Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This article examines the obligation for public-sector deployers to conduct Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIAs) under Article 27 of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). The article argues that the FRIA obligation functions as a minimum harmonisation standard, granting Member State authorities discretion to go beyond the AI Act's baseline and conduct more rigorous fundamental rights scrutiny prior to deployment. In contrast, the AI Act's obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems are fully harmonised, primarily structured around internal market objectives and designed to facilitate the free circulation of AI technologies across the EU. By drawing a distinction between these two regulatory logics, the article demonstrates that decisions by public authorities not to deploy AI, or to conduct broader or deeper FRIA impact assessments than required by Article 27, fall outside the scope of EU law. Drawing a parallel with free movement of goods caselaw, the article argues that such decisions are akin to ‘selling arrangements’. Consequently, they are not subject to challenge under internal market or fundamental rights provisions of EU law by affected providers. The article concludes that the FRIA mechanism offers Member States a critical lever to secure fundamental rights and foster human-centric and trustworthy AI.

International business creates legal problems that do not fit neatly inside one country’s court system. Companies trade goods, share technology, build projects, and move money across borders, often with partners they may never meet in person. When a dispute happens, the main question is not only “Who is right?” but also “Where will the dispute be decided, and will the final decision be respected in other countries?” This research explains how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - in particular international commercial arbitration - answers those questions. It opens with ADR as a general concept in the sphere of international law and relates it to how the United Nations (UN) approaches peaceful dispute settlement. It then explains, in detail, arbitration: how it operates, why businesses use it, and what makes it different from court litigation. After that, the research examines the most important UN-based legal framework that applies to arbitrations, especially the New York Convention of 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and the UNCITRAL Model Law that many countries employ to structure their legislation on arbitration. It also places arbitration inside the wider world of international commercial law, including how international contract rules such as the CISG reduce legal uncertainty in cross-border trade. Finally, it identifies major gaps: uneven court attitudes, misuse of the “public policy” exception, problems with non-signatories, delay and cost, unequal bargaining power, and the challenge of handling modern disputes involving multiple parties and urgent interim relief. The research ends with practical recommendations aimed at law reform, better drafting of arbitration clauses, improved court–arbitration cooperation, and stronger ethical and procedural safeguards.

Fast changing of technology has produced a growing gap between law and technology, in which the legal control is running behind technology. Whereas law is retaliatory, the new technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, biotechnology, and autonomous vehicles, develop in a proactive way and present complex challenges. They are intellectual property rights, privacy, liability, cross-border performance, and ethical uncertainty. Poor time lag in legislation, lack of technical expertise and jurisdictional issues worsen the situation. Possible solutions to such gaps include regulatory sandbox, technology foresight, sunset clauses, and micro-directives. Legal professionals need to be trained interdisciplinarily and interacted with experts on a constant basis. To control the multinational technological development there is the need to have global coordination. Active and adaptive systems are capable of defending rights and also facilitate innovation. Reactive to anticipatory governance should be altered in order to make sure that law is up-to-date with the societal and technological advancements.

