Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In international arbitration, arbitrators have procedural powers that allow them to manage and conduct the arbitration proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. These powers are typically set out in the arbitration rules that the parties have agreed to, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) rules. Arbitrators have the authority to determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration, including the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence presented. They can also decide on the language to be used in the arbitration and the location of the hearings. In addition, arbitrators can issue orders and directions as needed to ensure the fair and efficient conduct of the proceedings. This may include ordering the production of documents or witness testimony, or setting time limits for the submission of evidence. The present paper critically examines the lex arbitri, the law that governs the arbitral proceedings, and makes out a case that lex arbitri cannot be challenged in court, as the parties to the arbitration have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts. However, if the tribunal exceeds its powers or acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the lex arbitri, the parties may have grounds to challenge the tribunal's decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or due process. The paper summarises some key judgments in which Courts have upheld or quashed the Tribunals procedural orders. It will be concluded that the procedural powers of arbitrators in international arbitration are real and not perfunctory, though bounded within powers extended by Parties to the arbitral tribunal.

Party autonomy is a well-accepted doctrine codified by national, international and supranational organizations that enables parties to be able to not only shape their contract but also their dispute resolution methods. It is believed that parties know their best interests; therefore, it is reasonable to give parties the freedom to decide whom they contract with and on what terms. This maximizes the autonomous freedom of the parties. Therefore, today it is well accepted that parties could waive their right to go to court and choose arbitration instead. However, through history, party autonomy has been seen as a direct threat to sovereign authority. States were always suspicious that arbitration hearings may not be as fair as court hearings since parties have the right to manipulate the arbitration processes. As a direct result of this, states regulated restrictions on party autonomy in international commercial arbitrations. Unfortunately, there is not an accepted definition of these restrictions and their effects on party autonomy have not been established or regulated internationally. Since party autonomy is the backbone of international commercial arbitration, it is important to crystalize the restrictions on party autonomy in procedural issues which directly affects the wellbeing of the arbitration process. Well accepted international regulations such as the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards or UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration helped to establish a unified system of restrictions on party autonomy but every state and state's courts interpret these restrictions differently. As procedural issues affect the result of international commercial arbitration, restrictions on party autonomy in procedural issues should be examined carefully. It is not an exaggeration that in international commercial arbitration the real and complicated questions most of the time originate from the issues of the boundaries of party autonomy. The tension between the party autonomy and efficiency of an arbitration process affects every decision which can be made by parties, arbitrators or courts. Therefore, this dissertation will investigate these problems in three parts by outlining; the source of party autonomy, the restrictions of party autonomy and the applications of these restrictions to party autonomy in procedural issues in international commercial arbitration. In the first part, the origin of party autonomy doctrine and how the doctrine developed throughout time will be examined. The law of arbitration, lex arbitri will be examined first. There are two accepted theories to determine lex arbitri. According to the territorialism theory, arbitration gets its power from the law of the place where the arbitration takes place. This theory suggests that the place where the arbitration takes place has control power over the procedure of arbitration. On the other hand, delocalization theory suggests that arbitral tribunals are detached from and not under the control of the law of the seat of arbitration. Although it looks like delocalization theory suits the needs of the international trade practice better because it assumes that arbitration is not in control of any law, it is still important to accept the power of the seat of arbitration since arbitration always needs a law to be controlled and get help. This section will also cover how different countries and international regulations determine lex arbitri and how it is determined in Turkish law according to the Turkish International Arbitration Law, Law no.4686. In the second part, restrictive measures of party autonomy will be examined. It will start with why party autonomy in procedural issues is needed to be restricted. Then the source of these restrictions will be mentioned. Afterwards, the common notions of the restrictions will be examined under the concepts of principles and rules. Under principles, the public policy and the common due process issues such as party equality, right to be heard, independence and impartiality of arbitrators will be examined in great detail. Then, mandatory rules which are based on these principles and their effect on party autonomy will be explained. The section will be closed with the examination of the circumstances where these principles and rules contradict each other. The main purpose of the second part is to look for commonly accepted problems of restrictions of party autonomy in procedural issues and how these common problems may evolve to a uniformed standard of the law, namely lex proceduralia. In the third part, the application of restrictions on party autonomy will be examined. The application of restrictions has different effects on parties, arbitrators and courts. Parties' autonomy is restricted while they are preparing their agreement on procedural issues, arbitrators are restricted during the arbitration processes and courts are restricted while helping the arbitration or controlling the awards. Before the arbitration process is initiated, parties' autonomy to shape their agreement looks like it is almost unlimited. However, parties' autonomy is always restricted by their choices. This situation is called the autonomy paradox. Therefore, the question of what parties can decide before the arbitrators join the processes is of the upmost importance. When the process starts and arbitrators start working, they balance the choice of parties and the restrictions of party autonomy. Since it is accepted that arbitrators are bound by the parties' choice and their power comes from the agreement of parties, it should be questioned whether they need to execute every choice of parties even if the choice is against mandatory provisions of lex arbitri or general accepted due process norms. Last but not least, courts' role on determining the party autonomy will be questioned. The power of courts to intervene in the arbitral process determine the practical limits of the autonomy of parties. During the arbitration process, the court may intervene in the process to help or control the arbitration; but real control power comes from when one of the parties asks courts to set aside or enforce the arbitral awards. While courts examine the arbitral awards, they also indirectly decide the limits of party autonomy. Therefore, this section will examine, which restrictions will affect the fate of the arbitral awards and how the courts should evaluate these restrictions. In conclusion, the dissertation will mainly investigate the topic of freedom of parties to determine the procedural issues in international commercial arbitration. It will aim to interpret and make use of the party autonomy doctrine as coherent as it can in the modern age. By illustrating the definition and limitations of the party autonomy in the procedural issues in international commercial arbitration, the dissertation will try to find a common international ground. This common ground may help to keep arbitration processes efficient while it provides fair hearings.

