Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The Law of International Maritime Boundaries is characterized by an evolution that can be noticed at many levels. These levels include the application of equitable principles, the criteria for delimitation, the basis of title, the techniques, the methods and the applicable law. This legal evolution, which is deep-rooted in a case by case approach has not always led to greater predictability and consistency of the judicial and arbitral decisions. One should keep in mind the fact that each case is a unicum. From the 1969 pioneer North Continental Shelf Case to recent decisions, the position of the I.C.J. is well-established: there is not one method of delimitation which is predetermined or privileged, which takes priority or which is of mandatory application. The ultimate goal consists in drawing an equitable maritime boundary between coastal States. In Jan Mayen Case (Denmark/ Norway Case 1993), the I.C.J. made two major developments by considering in one hand the equidistance provision first codified at article 6 of Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf as a provisional method of delimitation. On the other hand, the Court gave notable effect to socio-economic factors which, prior to that case, had been constantly dismissed because of their subjectivity, variability and momentary nature (Tunisia/ Libya Case 1982). Regarding the basis of the title, progress from natural prolongation as the traditional basis of the title to 200 miles distance from the shoreline as the new basis of the title (Libya/ Malta Case 1985) should be noted. As for the application of equitable principles, one can say that they are progressively losing their variability. For the judge, in fact, equitable principles must be of an objective nature based mainly on coastal geography in order to be of general application. With regard to applicable law issues, besides the 1958 Geneva Convention, States now have recourse to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, States practice, jurisprudence, and rules of customary international law. In respect of that law which is evolving with its uncertainties, we have tried to lay stress on the contributions of African States to its development. We wanted to verify to what extent those States have played a significant part in the progressive development of the Law of the Sea in general and particularly with regard the law of maritime boundary delimitation. We have emphasized in the first part of our analysis, the evolution of the law of maritime boundaries. In the second part, we have analysed in two steps African contributions. We have concluded that African Coastal States should, as much as possible and in line with the trend to peaceful cooperation at sea in Africa, avoid resolving disputes through litigation. After having defined their maritime priorities, policies and strategies, States should use diplomatic negotiations to settle their maritime boundary disputes. They can also, as a supplementary approach, set up Joint Development Zones or provide for Joint Exploitation of their marine resources as an interim approach to disputes resolution. We have analyzed the legal implications of such regimes in the prospective case between Ivory Coast and Ghana. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

L'introduction d'un système.' de règlement des différends, faisantpartie intégrante de la Convention et dont il est l'un des pivôts constituevraisemblablement l'un des apports les plus significatifs des travaux de laIIIe conférence des Nations-Unies sur le droit de la mer. Pour cette raisonsans doute, ce sujet a fait l'objet de nombreuses recherches.Ce présent travail constitue le maillon d'une chaîne dont la finalitéest d'essayer de comprendre les raisons qui expliquent la mise en placepar la IIIe convention des Nations-Unies sur le droit de la mer d'un cadrede règlement des différends spécifique. Y'avait-il des raisons sérieusesexpliquant un tel choix? Existait-il des motivations légitimes pouremboiter le pas à d'autres conventions ayant mis sur le place desmécanismes de règlement des différends spécifiques? -~Telles sont les questions auxquelles cette présente thèse tente d'apporterdes éléments de réponse.L'examen de la question du règlement des différends _est _avant touttributaire de l'analyse des dispositions conventionnelles relatives à cesujet. Il fait nécessairement appel à la méthode juridique. Mais, cettedémarche à elle seule parait incapable d'aller au delà des dispositionstechniques. Aussi. chercherons nous à pousser plus loin -l'étude en faisantappei à un raisonnement inductif, permettant de s'in~erroger sur lesraisons et les motivations expliquant les orientations.L'effort de systématisation perniet de dégager un certain nombrede résultats.On relève d'abord que le règlement des différends dans le droit dela mer concrétise fortement la volonté des Etats de faire progresser lapaix par le droit.Ensuite, l'observateur peut également percevoir que le système mis enplace introduit une dose de dirigisme raisonné. Car le droit de la mer nese veut plus régenté par un ordre oligarchique comme cela a été le casauparavant. Aussi, le système introduit un choix d'organes de règlementdes différends presque à la carte pour solutionner les différends les plusinhabituels.Enfin, en introduisant une variété de mécanismes de règlement, lesystème risque aussi d'ouvrir la voie à des craintes justifiées de la part desEtats qui en sont encore les principaux justiciables.

The shipping business is an important element for the life of the trade of the different countries of the world. It had a very important role in the past it still has and it will always have, as it is the cheapest means of transportation of goods. However, despite the importance of this element the legal complexities bom out of this business makes it a broad subject of study and research for the lawyers. This is because of the different documents used for the execution of the contract of transport by sea and because of the speed these deals are concluded and the different nationalities of the parties to the contract.