traduite par une libéralisation continue du droit qui a eu un effet direct sur l’idée de Constitution économique. Celle-ci a non seulement vu son épaisseur normative se renforcer du fait de la neutralisation des dispositifs juridiques dirigistes mais elle s’est également universalisée en raison de la conversion de la quasi-totalité des pays au dogme de « l’attractivité ». Toutefois, ce mouvement généralisé vers le tout libéral commence à être remis en cause sous l’effet de facteurs divers qui se traduisent par une demande sociale et politique pour plus de régulation étatique. Il en résulte à la fois un regain de l’unilatéralisme qui affecte la force des principes qui sous-tendent l’idée de constitution économique et une prise en compte plus affirmée des valeurs et intérêts collectifs qui altère la substance de ces principes.

For the first time, a monograph provides a systematic, in-depth account of contract interpretation in investment treaty arbitration and offers a conceptual paradigm that would enhance the quality of the tribunals’ reasoning.; Readership: The monograph is of relevance for legal scholars, practitioners and policymakers in the field of investment treaty arbitration. The book will also be of additional value to postgraduate and doctoral students.

The global financial crisis led to the introduction of special resolution regimes for financial institutions. The most prominent innovation of these resolution regimes is the so-called bail-in tool, which allows regulators to recapitalise financial institutions by expropriating shareholders and creditors. This thesis analyses the conditions under which a hypothetical bail-in of a financial institution would constitute a compensable breach of international investment law. It identifies the issues that are most likely to be relevant if a bail-in were to be litigated before an investment arbitration tribunal. The thesis first addresses jurisdictional issues, in particular the question of whether bail-inable instruments can even be considered an investment in procedural terms. The analysis then continues to substantive standards of protection. It deals comprehensively with the question of expropriation and related issues such as compensation, the right to regulate, and causation. It concludes with possible violations of the fair and equitable treatment standard.

There is a growing concern over the qualifications and social interactions of investment treaty arbitrators. The characteristics of this class of international adjudicators have significantly evolved over the past few decades. The contemporary arbitration panelist interacts within a broad and complex network of arbitration participants. Their patterns of social behavior both within the community of panelists and within the broader network of actors in arbitration proceedings have fundamentally reshaped the composition, dynamics and culture of the arbitration community. These new forms of relationships and patterns of conduct are new in the context of public international law. These have created unprecedented challenges to the investment treaty arbitration system. New manifestations of attributes and social behavior of panelists demonstrate inadequacies of the existing standards, rules and procedures that govern panelists. This study surveys problematic patterns of social behavior of investment treaty adjudicators and shows how certain instances of social behavior inevitably or potentially jeopardize the very foundations of the system. This research empirically examines the voting behavior of two distinct groups of party-appointed panelists, and the results reveal a relationship between appointments and the decision-making attitude of adjudicators. It further methodically maps the pool of ICSID panelists and answers the question ‘who are ICSID panelists?’ It reviews the evolution of the attributes of ICSID adjudicators, assesses the composition of the ICSID pool, and evaluates the social interactions of this group of investment treaty adjudicators. To address the challenges that investment treaty arbitration faces, a radical and multidimensional shift is occurring in the system. This transformation is directed towards greater control over the qualifications and conduct of adjudicators. These developments reconstruct the composition of the pool of adjudicators and influence how they interact with other actors in investment treaty arbitration proceedings. The ongoing reform progress indicates that the attributes and behavior of future investment treaty adjudicators would likely be different from the characteristics and conduct of the contemporary generation of panelists.