Maritime transport is essential to the world’s economy and maritime arbitration plays a crucial role in maritime dispute resolution. Nowadays, many coastal jurisdictions have set up their own maritime arbitration institutions such as those in the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Building a national world-advanced maritime arbitration system as soon as possible to suit China’s rapid developments in shipping and international trading does not permit of any delay. How should China improve her laws, rules and institutions, including those for the enforcement of maritime arbitration awards, having regard to leading international maritime arbitration systems? It is posited that selective adaptation from the successful experience of other maritime arbitration systems is the most convenient and effective way to achieve such a goal. This adaptation will follow from a comprehensive and comparative study of the maritime arbitration laws, rules and the maritime arbitration institutions, including the laws relating to the enforcement of maritime arbitration awards, from these main global maritime arbitration centres in order to make China’s maritime arbitration more competitive at the international level. This thesis does not purport to cover every research field relating to maritime arbitration. Instead, as previously stated, it will focus only on the comparative study of some selected key issues of international commercial arbitration among the selected jurisdictions. A comprehensive study of international commercial arbitration or international maritime law is not the subject of this thesis. It should be noted further that this research basically concentrates on the practical problems of maritime arbitration practices, rather than taking an overly theoretical approach. The thesis selects the UK, the US, Singapore and Hong Kong as the target jurisdictions for comparison. Through selective comparative analysis of the key issues of maritime arbitration systems in the selected jurisdictions, which are internationally recognised as significant by many arbitration scholars, this thesis proposes that all these issues could conveniently be categorised into four key criteria; namely, fairness, confidentiality, efficiency and enforceability. It follows that the adaptations of the Chinese maritime arbitration system should mainly focus on these four criteria, as these are the most critical factors for the development of Chinese maritime arbitration system. Moreover, these four criteria should also have significance for other underdeveloped maritime arbitration systems. Also, based on these four key criteria, the thesis provides some specific suggestions on how the Chinese maritime arbitration system can be adapted to reflect other selected jurisdictions in the respects of some key issues of international commercial arbitration.

The emergency arbitrator mechanism makes interim measures possible for parties involved in international commercial arbitration before the constitution of arbitral tribunals under urgent situations. However, with the development of the emergency arbitrator mechanism, the enforceability of interim measures made by an emergency arbitrator is questioned. This uncertainty leads to the hesitation of legal practitioners to apply the emergency arbitrator mechanism in practice. The research conducted two comparisons between different arbitration rules and between arbitration laws in jurisdictions. After discussing the legal status of an emergency arbitrator, the legal criteria to render interim measures, the potential barriers for the enforceability, and possible harmonization, it concluded that the interim measures granted by an emergency arbitrator in international commercial arbitration should be enforced and even harmonized through mandatory and non-mandatory methods.

