Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Les crises actuelles, sous leurs multiples aspects, mettent en lumière la responsabilité des entreprises dans notre société, bousculant ainsi l'un des dogmes néolibéraux résumé par la célèbre formule de Milton Friedman (1970) : « La responsabilité sociétale de l’entreprise est d’accroître ses profits». C’est en réaction à ces crises et grâce au rôle actif de la société civile qui condamne désormais certaines pratiques, que le concept de responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (ci-après RSE) a émergé. L’enjeu est donc, aujourd’hui, de mettre en place un marché responsable entre l’entreprise et ses parties prenantes. Le législateur, par la loi Grenelle I, dispose que la médiation sera un des outils de mise en oeuvre de la RSE. Il en appelle donc au développement du droit processuel qu’est la médiation pour mettre en oeuvre ce droit substantiel qu’est la RSE. La médiation, à la fois préventive et curative, est donc un outil de mise en oeuvre de la RSE. Le couple RSE et médiation permet ainsi de combiner efficacité économique, respect social,sociétal et environnemental

MENA law codes are a well-crafted blend of civil and Islamic law in which civil law principles do not contravene with Islamic provisions. They were originally based on Sanhuri’s codes to varying degrees. Yet, common law principles derived either from English common law or Islamic customary usages are unidentified and thus ignored. Here, this lacuna is rectified through a comparative analysis of the primary data (eg, cases, statutes and arbitral award decisions), adding common law and uncodified Islamic custom to MENA law codes. The purpose of this comparative analysis is to allow common legal principles found at civil, common and Islamic law to be distilled in the service of creating a new harmonised international commercial arbitration law code (HICALC) or uniform Arab arbitration law (UAAL) for adoption in the MENA.1 These principles already form part or all of the legal systems in the MENA. They can be readily assimilated into a harmonised or uniform code. Would this new harmonised code lead to higher arbitral award enforcement in the MENA? According to the evidence the answer is yes. The author understands that at the present time the HICALC articles are ambitious and as such they are a beginning point and can initially be taken as a harmonised international commercial arbitration common rule (HICACR). A brief overview of the history of harmonisation is given. An assessment of the status of the laws and traditions of the MENA was carried out. A comparative analysis of the relevant differences and similarities of the case study countries (Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) was carried out to show the gaps in the laws and areas requiring reform. An analysis of enforcement of arbitral awards was carried out. The unique problems that ICA and IIA encounter in the MENA as derived from an analysis of cases and the laws therein are expounded in consideration of matters pertaining to enforcement. A comparative analysis of universal principles which must be included in a new code, including custom, was carried out. An analysis of the unique features and unique needs of the MENA was carried out in order to inform the Draft Article Provisions. An analysis of important international legal instruments dealing specifically with international arbitration and the gaps therein is given. The draft articles for a HICALC or uniform Arab arbitration law were derived as a result of these multiple layers of analysis. The matters of compétence de la compétence, expropriation, interest, public policy and sovereign immunity are highlighted as the most important areas requiring urgent reform. The results of this research are suggested Draft Article Provisions for a model Harmonised International Commercial Arbitration Law Code (HICALC) or a uniform Arab arbitration law. Future drafters may refer to and revise these articles for implementation. The synthesis of theory and practice addresses doctrinal matters that arise in international investment arbitrations and international commercial arbitration, with a focus on investor–State arbitrations. This synthesis provides a new theoretical conception of the jurisprudence of international arbitration, particularly in regard to the matters of res iudicata, precedent and expansion of arbitral tribunal powers and jurisdiction.

L'économie numérique se fonde sur la confiance. Les législations nationales, le droit européen, mais également l'avant projet de loi libanais Ecomleb, ont pris en compte l'importance de la confiance dans l'économie numérique. En effet, les législateurs sont intervenus afin de surmonter les obstacles qui empêchent la conclusion du contrat conclu par voie électronique. Dans cette étude, nous avons analysé les règles juridiques relatives au contrat électronique afin de trouver un certain nombre de cohérences entre les règles de droit commun et celles relatives au contrat électronique, en particulier dans la phase de formation du contrat, avec le contenu de l'offre et de l'acceptation en ligne. Le contrat conclu par voie électronique peut faire l'objet d'un litige international, concernant les règles de compétences de juridiction et les lois applicables, question également envisagée. Enfin, nous avons constaté que la valeur juridique du contrat conclu par voie électronique dépend en principe de la valeur juridique de l'écriture et de la signature électronique, alors que tel n'est pas le cas en droit libanais, malgré l'existence de plusieurs projets de lois en la matière.

