Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The question remains whether societal reporting integrates the field of financial reporting. This old debate is repeated to scrutinize the case of African companies with strong cultural roots, which do not publish alternative societal documents to traditional financial reports. Through stakeholder theory (Jones and Wicks, 1999), this study aims to analyze the phenomenon, by describing the process of accounting recordings for social and environmental information (SEI) identified by the ISO 26 000 standard in an oil Company operating within OHADA Jurisdiction. The results indicate the presence of mandatory SEIs in the financial statements, which visibility depends on the pressure exerted by the State and the accounting regulations in force. Voluntary SEIs are not visible.

This article argues that the liability of the carrier is more flexible in OHBLA Transportation Law. It appears from the analysis that the carrier who is under strict or presumed liability may enjoy a large number of exemptions that may be classifiedunder classic and modern defenses on condition to act fairly and honnestly in performing the contract of carriage. The fairness and honnestly are expressed under the good faith principle. The contrary attitude -the performance in bad faith- will be sanctioned by the exclusion from the benefit of the various exemptions. The assessment of this unscrupulous behaviour of the carrier is vested on judges who have to determine in case of claims whether the behaviour constitutes a willful misconduct or a gross negligence. As examiners of the carrier's attitude, judges play a major role in establishing security and justice in contract of carriage. By setting up a flexible liability regime, the OHBLA Uniform Act is seen as a balanced instrument that sets up a compromise between carrier's interests and cargo's interests.

Le Traité OHADA en son article 1er a consacré deux modes de règlement de conflits : le règlement par la voie judiciaire et l’arbitrage. La crise de la justice étatique s’est très vite révélée et l’arbitrage a montré ses limites par sa proximité avec la justice étatique, sa juridictionnalisation. La médiation est intervenue comme solution à cette crise de la justice étatique et pour corriger les insuffisances de l’arbitrage. Elle donne plus de pouvoir aux parties en conflit. Ce qui est vu par certains auteurs comme une privatisation du procès dans le domaine des affaires. D’autres auteurs critiquent cette qualification et parlent plutôt de la contractualisation du procès. Privatisation ou contractualisation, la médiation pose le problème de son utilité par rapport aux modes jusqu’ici retenus par l’OHADA. Tout compte fait, l’introduction de la médiation dans la législation OHADA répond à un besoin réel des hommes d’affaires qui consiste à aller vers plus d’efficacité dans le règlement de leurs conflits. Elle répond aussi à l’un des objectifs.

Abstract : Each member state of the BRICS countries is different about the modalities and limitations of party autonomy in their field of Private International law. The principle of party autonomy allows parties to choose the law applicable to their contract and is meant to respect the choice of contracting parties. Since laws are not absolute, they need to change to the needs of a changing society. This can generate a problem in instances where contracting parties have already chosen a choice of law to govern their contract. The question is then whether the governing law of a contract that was previously chosen by the parties can be changed after that contract has been concluded. The scope of party autonomy extends to permitting parties to modify their chosen law in instances where it is necessary to do so, subject to limitations of a specific legal system and principles of conflict of laws. However, the legal rules of each BRICS countries differ in permitting parties to modify the chosen law. This minor dissertation analyses whether the principle of party autonomy is recognised in each member state of the BRICS countries and whether it extends to allow for modification of choice of law. It further asserts that the BRICS countries could plausibly refer to the rules and recommendations of Article 2(3) of the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts to advance the wide acceptance of modification of choice of law. <br>LL.M. (International Commercial Law)

An employer's insolvency has far-reaching consequences on workers. The consequence of business failures have complelled policy makers to provide for workers protection in the event of their employer's financial demise. The policy makers of the Organisation for the Harmonization of Busniess Law in Africa approach (OHADA) are not left out. This article seeks to examine OHADA's super-priority approach (article 95 of OHADA's Revised Insolvency Act - RIA) on the protection of workers claims with the aim of showing that approach is limited. Article 95 does not prescribe the limit on the amount protected, the time period and the category of workers concerned. This article ecognizes the need to reform article 95 of OHADA's RIA.In so doing, the article describe the position of two international bodies (International Labor Organisation -ILO) and the European Union -EU) on employee entitlements in insolvency as the bases needed to reform article 95 of OHADA's RIA. The value of this article lies in the nisights it offers into the current framework on insolvency and the opportuniy given to address the limitations that invariably arise from article 95 of OHADA's RIA.