随着世界经济全球化，国内外企业之间的商贸往来迅猛发展，出现商事争议与纠纷的案件也呈现上升趋势，仲裁以其高效、快速等优点成为解决国际商事纠纷的最终方式之一。本文从仲裁的优点入手，首先阐述了完整仲裁过程中各个关键环节及注意事项，然后用流程图和横道图两种形式体现了一个完整的仲裁过程，最后就国际工程项目仲裁管理给出了具体建议。 With the globalization of the world economy, the commercial exchanges between domestic and foreign enterprises are developing rapidly, and the number of commercial disputes cases is growing quickly. Considering its advantages of high efficiency and speed, arbitration has become one of the final ways to solve international commercial disputes. This paper firstly presents the advantages of arbitration, then expounds the key stages and attention during the whole arbitration process. Flow chart and Gantt chart are drawn to show logics of the process. Specific suggestions on the arbitration management of international projects are given at the end of the article.

Les traités internationaux d'investissement permettent souvent à l'investisseur étranger de poursuivre le pays d'accueil devant un tribunal d’arbitrage international en cas de violation des dispositions du traité. Le nombre de différends entre investisseurs et États augmente si rapidement que certains pays expriment leur malaise à l'égard du régime actuel du droit international de l'investissement. Le premier chapitre donne aux lecteurs une vue générale sur l'efficacité et les effets de spillover de l'arbitrage international en matière d'investissement. En se basant sur une vaste littérature interdisciplinaire, nous réexaminons les critiques récentes et identifions la cause sous-jacente de la crise relative à l'arbitrage international. Nous concluons qu'il est possible pour les pays d'adapter le régime actuel du droit international à de nouvelles situations plutôt que de le quitter. Le deuxième chapitre étudie le règlement amiable des différends entre investisseurs et États. En nous fondant sur la riche littérature économique et sur une nouvelle base de données de différends relatifs à la violation des traités, nous constatons que l'expérience de l'État hôte, les perspectives du différend, la nature des mesures réglementaires, l'identité des investisseurs et les traités d'investissement néerlandais influencent significativement la probabilité d'un règlement rapide du différend. Le troisième chapitre se concentre sur une dimension institutionnelle de l'arbitrage : l'efficacité du CIRDI dans la résolution des différends. Le délai de résolution et la qualité du jugement final, représentée par la probabilité d'avoir des recours post-sentence, sont utilisés comme indicateurs de l'efficacité. Nous soulignons comment les caractéristiques biographiques et professionnelles des arbitres affectent l'efficacité du CIRDI.

Il est admis que l’arbitrage international est impliqué dans l’assurance des politiques étatiques. Les droits nationaux contiennent des dispositions édictées en vue de protéger les intérêts étatiques et l’arbitre se trouve souvent amené à se prononcer sur une question qui met en jeu ces intérêts. Une telle opération n’est envisageable que si la matière en question est arbitrable. La question qui se pose est celle de savoir quelles sont les limites de l’arbitre dans la protection et l’assurance des politiques étatiques. En réalité plusieurs branches du Droit ont pour finalité d’assurer les politiques étatiques. A titre d’exemple, le droit de la propriété intellectuelle, le droit des sociétés, le droit de l’investissement et le droit de la concurrence peuvent être cités. Ce dernier constitue une bonne illustration des politiques étatiques. En effet, quand l’arbitre se charge de la mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence, il est en train d’assurer le respect des politiques étatiques de l’Etat concerné.De ce fait, l’interaction entre l’arbitrage international et les ordres juridiques est devenue une réalité. Cette réalité procède de l’arbitrabilité des matières relevant de l’ordre public des Etats. Certains d'entre eux reconnaissent l’arbitrabilité des litiges intéressant l’ordre public comme le droit de la concurrence. D'autres n’acceptent pas que l’arbitre tranche ce type de litiges.La question de l’arbitrabilité objective nous conduit à étudier les différentes interactions entre l’arbitrage international et les politiques étatiques. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous nous livrerons à l'étude des manifestations de cette interaction et des limites que l’arbitre doit considérer, du fait que la matière assurant des politiques étatiques, y compris le droit de la concurrence, n'est pas entièrement sujette à l’arbitrage.