In recent decades, regional efforts have been made to reform and harmonize the rules governing international arbitration. These efforts have resulted in the adoption of regional instruments governing commercial arbitration in specific areas. This paper analyzes the arbitration regimes created at a regional level in Africa and America, and particularly focuses on arbitral institutions that were created within the Organization for Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) and within the Organization of American States (OAS). The objective of the paper is to identify any advantages provided by either regime, which can help improve regional and international commercial arbitration.

Este estudo examina as estipulações voltadas à instituição de meios multiportas de solução de controvérsias, mecanismo responsável por materializar a vontade da partes em solucionar os seus conflitos via métodos alternativos ou adequados de solução de controvérsias, tendo relevante papel na materialização do escopo social do processo. Há uma clara dicotomia entre os denominados métodos de solução de controvérsias consensuais, nos quais a própria participação das partes levará à solução e à conformação do litígio e, de outro lado, os métodos adjudicatórios de solução de controvérsias, no qual haverá um terceiro imparcial escolhido pelas partes ou de acordo com mecanismos por elas estabelecido e que será responsável pela solução da controvérsia. Existem ainda métodos combinados ou mistos, em que são aglutinados elementos dos métodos denominados primários, quais sejam negociação, conciliação, mediação e arbitragem. Clara a diferença entre essas categorias de métodos de solução de controvérsias, deve-se analisar, ainda, se há alguma diferença no tocante à vinculação das partes a cada uma das mencionadas categorias de solução de controvérsias e, com grande importância, de que modo métodos consensuais podem interferir no surgimento e desenvolvimento de métodos adjudicatórios. Em relação à vinculação dos métodos de solução de controvérsias adjudicatórios, a grande referência no direito brasileiro é a arbitragem, que conta com legislação própria e deve muito de seu sucesso no atual estado dos métodos de solução de controvérsias no direito brasileiro a alterações relativas à sua vinculação e efetivação. Nitidamente, há uma inserção das cláusulas de solução de controvérsias, seja qual for o método utilizado no âmbito da ciência processual. A base de tais cláusulas é de direito privado, fundamentando-se em institutos bastante conhecidos: transação e compromisso que ganharam a categorização jurídica de contrato após o Código Civil de 2002. Do ponto de vista da adoção desses instrumentos jurídicos como veículos da utilização dos métodos de solução de controvérsias, são previstas técnicas diversas de uso. A primeira é extrajudicial, baseada na planificação de solução de conflitos, que pode ser feita pelas partes e seus advogados, e uma segunda, que é extrajudicial baseada no caseflow e no case management, nos quais o Judiciário assume o papel de coordenador e aplicador de tais métodos. A relação entre os métodos de solução de controvérsias ganha caráter dinâmico na medida em que determinados sistemas de solução de controvérsias são combinados para uma dada questão. Trata-se das chamadas cláusulas escalonadas que têm por escopo acompanhar a escalada de litigiosidade que possa surgir em determinada discussão jurídica, combinando métodos consensuais e adjudicatórios de solução de litígios. Em qualquer situação, de acordo com os termos dos arts. 158 e 466-B do Código de Processo Civil que podem analogamente ser comparados com os arts. 4.º e 7.º da Lei de Arbitragem, há a total vinculação das partes ao método de solução de controvérsias escolhido. Questão bastante tormentosa é a inserção e a inter-relação dos métodos de solução de controvérsias, especialmente com o processo civil e os efeitos que daí podem decorrer. Nesse aspecto, sendo um método consensual, as partes que a ele aderiram terá que realizá-lo antes da busca de um método adjudicatório de adesão voluntária, como é a arbitragem, ou um método adjudicatório inevitável, como é o Judiciário. Trata-se do efeito negativo das cláusulas ADR. Contudo, há que verificar que efeitos seriam gerados aos métodos adjudicatórios pela não realização de um método consensual precedente. Os métodos de solução de controvérsias poderiam ser encarados como pressupostos processuais, condições da ação ou questões prévias, promovendo diferentes resultados em um processo judicial ou arbitral. Há que se buscar a solução que melhor se adequar a um contexto de solução de controvérsias. Desta feita, os MASCs devem ser colocados como hipóteses suspensão dos processos arbitral ou judicial, suspensão essa que deve durar até a realização do referido método acordado anteriormente, garantindo-se a sua eficácia. No tocante a este ponto, o Estado tem um relevante papel político e legislativo de modo a incentivar a utilização de tais métodos e garantir-lhes a eficácia. Além disso, a parte que se furtar está sujeita a consequências contratuais que podem ser previstas, tais como a imposição de multas e cláusulas penais. Vislumbram-se também hipóteses de perda de uma chance, com o agravamento do litígio e prejuízos que podem advir do tolhimento da chance de um método de solução de controvérsias produzir um resultado. De qualquer modo, aquele que pretendia utilizar o método, para se valer dessas possíveis indenizações, tem o dever de mitigar o próprio dano como resultado da mesma cláusula geral de boa-fé que, ao reverso, obrigou o ex-adverso a utilizar o método e foi violada. Pode-se pensar nesse contexto, ainda, a possibilidade de métodos alternativos de solução de controvérsias serem estabelecidos por meio de cláusulas que prevejam a venda de excussão entre as partes ou mesmo medidas corporativas, tais como ocorrem na BM&F Bovespa, apenas de acordo com a manifestação de vontade das partes de adesão ao referido sistema, sendo uma prova da força e extensão do vínculo surgido de uma estipulação de solução de controvérsias, ainda que consensual. Há, de qualquer modo, uma execução por transformação em que a manifestação de vontade apresentada pelas partes pode ser efetivada pelo magistrado permitindo a utilização dos métodos de solução de controvérsias a partir do momento em que ocorreu a adesão das partes. Por fim, a confidencialidade que pode ser aplicada aos métodos de solução de controvérsias tem natureza contratual, não interferindo na eficácia das cláusulas ADR.