Cette thèse examine le traitement par la régulation européenne de la problématique des injustices structurelles sociales liées aux grands réseaux sociaux. Pour ce faire, elle opère une synthèse de nombreuses recherches empiriques qui mettent en évidence les inégalités dans la gouvernance des contenus, et s'appuie sur des perspectives théoriques tirées de la philosophie politique, de la théorie juridique féministe, et des recherches en droit et économie politique. Elle présente trois lignes d'argumentation principales. Premièrement, le droit européen n'empêche pas les injustices telles que la discrimination dans la modération, les violences en ligne, ou la visibilité inégale des différents groupes sociaux, parce qu'il conceptualise ces inégalités d'une manière individualiste et formaliste, visant à protéger les droits d'individus particuliers et à assurer l'application des règles prédéfinies, tout en ignorant la nature systémique des inégalitésDeuxièmement, le droit contribue souvent activement aux injustices : par exemple, en permettant aux agences policières de demander la suppression des contenus pour des raisons politiques. Troisièmement, les aspects du cadre réglementaire qui sont perçus comme les plus à même de combattre les inégalités systémiques, à savoir les obligations autour de la gestion des risques et les principes des droits de l'homme, se révèlent en réalité peu capables d'empêcher les injustices structurelles. Ces deux éléments restent en effet inscrits dans un paradigme de régulation technocratique, dépolitisée, et favorable au marché, et excluent toute contestation réelle du pouvoir ou des pratiques commerciales des plateformes de « big tech ». This thesis analyses EU regulation of social media content governance, focusing on how the law addresses the impacts of the largest platforms on structural social injustice. To do so, it draws on theoretical perspectives from political philosophy, feminist and queer legal theory, and law and political economy, and synthesises a wide range of empirical scholarship that illuminates the unjust impacts of social media platforms' content governance. It makes three main arguments.First, EU law cannot effectively address unjust impacts - such as discriminatory content moderation, online violence, or the unequal visibility of different social groups - because it regulates them in a highly individualistic and formalistic way, focused on protecting individual rights and consistently applying predefined rules, which overlooks systemic inequalities and their connections to underlying political-economic structures. Second, moreover, the law often actively contributes to injustice: for example, by excluding minority perspectives from platform governance, or by making it easier for state institutions to target politically disfavoured content for removal. Third, the two aspects of the legal framework which are widely seen by experts as the most promising levers to address systemic inequalities and power disparities - risk management obligations, and human rights principles - are also incapable of counteracting these problems. They remain limited by a technocratic, depoliticised and marketised regulatory paradigm, which excludes genuine political contestation of the power of 'big tech' platforms to organise online content in line with their own commercial interests.

This article analyzes the legal and tax aspects of drag-along and tag-along clauses in corporate agreements, highlighting their relationship with freedom of association and the fiscal impacts arising from the transfer of corporate control. Through a deductive methodology and bibliographic research, the study initially examines the constitutional foundation of freedom of association and its influence on private autonomy in the structuring of corporate arrangements. It then investigates the mechanisms, purposes, and effects of drag-along and tag-along clauses, which are widely used to regulate the transfer of equity interests and to ensure predictability in corporate reorganization transactions. From a tax perspective, the article addresses the fiscal consequences of the transfer of corporate interests, particularly regarding the incidence of Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and the Social Contribution on Net Profit (CSLL), demonstrating that such transactions constitute taxable capital gains subject to federal taxation. The research shows that a proper understanding of the legal and tax effects of these clauses is essential to ensure legal certainty, tax planning efficiency, and stability in business relations. It concludes that drag-along and tag-along clauses, by promoting uniformity, transparency, and predictability in transfers of control, contribute to the protection of shareholders’ rights, the effectiveness of party autonomy, and sustainable economic development, in accordance with constitutional principles and current tax legislation.