Est-il essentiel de créer de véritables et solides couloirs juridiques entre les régions et les Etats africains pour encourager les investissements économiques ? La question mérite d’être posée. Un tel partenariat implique que soit mise en place une stratégie commune autour des investissements économiques. Il va ainsi permettre de créer une dynamique industrielle et commerciale encore plus forte que celle observée aujourd’hui au sein de l’OHADA. L’UA ou l’OHADA doivent être dotées de moyens réels car l’union fera la force pour les africains trop faibles pour agir et compter seuls face aux puissances étrangères (l’UE, la Chine, l’Inde, la Russie, les USA…). Pour ces Etats, l’Union serait la négociatrice privilégiée pour de nouveaux partenariats plus équitables. Avec cette stratégie de coopération rentable, les Etats africains pourront parler d’une même voix et passer du statut de « perfusés » à celui de « partenaires ». Si ce vœu pieux semble loin de portée, il est malheureusement une des clés de la réussite africaine en matière de développement économique et social, de croissance durable par le biais des investissements économiques. Ceci au même titre que l’intégration régionale car, comme le rappelle si bien la CEA, l’approfondissement de l’intégration régionale permettra d’améliorer de façon significative l’attractivité du continent africain comme destination pour les investissements économiques.

Le constat de l’obsolescence du droit africain a fait germer l’idée de créer une réglementation moderne et adaptée à l’économie des pays africains dans l’esprit des décideurs africains. L’entreprise s’était révélée nécessaire en raison de l’absence jusque-là de tout effort législatif destiné à épousseter la législation africaine postcoloniale alors qu’ailleurs, en France et dans la plupart des pays occidentaux, le droit des affaires était à mise à jour permanente ; constamment les textes y sont modifiés parce que le monde est soumis à de constants bouleversements. C’est dans ce contexte que l’OHADA a été instituée par le Traité constitutif signé à Port Louis (Ile Maurice) en Avril 1993, entré en vigueur le 18 septembre 1995, il a été révisé à Québec en 2008 . Le droit Ohada est un système juridique et judiciaire qui vise à garantir la sécurité juridique des affaires en adoptant un droit commun des affaires dont l’interprétation est confiée à une seule instance juridictionnelle, la Cour commune de justice et d’arbitrage. Il est composé aujourd’hui de dix-sept (17) Etats d’Afrique subsaharienne ayant en commun un même droit des affaires.

This research traces the developments of the directors’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company and looks at how these developments affect human rights and interests of stakeholders. The main focus of the study is on the human rights impact of this duty. Initially, this duty was only regulated in terms of common law which proved to be problematic. The problem with common law lies within the definition of ‘best interests of the company’, which not only exclude the interests of other stakeholders but also has the potential to bring about violation of human rights, particularly the rights to equality, dignity and fair labour practice. At common law best interests of the company means interests of the company itself and its shareholders. The common law only protects the company and its shareholders, while excluding the rights and interests of stakeholders. The common law duty to in the best interests of the company is not in line with our contemporary law because it ignores human rights. The neglect of human rights by this duty renders it inconsistent with the values contained in the Constitution. Furthermore, the exclusion of stakeholders’ rights by this duty cannot be justified because stakeholders play an important part in safeguarding the stability and continued existence of the companies. The fiduciary duty to act in company’s best interests is now contained in the Companies Act of 2008. Inclusion of this duty in the Act enables our courts to interpret it in a manner that protects human rights and which takes into account interests of other stakeholders. Section 7 (a) of the Act provides that among other goals of the Act is the promotion of compliance with the Bill of Rights when applying the company law. The impact of section 7 is that it imposes an indirect duty on directors to consider the human rights impact of their decisions. Section 158 of the Act enables the courts to “develop common law as it is necessary to improve the realisation and enjoyment of rights established by the Companies Act of 2008.” Given this recognition of the Bill of Rights by the Companies Act, it’s of vital importance that our courts should interpret and apply the duty to act in the best interests of the company in manner that is consistent with the Constitution. Directors are now obliged to pay attention to the human rights impact of their decisions.