Economic crime is complex and costly. It is costly because it harms victims, both directly and indirectly, as well as the broader economy. The cost is not only financial, but also to confidence and trust in corporate and commercial relationships in South Africa. Economic crime is complex because it includes offences from common-law fraud to statutory contraventions such as incorrect bookkeeping. There are several mechanisms in the South African legal justice system to address economic crime. The conventional legal models include adversarial criminal prosecution of the offender and civil compensation claims, the model of inquisitorial administrative investigations and sanctions like penalties and compensation orders. In 2001 section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act, namely plea and sentencing agreements, was added as a model of negotiated justice. This mechanism allows the prosecution and the offender to negotiate and enter into an agreement regarding the charges and the sanctions, subject to approval of the court that the plea of guilty is proper and that the proposed sanction is a just sentence. This dissertation proposes that mediation be added to the existing alternative models to help combat economic crime. Mediation involves negotiated justice, as well as restorative justice. More specifically, mediation as a restorative justice process, constitutes a practical alternative to standard litigation as the affected parties themselves, with the facilitation of a third person, resolve the disputes between them. Mediation, a facilitative and flexible procedure, allows the voices of both the victim and the offender to be heard securely and meaningfully. Mediation is rehabilitative and allows for agreed restorative provisions for both the perpetrator and the victims of economic crime. The outcome is a proposed amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, namely the insertion of section 105B, “Mediated Settlement Agreements”, that will provide for mediation and a mediated settlement agreement to be incorporated into and form part of the criminal justice processes. It is envisaged that an accredited mediator will mediate between the parties, including the public prosecutor, the perpetrator, the victim and possibly members of the community. The mediated settlement agreement will include both compensation for the victims and a proposed sentence for the perpetrator. This mediated settlement agreement will then be tabled before the court for adjudication and approval to serve as an effective court order. The proposal is a logical legal development of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act on plea and sentencing agreements, as the process of mediation builds on the process of negotiation established in it. To put it bluntly, if a plea and sentence agreement can be negotiated between the prosecutor and the offender, a plea and sentence agreement can be mediated between the prosecutor, the offender and the victim. Mediation can integrate and expand the constitutional principles of reparation and ubuntu and curb economic crime by providing an effective restorative and just response to it.

En nuestro país, hasta hace unas décadas se desconocía la existencia de métodos de gestión y resolución de conflictos reglados diferentes al procedimiento judicial, a excepción del arbitraje y de algunas buenas prácticas consuetudinarias en las que se utilizaba el buen oficio de terceros, como, por ejemplo, el Tribunal de las Aguas en Valencia; también existía la conciliación previa al desarrollo del juicio, que salvo en la jurisdicción laboral había quedado relegada a ser un recurso residual, y muy pocas veces tenía efectos de terminación del procedimiento tras haberse alcanzado un acuerdo. Ante este panorama, no había más remedio que acudir al sistema adversarial para resolver los conflictos jurídicos que se producían en las relaciones entre las personas en el desarrollo de la vida tanto en el ámbito individual como colectivo. Y desde hace algún tiempo el sistema jurisdiccional se revelaba insuficiente para “absorber” la totalidad de las situaciones de conflicto que se producían de forma habitual en la sociedad; la complejidad de las relaciones interpersonales y la abundancia de situaciones donde se producen los conflictos, dada la evolución y las grandes transformaciones sociales de los últimos años. La implantación de la mediación en el ámbito civil y mercantil a partir de la publicación de la Ley 5/2012, de 6 de julio, de mediación en asuntos civiles y mercantiles, como método alternativo y/o complementario de la gestión y solución de conflictos, debería mejorar la eficacia en la búsqueda de solución a los conflictos planteados y su gestión de un modo más eficiente y rápido, evitando todos los inconvenientes que se producen en sede judicial cuando no queda más remedio que acudir al procedimiento judicial. Las ventajas más importantes son: el ahorro de costes y tiempo en relación al procedimiento judicial tradicional; una solución que supone una menor carga emocional para las partes en conflicto y que redundará en la posible continuación de las relaciones en el futuro, y todo ello facilitará sentar los principios para cambiar la cultura litigiosa existente en nuestro país, por una más conciliadora que suponga una mejor convivencia y una transformación pacífica de la sociedad, sin olvidar la descarga de asuntos con el consiguiente alivio de los órganos jurisdiccionales. Todo ello garantizará que los ciudadanos puedan solucionar sus controversias de forma rápida y eficaz y contribuirá a un mejor funcionamiento del sistema generando un mayor dinamismo de nuestra economía. Aunque no podemos olvidar la urgente necesidad de adaptar y modernizar nuestras leyes procesales y de incrementar el número de órganos judiciales para agilizar un sistema jurisdiccional que adolece de falta de personal, lentitud excesiva por la escasez de medios y de la abundante burocracia para llegar a resolver las controversias planteadas ante los tribunales de justicia. La mediación, por lo tanto, es una alternativa diferente para la solución de los conflictos a todos los niveles que tienen que afrontar los ciudadanos; se pueden resolver los conflictos de forma dialogada y con una actitud proactiva encaminada a encontrar una solución a sus diferencias con un mayor grado de satisfacción y bienestar, puesto que serán los propios implicados quienes ideen la solución a su conflicto, creando menos fricciones y evitando las situaciones más dolorosas y conflictivas para ellos y para su entorno, buscando una salida pacífica y consensuada. Y esta forma de resolver los conflictos no acarrea solo beneficios a las personas que lo utilizan a nivel individual, por solventar sus controversias de una manera más útil, rápida y eficaz, sino que sirve para que las controversias se pacifiquen y esto redundará en unas relaciones más eficientes que implicarán una sociedad más pacífica y con una menor tendencia a la confrontación con la consiguiente reducción de la hostilidad en nuestra sociedad.