Examines the approach of Ghana's Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 to the question of arbitrability. Reflects on the concept of arbitrability under international law, the relevant trends emerging from case law, and the approach adopted by the Ghanaian High Court in Attorney General v Balkan Energy LLC. Reviews the Act's arbitrability exemptions, their implications for international arbitration in Ghana, the potential jurisdictional challenges under the legislation and how its provisions could be amended to increase its conformity with international trends on arbitrability.

Ondersoek na die Finaliteit van 'n Arbitrasiebevel Hierdie artikel oorweeg die Telcordia- en Lufuno-sake vanuit die oogpunt van die finaliteit van 'n arbitrasiebevel. Die vraag wat te berde kom, is wanneer 'n arbitrasiebevel finaliteit bereik waar 'n saak voor meer as een forum (arbitrasie en staatlike howe), in meer as een jurisdiksie gevoer word. Die prosedurele meganismes wat Amerikaanse en Suid-Afrikaanse howe tydens die Telcordia-dispuut toegepas het asook hul onderskeie benaderings tot res iudicata, het 'n groot mate van ooreenstemming getoon. Dit is te verstane dat die afhandeling van 'n internasionale proses vertraag kan word deur bepaalde grondwetlike regte wat die spoed van die afhandeling van 'n saak kan beïnvloed. Nietemin, indien die reg op 'n billike verhoor op enige stadium in die verrigtinge gepleit mag word, word 'n geleentheid geskep vir die dispuut om vryelik te eskaleer gedurende die verhoor. Dit kan die hofproses oopstel vir misbruik en die afhandeling van die geskil vertraag. Die minderheidsbeslissing in Lufuno skenk 'n mate van oorweging aan die potensiële negatiewe implikasies hiervan. Die finaliteit van die geskilbeslegtingsproses kan na behore bestuur word aan die hand van 'n wyer interpretasie van res iudicata in internasionale dispute en 'n meer geredelike ondersoek hierna, op die hof se inisiatief. Die moontlikheid dat die Telcordia-dispuut verder bespoedig sou kon word, word ondersoek met verwysing na die New York Konvensie op die Erkenning en Afdwing van Arbitrasiebevele van 1958, en aan die hand van aanbevelings wat deur ander gerekende internasionale liggame uitgereik is.