Since its innovation as a modern financial product in the 1970s, securitization has swept the global financial market. In 2000s, in order to ease China’s concentrated debt risks in the banking system and to improve the country’s imbalanced financial system, the Chinese government started to promote a trial program of securitization. An associated regulatory system was then created to facilitate the development of the Chinese securitization markets. Unlike regulations drafted and applied in North America, where an ex-ante regulatory analysis procedure and an ex-post evaluation system are installed, the current Chinese securitization regulation system is built mainly upon a basis of trial and interim rules. In other words, Chinese regulations regarding securitization were not comprehensively assessed before their adoption and there has been no systemic ex-post evaluation of the current securitization regulatory system in the past 20 years. This raises the question of whether the Chinese securitization regulation system facilitates the achievement of its regulatory objectives. The author purports to answer this question using three tools: The theory of regulation, legal historical analysis of law, and comparative law. To begin the analysis, the author designs an analytical framework based on the theory of regulation to evaluate Chinese regulations on securitization. In this evaluative framework, perspectives and criteria are stipulated to guide and draw the boundary of the evaluation. While applying the analytical framework, the author reviews the development of the Chinese securitization regulatory system over the past 20 years. The author studies the historical context of regulations established and regulatory modifications adopted in order to assess whether the logic embedded in the current Chinese securitization regulatory system is still valid. To better evaluate the Chinese securitization regulatory system, the author also applies a micro comparison of certain Chinese securitization regulations with their counterparts in North America. The purpose of this comparison is also to understand whether the Chinese characteristics in Chinese securitization regulations facilitate the achievement of its regulatory objectives. At the end of this assessment, the author provides a report to find the merits and disadvantages of Chinese securitization regulatory system. Due to the evaluative nature of this research, no demonstrated solutions are proposed in this report. Depuis sa création dans les années 1970, la titrisation s’est répandue à travers le marché financier mondial. Dans les années 2000, le gouvernement chinois a commencé à promouvoir le programme de titrisation afin d'atténuer les risques liés à la concentration de la dette dans le système bancaire et d'améliorer un système financier déséquilibré. La règlementation associée a été mise en place pour faciliter le développement du marché chinois de la titrisation. Contrairement aux régles créées et appliquées en Amérique du Nord, qui suivent une analyse ex ante —c’est-à-dire avant leur adoption — et une évaluation ex post — soit après leur application pendant une certaine période, le système de réglementation de la titrisation actuellement en vigueur en Chine a été élaboré sur la base d’essais et de mesures provisoires. Autrement dit, la Chine ne s’est pas fondée sur une analyse ex ante approfondie, et n’a mené aucune évaluation systémique ex post de ses réglementations de la titrisation au cours des vingt dernières années. Ce système chinois de réglementation de la titrisation facilite-t-il ou non la réalisation de ses objectifs réglementaires ? L'auteur tente de répondre à cette question à partir de trois outils : la théorie de la réglementation, l’analyse historique du droit et le droit comparé. Pour commencer, l’auteur conçoit un cadre analytique basé sur la théorie de la réglementation pour évaluer les dispositions chinoises en matière de titrisation. Dans ce cadre d’évaluation, des perspectives et des critères sont proposés pour guider et délimiter l’évaluation. À la lumière de ce cadre analytique, l’auteur replace la réglementation chinoise de la titrisation dans son contexte historique et retrace les modifications apportées au cours de deux dernières décennies. Il s’agit ainsi d’évaluer si la logique qui a présidé à l’adoption de ces règles reste valide dans le contexte actuel. Mais pour mieux saisir les caractéristiques de la réglementation chinoise de la titrisation, l’auteur ajoute à cette analyse historique interne à la Chine des micro-comparaisons de la titrisation chinoise et de ses règles avec leurs homologues nord-américains dans différentes sections de cette thèse. C’est ainsi qu’il sera possible de voir si les caractéristiques chinoises de la réglementation en matière de titrisation facilitent ou non la réalisation de ses objectifs. Au terme de cette recherche évaluative, l’on proposera un rapport qui mettra en lumière les avantages et les inconvénients du système chinois. En raison de sa nature évaluative, cette thèse ne proposera aucune solution aux inconvénients repérés.