A presente tese constitui um ensaio de teorização do favor arbitrandum. A tese, contrariamente a algumas posições doutrinárias sobre o tema, não encara o favor arbitrandum como sendo uma política legislativa ou judiciária visando a promoção da arbitragem. Antes, ela procura, a partir das suas manifestações legais e jurisprudenciais, identificar um princípio jurídico, determinando o seu conteúdo, os seus limites e os seus fundamentos. O princípio do favor arbitrandum revela-se plurifacetado e não apresenta um alcance idêntico nos diversos ordenamentos jurídicos estudados. O seu conteúdo pode ser apreendido em dois sentidos principais. Trata-se, por um lado, de um critério interpretativo-decisional em matéria de validade da convenção de arbitragem, da competência do tribunal arbitral e de validade ou reconhecimento da sentença arbitral. Por outro lado, o favor arbitrandum é um princípio jurídico supralegal que se expressa como directriz orientadora da actividade legislativa, e, do trabalho interpretativo e integrativo pelo julgador das normas relativas à arbitragem. O princípio do favor arbitrandum encontra fortes limitações que podem ser de carácter geral (v.g. a aplicação da reserva da ordem pública, a ofensa dos bons costumes, a fraude, etc.), inerentes ao procedimento arbitral (a falta pelo árbitro do jus imperium, as anti-arbitration injunctions ou a responsabilização civil do árbitro) ou relativas à qualidade das partes envolvidas na arbitragem (a impecuniosidade das partes e a imunidade de execução dos Estados). Quanto aos seus fundamentos, o princípio do favor arbitrandum assenta em fundamentos jurídico-políticos e dogmáticos. Os seus fundamentos jurídico-políticos relacionam-se com o desenvolvimento do comércio internacional, a necessidade de redução das pendências nos tribunais judiciais, a concorrência entre Estados no acolhimento das arbitragens internacionais e o favor accordandum. O verdadeiro fundamento dogmático do favor arbitrandum encontra-se no princípio da tutela da confiança.

Le consentement étatique à la compétence des juridictions internationales est un élément incontournable du droit international public. Il régit le le fonctionnement de la justice internationale. Cependant, malgré son ubiquité, la notion est mal comprise. Ce travail, à travers la jurisprudence de la CIJ, d'ITLOS, de l'OMC et du CIRDI, redéfinit ce consentement, à la lumière de son histoire, son rôle et ses enjeux. Cette re-contextualisation est accompagnée d'une présentation et d'une analyse des enjeux contemporains entourant la notion.

In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment principle that had been laid down in a bilateral investment treaty between Sweden and Romania. Considering investment incentives as a breach of the EU regulations regarding state aids, the European Commission then rendered a directive, prohibiting the enforcement of the arbitration award by the member states. As articles 53 and 54 of ICSID emphasize that the awards are binding, the EU Commission’s act of rendering the aforementioned directive, and the member states refusal to comply with the award equals to giving the EU law primacy over international law, which should be considered as a breach of their international obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the viewpoints of the parties and the courts which were asked to enforce the award, as well as to determine the nature of their acts.