This dissertation suggests a new theory of lex mercatoria that takes into account the complex and spontaneous order of international commerce. Since the emphasis is put on the nature of this order, the concept of lex mercatoria is examined as an ex post governance mechanism resolving contractual disputes with a view to maintaining and restoring the order of international commerce, without focusing on the traditional distinction of the doctrine between national and non-national legal rules applicable to the substance of such disputes in explaining the concept. The aim is to reflect lex mercatoria’s subtle effect on the practice of international arbitration, and to provide an explanation of lex mercatoria as a solution to the problems of the institution of international arbitration in terms of uncertainty and unpredictability of awards, rather than representing it as a factor aggravating those problems. Lex mercatoria is defined as the law of adjudication of the disputes arising from international commercial contracts on the basis of a few substantive and procedural principles, under which the reasonable expectations of the parties to a particular contract become the single source of their contractual rights, obligations and risk allocations. The argument is that lex mercatoria can be applied to both the choice of law analyses and the substance of the disputes in international arbitration. In choice of law analyses, lex mercatoria addresses specific difficulties relating to the conflict of laws through a principled decision making, such as the applicable conflict rules, and the interpretation of the parties’ intentions as to the applicable substantive rules. In its substantive application, lex mercatoria deals with, either as lex contractus or as lex fori, the interpretation, supplementation and correction of the contract as well as the applicable national laws in accordance with the basic principles, on which the order of international commerce rests.

This dissertation suggests a new theory of lex mercatoria that takes into account the complex and spontaneous order of international commerce. Since the emphasis is put on the nature of this order, the concept of lex mercatoria is examined as an ex post governance mechanism resolving contractual disputes with a view to maintaining and restoring the order of international commerce, without focusing on the traditional distinction of the doctrine between national and non-national legal rules applicable to the substance of such disputes in explaining the concept. The aim is to reflect lex mercatoria’s subtle effect on the practice of international arbitration, and to provide an explanation of lex mercatoria as a solution to the problems of the institution of international arbitration in terms of uncertainty and unpredictability of awards, rather than representing it as a factor aggravating those problems. Lex mercatoria is defined as the law of adjudication of the disputes arising from international commercial contracts on the basis of a few substantive and procedural principles, under which the reasonable expectations of the parties to a particular contract become the single source of their contractual rights, obligations and risk allocations. The argument is that lex mercatoria can be applied to both the choice of law analyses and the substance of the disputes in international arbitration. In choice of law analyses, lex mercatoria addresses specific difficulties relating to the conflict of laws through a principled decision making, such as the applicable conflict rules, and the interpretation of the parties’ intentions as to the applicable substantive rules. In its substantive application, lex mercatoria deals with, either as lex contractus or as lex fori, the interpretation, supplementation and correction of the contract as well as the applicable national laws in accordance with the basic principles, on which the order of international commerce rests.

L’abandon progressif du contrôle de l’opposabilité de la clause d’arbitrage au destinataire par la juridiction étatique au profit de l’arbitre sur le fondement de l’aspect négatif du principe de compétence-compétence a donné lieu à de nombreux critiques. Certains auteurs l’ont approuvé, valorisant une application rigide de l’effet négatif du principe, tandis que d’autres l’ont critiqué solidement. Ainsi, il est légitimement permis de s’interroger sur les excès de l’effet négatif du principe de compétence-compétence et le bien-fondé de l’abandon du contrôle de l’opposabilité à l’arbitre par les juges étatiques. Pour ce faire, nous allons, dans un premier temps, examiner le droit accordé à l’arbitre d’être juge de sa propre compétence de manière prioritaire, plus précisément le principe de compétence-compétence (Chapitre I). Ensuite, nous allons nous interroger sur l’extension de la clause d’arbitrage au destinataire au regard du principe de compétence-compétence, qui est considéré de remettre en cause ce principe (Chapitre II).

L’arbitrage est désormais une institution traditionnelle de la vie des affaires sur le plan national, mais aussi et surtout sur le plan international. C’est un « mode alternatif de règlement des litiges qui consiste à faire trancher un différend par de simples particuliers », qui peuvent être des « personnes choisies par les parties »115. On distingue généralement deux types d’arbitrage, l’arbitrage Ad Hoc, qui demeure le plus fréquent, et l’arbitrage Institutionnel. Mais notre discussion va beaucoup plus porter sur le deuxième type d’arbitrage à travers le Centre d’arbitrage de la Cour Commune de Justice et d’Arbitrage de l’OHADA. Les signataires du Traité de Port Louis (Traité OHADA) du 17 Octobre 1993 avaient, dès le préambule, exprimé leur désir de « promouvoir l’arbitrage comme instrument de règlement des différends contractuels ». C’est pourquoi l’article 1er dudit Traité qui définit ses objectifs précise qu’il est question entre autres d’encourager le « recours à l’arbitrage pour le règlement des différends contractuels ». Les articles 21 à 25 posent les bases de cet arbitrage. La concrétisation de ces intentions s’est manifestée par l’adoption à Ouagadougou par le Conseil des Ministres de l’OHADA le 11 Mars 1999, de l’Acte Uniforme relatif au Droit de l’Arbitrage, et du Règlement d’Arbitrage de la CCJA qui fixe les règles applicables à l’arbitrage CCJA. Plusieurs textes ont été pris par la suite qui ont permis d’organiser l’arbitrage CCJA (I) afin de rendre lisible le professionnel le déroulement de procédure arbitrale.