Under the aegis of efficiency and neutrality, algorithmic risk-assessment tools have been rapidly inserted into the realm of pretrial justice, promising scientific and objective prediction where presumption of innocence and scarce resources are pitted against each other. Their sprawl has been uneven and confined to looser pretrial rules than would govern similar proof at trial. These systems translate miscellaneous data into scores of “risk,” inviting courts to act on what might happen rather than on what has been proven, within a process already plagued by plea bargaining, racial disparity, and institutional asymmetry. This thesis argues that such tools do not merely constitute information about the defendant; they reorder what counts as usable knowledge and who is treated as a credible knower at the weakest stage of a criminal process. The thesis lays out how scores interact with judicial decision-making; how ostensibly neutral inputs (criminal history, prior contacts, residence, employment) can re-encode social disadvantage; and how opacity and trade-secret claims frustrate fundamental rights such as due process. The doctrinal analysis clarifies the boundary between regulation and punishment under United States v. Salerno, the demands of proportionality, and the significance of the presumption of innocence when decisions are predictive. A brief technical account explains why claims of “explainability” often exceed what such models can reliably demonstrate for legal purposes, but the core argument is juridical: claims of legitimacy must be substantiated by enforceable safeguards; falling short of that, systems described as ‘explainable' or ‘fair' remain as fancy adjectives. The thesis contends that the safeguards that govern the trial must be applied earlier in the criminal process, where liberty is already fragile. Accordingly, the thesis argues for invoking evidentiary rules early on: demonstrating reliability of the tools; reasoned judicial decisions that explain how any score was weighed against case-specific facts; meaningful opportunities for defence challenge; and, where appropriate, access to independent expertise to translate model outputs without displacing judicial authorship. The researcher is of the opinion that these emphases are necessary so that pretrial decisions remain individualised and proportionate and detention retains its status as an exceptional, non-punitive measure. Finally, it defends doubt as a juridical virtue, a disciplined moment of pause that reins in the allure of algorithmic certainty and reasserts judicial responsibility, so that the presumption of innocence and liberty remains the rule even in a predictive age. Sous l'égide de l'efficacité et de la neutralité, les outils algorithmiques d'évaluation du risque ont été rapidement introduits dans le domaine de la justice pré-procès, promettant une prédiction scientifique et objective là où la présomption d'innocence et la rareté des ressources se trouvent mises en tension. Leur déploiement a été inégal et s'est inscrit dans des règles pré-procès plus souples que celles qui régiraient des éléments de preuve similaires au stade du procès. Ces systèmes traduisent des données hétérogènes en scores de « risque », invitant les juridictions à agir en fonction de ce qui pourrait advenir plutôt que de ce qui a été prouvé, au sein d'un processus déjà marqué par le plaider-coupable, les disparités raciales et les asymétries institutionnelles. La présente thèse soutient que de tels outils ne constituent pas seulement une information relative au prévenu ; ils réorganisent ce qui compte comme connaissance mobilisable et déterminent qui est traité comme un sujet crédible de savoir au stade le plus fragile de la procédure pénale. Elle expose la manière dont les scores interagissent avec la prise de décision judiciaire ; comment des variables présentées comme neutres (antécédents judiciaires, contacts antérieurs avec la police, résidence, emploi) peuvent réencoder des désavantages sociaux ; et comment l'opacité ainsi que les revendications de secret commercial entravent des droits fondamentaux tels que le droit à une procédure régulière. L'analyse doctrinale précise la frontière entre régulation et punition au regard de l'arrêt United States v. Salerno, les exigences de proportionnalité et la portée de la présomption d'innocence lorsque les décisions sont de nature prédictive. Un bref exposé technique explique pourquoi les prétentions à « l'explicabilité » excèdent souvent ce que ces modèles peuvent démontrer de manière fiable à des fins juridiques, mais l'argument central demeure juridique : les revendications de légitimité doivent être étayées par des garanties effectives ; à défaut, les systèmes qualifiés d'« explicables » ou d'« équitables » ne demeurent que des adjectifs séduisants. La thèse soutient que les garanties gouvernant le procès doivent être appliquées plus en amont dans le processus pénal, là où la liberté est déjà fragile. En conséquence, elle plaide pour une mobilisation précoce des règles de preuve : démonstration de la fiabilité des outils ; décisions judiciaires motivées expliquant la manière dont tout score a été mis en balance avec les faits propres à l'affaire ; possibilités effectives de contestation par la défense ; et, le cas échéant, accès à une expertise indépendante permettant de traduire les résultats des modèles sans se substituer à l'autorité judiciaire. La chercheuse estime que ces exigences sont nécessaires afin que les décisions pré-procès demeurent individualisées et proportionnées, et que la détention conserve son caractère exceptionnel et non punitif. Enfin, la thèse défend le doute comme une vertu juridique, moment discipliné de suspension qui tempère l'attrait de la certitude algorithmique et réaffirme la responsabilité judiciaire, afin que la présomption d'innocence et la liberté demeurent la règle, y compris à l'ère prédictive.

Artificial Intelligence's (AI) technology growing rapidly has caused the newly added layer of complexity to copyright. It makes humans the essentials of the law swooshing in almost impossible,Who is the one who is going to be liable for posting? The paper describes the AI-produced content which has been available to the user like never before and it gives an in-depth analysis of the matter where the examples of legal uncertainties include authorship, ownership, infringement, and moral rights. The article is a comparative study of the legal systems in the US, the UK, and the European Union in the context of their AI works regulations and exposes the non-conformities and gaps in the existing rules on AI-generated works. The work is a discussion about the new approaches that are being implemented and the worldwide perspectives that are being explored in connection with computerized content phenomena, both from a regulatory aspect and through the new business model. The study is about the suggestions for the intellectual property field that is both open and supportive of the argument that the innovation should still be protected humanly and is capable of dealing with the existing AI-related problems up till now along with the chances that can arise in the future.