The assessment of the investor’s nationality is of utmost relevance to determine the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration. In treaty-based arbitration the investor must give evidence that is protected by the BIT, which means that he must have the nationality of the State party to the BIT that is not the host State. The case law considers irrelevant the fact that the investor possesses another nationality besides the nationality of the State party to the BIT and considers also irrelevant the fact that the invoked nationality is not the dominant one. Things get more serious if the investor has also the nationality of the host State (double nationality). In this scenario the investor cannot launch an ICSID arbitration against the host State because the Washington Convention forbids it. The possibility of an ad hoc arbitration is subject to the interpretation of the applicable BIT which has led to an unstable case law both because the BITs are not all equal and because different tribunals have analyzed the dominant nationality doctrine in different ways. A determinação da nacionalidade do investidor é um dos elementos mais importantes para a verificação da jurisdição dos tribunais arbitrais nas arbitragens de proteção de investimentos. Nas arbitragens baseadas em BIT (bilateral investment treaties) o investidor que inicia a arbitragem tem de demonstrar que está protegido pelo BIT que pretende invocar, pelo que terá de possuir a nacionalidade do Estado parte nesse mesmo BIT, que não seja o Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. A jurisprudência tem considerado irrelevante o facto de o investidor poder ter outras nacionalidades, para além da nacionalidade do Estado parte no BIT, desvalorizando igualmente o facto de essa nacionalidade não ser a nacionalidade dominante do investidor. Tudo se complica no caso de o investidor possuir igualmente a nacionalidade do Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. Nesse caso o investidor não poderá iniciar uma arbitragem com base no ICSID tendo em conta que a Convenção de Washington veda essa possibilidade. Já no caso de arbitragens ad hoc tudo dependerá da interpretação do BIT em concreto, o que tem levado a uma flutuação jurisprudencial, seja porque os BIT são diferentes, seja porque tem havido diferentes abordagens jurisprudenciais quanto à relevância da nacionalidade dominante.

An essential requirement of justice is that it should be dispensed as quickly as possible. It is a well-known adage that, « justice delayed is justice denied». Delay in litigation is caused by a number of factors. For example in litigation the parties have the right to make a counterclaim, right to make appeal etc. Arbitration has been able to overcome the factors which cause delay in litigation because in arbitration, parties are given the right to exclude the possibility to make a counterclaim, the right to make appeal has expressly been prohibited by the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Laws in Africa (OHADA)1 legislator etc. But since the OHADA legislator has not expressly prohibited counter claim in arbitration, it is recommended that counterclaim should be expressly prohibited in arbitration as it is the case with appeal. This article aims at identifying the causes of delay in the disposal of commercial disputes via litigation and how these causes of delay have been combated in arbitration.

L’arbitrage est un moyen de gestion de litige apprécié et privilégié par les acteurs du commerce international. Son bon fonctionnement dépend de la justice étatique. Ces deux appareils doivent entretenir un rapport tantôt fusionnel et tantôt concurrentiel. Le déroulement de cette relation peut réciproquement susciter des complications et de la méfiance. En France comme dans plusieurs autres États de l’Afrique subsaharienne, le juge étatique est le collaborateur de l’arbitre malgré l’envergure de leurs rapports. Ces États reconnaissent à la justice étatique son pouvoir explicite et implicite durant l’arbitrage. La présente recherche et étude aborde la mise en œuvre des compétences respectives attribuées à l’arbitre et au juge durant l’arbitrage. Afin d’accentuer et de pérenniser le bon déroulement de l’arbitrage en France et en Afrique francophone, cette étude s’est attardée sur la question de l’arbitrabilité et du développement économique. Après avoir énuméré des réalités freinant la floraison durable de l’arbitrage en Afrique, quelques solutions sont proposées pour le préserver de tout dysfonctionnement.

An effective Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (DSM) upholds a rules-based trade regime; enunciates, clarifies and develops the jurisprudence of its constituent trade agreement; and also ensures predictability in the trading regime. Article 20 of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) establishes the DSM. The AfCFTA Protocol on Dispute Settlement (“Dispute Protocol”) provides for the rules and procedures for the settlement of disputes. Unlike the majority of the African regional economic community courts that are modelled after the Court of Justice of the European Union, the AfCFTA-DSM follows a handful of other regional judicial bodies – such as the Southern African Community Development Community (SADC) and the Tripartite Free Trade Area Agreement (TFTA) – that are modelled after the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism.

The thesis's main objective is the analysis of transparency in international arbitration. To this purpose, we start from a broad conception of the notion of transparency and its relevance in the current Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and in the main international arbitration regulations: the ICSID, the ICC, UNCITRAL and its Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, followed by a study of the most important issues of the arbitration procedure related to transparency, such as public hearings, the participation of third parties in the procedure (third-party funders and amicus curiae), the appointment of arbitrators and the conflict of interests and, finally, the analysis of transparency in the decisions (arbitral awards). The thesis proposes and bases, among other issues, the need to create an ICSID Court of Appeal and, if not, the most suitable mechanism for the implementation of an International Investment Tribunal