Bibliographie sélective OHADA

No abstract available.

A “global” civil procedure has emerged and found its way into debates over procedural reform in both international and domestic arenas. Global civil procedure includes the procedural rules, practices, and social understandings that govern transnational litigation and arbitration. A global civil procedure norm is a norm adopted across courts or arbitration providers with the purpose of making that jurisdiction or provider more competitive in attracting transnational litigation or arbitration. Global civil procedure norms are at stake in multiple present trends and debates, including model laws in commercial arbitration, the procedure of international tribunals, the debate over investment dispute resolution, the rise of courts oriented towards international litigation, and sprawling litigation spanning multiple jurisdictions and fora. On a surface level, the values reflected in global civil procedure seem to be roughly the same across jurisdictions. A common language has emerged around competition for litigation business and procedure values such as efficiency, certainty, and impartiality. Yet different legal systems do not necessarily agree on the purpose of various shared elements of global civil procedure. For democracies, for instance, the purpose of procedural reforms might be to facilitate access to justice. Other countries may favor the same reforms because they facilitate top-down administrative control of judges. Surface agreement can submerge divergent logics that may ultimately lead to very different applications of harmonized rules. This Article begins by introducing the concept of global civil procedure, who uses it, and how. Next, it considers several examples of the phenomenon including conflicts of interest rules for adjudicators, aggrega tion, and discovery or disclosure rules. Finally, it considers the limits of global civil procedure. Although the rhetoric of procedural competition can be heard across systems, procedural values do not necessarily translate both in terms of enduring divisions between legal traditions and in terms of applications by current political regimes.

Desire for quick and affordable justice is universal. Right to speedy trial is a right to life and personal liberty of every citizen guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures just, fair and reasonable procedure. Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms have become more crucial for businesses operating in India as well as those doing businesses with Indian firms. There are various reasons for which ADR is preferred over the conventional way of resolving the disputes. India being a developing country, going through major economic reforms within the framework of the rule of law, for expeditious resolution of disputes and lessening the burden on the courts, alternative mechanisms for resolution (ADR) are the only alternative through arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation.

To be made effective, class action settlements must be negotiated fairly, be perceived as fair and reasonable by the settlement parties such that they agree to their terms and substance, and be characterized as fair, reasonable and adequate by a court at the occasion of a settlement approval hearing. But how is settlement fairness defined, in a collective litigation context? By which process is the evaluation of fairness made and the approval given by the court? What role does the court correspondingly have, in that context? This thesis explores the legal policy and reasoning behind the mandatory judicial approval of class settlements, the process by which it is sought and obtained, the currently relevant factors and indicia of settlement fairness which support all decisions to approve, and the roles of the principal settlement actors, particularly the settlement judge. It suggests hypotheses for reform applicable to these approval processes, roles of the actors and standard of settlement fairness. These hypotheses are tested, for their plausibility, against empirical data obtained from the qualitative interviews of seventeen judges conducted by the author in four target jurisdictions that have similar approaches to class action settlement approvals, and where class action litigation activity is heavy: Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and the United States federal courts. Ultimately, the thesis proposes final recommendations for reform of the class action settlement approval procedure.

Criminals are becoming increasingly involved in computing activity and connectivity, but practitioners in the criminal justice field do not seem to be keeping pace with crime in a computing context. Being comfortable with the technology that underpins the Information Age is a non-negotiable skill for those who have to unravel and bring twenty-first century crimes to book. Chapter two of this study therefore sought to serve two purposes. The first aim was to acquaint the reader with the exceedingly complex technologies involved in computers and networks. The second aim was to clarify the technical context and terminology typical of the collection of electronic evidence. South Africa signed the Cybercrime Convention in November 2001. At present, the Cybercrime Convention is the only existing internationally accepted benchmark, inter alia, for the procedural powers aimed at the collection of electronic evidence. The main objective of this study was to consider whether the South African search and seizure, production and preservation devices need to be augmented and/or aligned so as to be on par with the devices proposed in the Cybercrime Convention. This objective was served in two ways. Firstly, an exposition of the requirements, scope, conditions and safeguards of the domestic and transborder search and seizure, production and preservation mechanisms proposed by the Cybercrime Convention was provided in chapter three of this study. Secondly, an exposition of the domestic and transborder international search and seizure, production and preservation devices available in the current South African legislative framework was given in chapter four of this study. A comparative analysis was done between the South African catalogue of criminal procedural search and seizure, production and preservation devices compared to those set out in the Cybercrime Convention. Where any alignment or augmentation of the South African devices was found to be necessary, this study identified these intervention areas. The findings and recommendations based on this comparative analysis were set out in chapter seven of this study. In considering any alignments and/or augmentations required in respect of the South African domestic search and seizure, production and preservation mechanisms, the application of the equivalent mechanisms directed at electronic evidence used in the United States of America and England were investigated in chapters five and six respectively. The lessons learned were also referred to in chapter seven of this study.