The rapid expansion of digital assets and the metaverse, powered by blockchain and other advanced technologies, presents new challenges for dispute resolution and legal frameworks. This study examines the legal landscape of digital assets, highlighting complexities in contractual obligations, ownership, and governance. As blockchain enables decentralised transactions and ownership—raising issues around security, intellectual property, and jurisdiction—traditional legal systems struggle to keep pace. This research explores blockchain’s potential to enhance dispute resolution via decentralised arbitration and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, immutability, and transparency. Approaches to digital property disputes in the metaverse are evolving, and new alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, including mediation, arbitration, and online dispute resolution (ODR), are emerging. Additionally, this study investigates how technologies like virtual reality and artificial intelligence (AI) reshape regulation and enforcement in the metaverse. By analysing regulatory efforts, it identifies key areas where legal frameworks can be improved to protect digital asset owners, promote innovation, and enable fair conflict resolution in a fast-changing virtual economy. Ultimately, the findings underscore the need for adaptive, forward-looking legal responses that embrace technological progress to address the metaverse’s unique challenges.

This paper discusses the impact of digitalisation on the recognition of international marriages and divorces concluded online before a remote authority. The widespread solution for the formal validity of marriages based on the application of the lex loci celebrationis is now facing the division of the place of celebration between the state where the authority is located and the state(s) from which the parties appear remotely. With regard to divorces in the era of dejudicialisation and digitisation, new problems arise when it comes to assessing their authentic nature and the notary’s international competence. This paper explores different legal approaches to these challenges from a comparative perspective and proposes avenues to enhance the cross-border circulation of family status resulting from e-solemnisation of marriages and e-notarisation of divorces.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming many professional spheres, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not an exemption. The paper will provide the definition of ADR origin and scope and then explain the fundamental ideas of AI and its history. Next, we proceed to analyze the application of AI tools to help ADR practitioners with mediation, arbitration, case management, and predict outcomes. Through the examination of the most recent literature, industry publications, and technology review, we show how AI can be employed to facilitate the process of document analysis, suggest negotiation tactics, conduct administrative work, and estimate the result of a case. We also examine ethical and practical issues like prejudice and transparency and give some suggestions regarding the establishment of AI as a responsible resolution of disputes. The paper concludes that AI can enhance the efficiency, accessibility, and strategic insights of the process of ADR, yet it should be under close supervision of the human judgment and ethical principles to make the process fair and trustworthy.

This study examines the relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and investment efficiency within the institutional framework of an emerging market, with a focus on the mediating roles of information asymmetry and agency costs. Using a balanced panel of 115 non-financial firms listed on the Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) from 2016 to 2024, the analysis employs fixed-effects regression models to control for unobserved heterogeneity and ensure robust inference. The results reveal a statistically significant negative association between CSR disclosure and investment inefficiency, indicating that firms with higher CSR engagement tend to allocate capital more efficiently, avoiding both overinvestment and underinvestment. This suggests that CSR functions not only as a reputational tool but as a governance mechanism that enhances transparency, strengthens stakeholder accountability, and aligns managerial incentives with long-term value creation. Further analysis confirms a dual mediating pathway: information asymmetry mediates the relationship between CSR and underinvestment, as improved CSR disclosure reduces informational opacity and facilitates better access to external financing. Meanwhile, agency costs proxies by free cash flow mediate the link between CSR and overinvestment, supporting Jensen’s (1986) hypothesis that excess internal funds invite managerial opportunism. CSR mitigates this risk by institutionalizing ethical accountability and constraining discretionary spending. These findings provide empirical evidence on the governance channels through which CSR influences core financial decisions, highlighting its strategic role in promoting financial resilience and efficient resource allocation particularly in institutional environments marked by weak monitoring and high information frictions.

This study explores the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices and audit quality (AQ) on the financial performance of non-financial firms in Pakistan, also considering how company size may act as a moderator. CSR disclosure was assessed using a checklist covering social, environmental, and governance aspects, while for audit quality, a dummy variable is used. The study relies on panel data from 2021 to 2024. The performance is measured using Return on Equity (ROE). The study employed pooled OLS and fixed effects regression models to account for firm-specific differences. Findings of the study indicate that higher levels of corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure and audit quality are significantly positively linked to better firm performance and play a very important role in enhancing reputation, governance, and stakeholder trust. Conversely, the relationship between firm size and performance is significant and negative, suggesting that larger firms may be less efficient and that size can diminish resource advantages. This research adds to governance and sustainability discussions by providing specific evidence from Pakistan and offering valuable insights to policymakers, corporate leaders, and investors.

Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has become one of the most controversial processes of international economic law, and has straddled the nexus of foreign investment, sovereignty and development policy. Though ISDS was initially created to give its investors a sense of security and depoliticize their claims, lately it has gained critics over excess damage payments, regulatory stifling and political responsibility. The example of Pakistan, most notable in the Tethyan Copper arbitration exemplifies the disadvantages developing states suffer when signing one-sided investment treaties. The paper is a critical review of the historical developments, economic justification as well as the criticisms of ISDS using EU, U.S and Chinese experiences as a case example. It also gets involved in current reformist discussions such as the Multilateral Investment Court and the evaluations of their possible impact in terms of balancing investment protection and regulatory independence of states. The analysis outlines that it is in Pakistan interest to adopt a dual approach to the treaty modernization and institutional strengthening and also get actively involved in multilateral reform efforts in order to make ISDS consistent with the state policy of economic development and its sovereignty.

Banks are regarded as special financial institutions because, apart from the various critical intermediary and other functions they fulfil in a financial system, the hallmark of their business models is receiving deposits from the public and using such deposits for extending loans against interest from which they make profit. Unlike other companies, banks are however vulnerable to loss of public confidence and remain exposed to various risks and failure. Banks are thus critically important actors in domestic and global financial systems, - thus their safety is critical to the maintenance of financial stability. As a result, banks are subject to stringent regulation and supervision to ensure their safety. Despite prudential regulation, the failure of banks remains a reality. If the risk of bank failure is not adequately addressed through appropriate regulation and supervision, , it may result in a financial crisis like the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (2008 GFC). Because banks play a special role in an economy and their failure may have an adverse impact on financial stability and depositors, this thesis aligns with the view expressed by academics and international organisations that there is a need for a special regime (lex specialis) to deal with the failure of banks since normal insolvency procedures are not suitable for this purpose. f. This is because bank failures require swift, timely intervention by a supervisor to resolve failing banks in an orderly and optimal manner to ensure the maintenance of financial stability, depositor protection and relegating bailouts with taxpayers’ money as a last resort. A very notable lesson that emanated from the 2008 GFC is the criticality of special resolution frameworks for banks; the need to balance the interests of shareholders, creditors, and depositors, while promoting financial stability objectives. As a result, the need for special resolution frameworks for banks which empowers Resolution Authorities with adequate resolution tools and powers to resolve a failing bank timeous and orderly , has become a legislative imperative in contemporary financial systems. To deal with bank failures in Namibia, the Banking Institutions Act, 2 of 1998 (the BIA 1998) contained provisions that allowed for the assumption of control and liquidation of a failed bank. However, the newly enacted Banking Institution Act 13 of 2023 (the BIA 2023 which repealed the BIA 1998) has changed that position and introduced a single provision in section 70 that provides for bank resolution. Until now, prior to the introduction of this very new statutory provision, all bank failures in Namibia were dealt with under the limited supervisory tools of the BIA 1998. This study seeks to determine whether section 70 of the BIA 2023, is sufficiently aligned with international best practice as captured in the Financial Stability Board’s Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions (FSB KAs), issued in 2011, as updated in 2014 and 2024. Alternatively, if the regime introduced by the BIA 2023 does not adequately align with the FSB KAs it is then considered whether the new Namibian bank resolution framework requires to be strengthened further to better align it with the FSB KAs. To consider possible further reforms to the new Namibian bank resolution regime, this thesis considers the resolution frameworks in Germany and Nigeria by way of comparative studies to observe best practices.

Despite being part of Australian law for more than 30 years, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (‘CISG’) has not secured the internationally minded interpretation that CISG art 7(1) requires. Australia’s international commercial arbitration (‘ICA’) laws, however, are routinely approached by Australian courts with an internationalist perspective, as their own interpretative rules require. It is tempting to conclude that Australia’s approach to interpreting its ICA laws is transferable to the CISG context. In this article I address a previously unexplored nuance affecting that conclusion. Australian courts routinely accept Singaporean, Hong Kong and New Zealand interpretative influence concerning ICA laws. In the CISG context, however, significantly less influence from those jurisdictions exists. That being so, I explore how Australia’s courts might better apply the CISG in an internationalist manner. First, I recommend that Australia’s courts emphasise to practitioners the need to consider the CISG’s application and its internationalist interpretation requirements. Second, I recommend that Australian courts use the amicus curiae procedure to solicit third party submissions addressing the CISG’s interpretation. Both techniques are applied by foreign courts in the ICA context and would assist Australian courts in discharging their CISG art 7(1) obligations.

From rationality to reality. The evolution of law and economics through the behavioral lens. Understanding how we choose: foundations of behavioral economics. Rethinking law through the lens of behavioral economics. Why law needs behavioral economics. The challenge of integrating behavioral economics into private law: freedom vs regulation. The double-edged sword of behavioral economics: protecting consumers from psychological manipulation. Balancing innovation and consumer rights: a global view on consumer protection in the EU, Italy and Colombia. Alternative dispute resolution and the judicial agreements. The justice system seen though behavioral economics. Judicial agreements: procedural autonomy and enhancing judicial cooperation. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and mediation: legal frameworks, party autonomy and behavioral economic. A brief comparative analysis on mediation: EU, Italy and Colombia. Applying behavioral economics in the ADR (mediation).

In the face of the judiciary's inability to keep pace with the electronic revolution and to provide swift means for resolving e-commerce disputes, the need has become urgent to search for more successful ways to resolve disputes and disagreements between contracting parties while simultaneously adhering to the requirements of e-commerce, which are based on speed. As a result of these efforts, electronic arbitration has emerged. Arbitration stands as an exceptional pathway for dispute resolution, stemming from mutual agreement and diverging from conventional litigation methods. Its purpose lies in resolving disputes by reaching a verdict issued by an arbitration panel, which holds comparable validity to a court ruling امام عجز القضاء عن اللحاق بالطفرة الإلكترونية وتوفير وسائل سريعة لفض منازعات التجارة الالكترونية، أصبحت الحاجة ملحة للبحث عن سبل أكثر نجاحا لفض منازعات والخلافات بين المتعاقدين مع الحفاظ في ذات الوقت على متطلبات التجارة الالكترونية القائمة على السرعة بين أطرافها، كانت نتيجة جهودها التحكيم الالكتروني. يعتبر التحكيم طريق استثنائي لفض الخصومات، مصدره الاتفاق وقوامه الخروج على طرق التقاضي العادية، من أجل فض المنازعات للوصل إلى حكم يصدر عن هيئة التحكيم، يتمتع بحجية الأمر المقضي به شأنه شأن حكم الصادر عن القضاء.

This study investigates how blockchain integration, regulatory policies, and the participation of institutional investors impact fintech innovation in Jordanian fintech companies. A descriptive analytical approach was used to evaluate and summarize the effects of these factors on innovation in the sector. An electronic survey was conducted among 125 administrative personnel working in Jordan's fintech industry. The results indicate a strong presence of blockchain adoption, involvement of institutional investors, and overall fintech innovation in these companies. However, the regulatory landscape in Jordan's fintech sector was found to be moderate. Furthermore, the analysis reveals that both blockchain integration and the regulatory framework significantly influence fintech innovation, with a significance level of 0.05. In light of these findings, the study suggests the creation of strategies to promote blockchain adoption, aiming to enhance efficiency and innovation in the industry.

This study focuses on both domestic and foreign investment as indicators of economic growth in an emerging market context, examining the effects of tax reforms on investment decisions in Ghana from 1985 to 2020. The research employs a time-series analysis to integrate control variables like inflation, gross capital formation, and base rate, revealing their significant influence on investment activity in tandem with tax policy changes. Unlike previous research that mostly uses gross fixed capital formation as a proxy for investment, this study includes a wider range of investment types, giving a more complete picture of how the economy works. We did unit root and co-integration tests, which showed that the variables were first-order co-integrated. We performed the model estimate using a Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) and Granger causality tests. Results reveal that tax reforms have a measurable impact on investment patterns, underscoring the importance of adaptive tax policies in promoting sustainable economic development. The findings contribute to the broader literature on investment and fiscal policy in emerging economies, offering insights for policy-makers on optimizing tax strategies to encourage investment and drive economic growth.