A questão central deste trabalho refere-se à institucionalização da mediação no âmbito do Judiciário e às condições necessárias para uma boa relação entre a mediação e o processo judicial. Esta questão foi analisada sob as perspectivas processual e institucional. A primeira recai sobre as bases do processo de mediação, em especial o devido processo legal mínimo, e a sua interação com o processo judicial, diferenciando a justiça do processo e a justiça do resultado. A segunda recai sobre o desenho dos programas de mediação que funcionam junto ao Judiciário e os papéis assumidos pelos diferentes atores que participam destes programas: juízes, mediadores, partes, advogados e funcionários dos Tribunais. Sob esta última perspectiva, foi realizada pesquisa empírica e comparada em programas de mediação que funcionam junto ao Judiciário no Brasil e nos EUA.

Today the arbitral justice has experienced an exceptional development. It is a universal phenomenon which requires the involvement of all economic and legal players of developed and developing countries.OHADA is a common business law and wish to secure legal security for regional and foreign economic agents by offering a vast economic space. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is an emerging country which increases its economic outlets in a context of globalization. This natural interdependence will increase the scope of economic exchanges, which may generate some disputes in businesses. This article aims to compare two legal systems in the international commercial arbitration field: the legal system of OHADA and the PRC’s legal system; especially in the effectiveness and the remedies of the arbitrators’ decisions.

Dans son sens originaire, le principe compétence-compétence permet au tribunal arbitral, comme à tout juge, de statuer sur sa compétence. En droit français, il s’est transformé en règle de conflit entre justice publique et justice privée doublement originale : d’une part, il repose sur l’exercice coordonné du pouvoir de juger de la compétence ; d’autre part, il est pluraliste. Enclenché par l’apparence vraisemblable d’une convention d’arbitrage, le principe compétence-compétence consiste en un mécanisme composite se déployant dans le temps du procès arbitral et dans l’espace des deux ordres juridiques considérés. Ainsi, trois règles distinctes permettent à chacune des justices – justice française et justice arbitrale – de connaître de sa propre compétence de manière coordonnée. Tout d’abord, en amont et en parallèle de l’instance arbitrale, l’effet négatif de la compétence-compétence paralyse le pouvoir des juridictions étatiques de statuer sur leur compétence. Ensuite, le temps du procès arbitral, l’effet positif de la compétence-compétence des tribunaux arbitraux reconnaît à ces derniers le pouvoir de juger de leur compétence. Enfin, au stade post-arbitral, l’effet positif de la compétence-compétence des juridictions publiques permet à ces dernières de retrouver le pouvoir de statuer sur leur compétence lors des recours ouverts contre la sentence. Chacune des règles examinées connait limites ou écueils. Parfois, l’équilibre est rompu soit au profit des juridictions d’Etat, soit au profit des juridictions arbitrales. Force est de constater que le caractère pluraliste du principe compétence-compétence est tantôt réalité, tantôt mirage.

International electricity trade disputes can arise at three key levels: state to state; investor to state; private party to private party. Parties may be more open to submission of their disputes to international arbitration. However, they should make proper arbitration options according to the types of disputes. At the same time, considering the risks facing dispute resolution, it is imperative to specifically design effective tools to mitigate these risks.

Le processus de règlement des litiges par la voie de l’arbitrage a nourri des ambitions économiques énormes dans les sphères juridiques où ce mécanisme a été instauré. L’efficacité de ce processus qui signifie entre autre un processus ayant abouti à une application, voire une exécution effective des protagonistes est un gage de la réalisation de ces ambitions. Or, ce processus peut être compromis du fait de l’annulation de la sentence arbitrale par un juge dont l’intervention dans le processus peut soit le renforcer, soit l’annihiler fondamentalement. Cette situation explique dans une large mesure les raisons pour lesquelles la doctrine juridique se place en faveur d’une collaboration solide entre la justice publique et la justice privée de l’arbitrage. Comment cette question de l’annulation de la sentence arbitrale est abordée dans les sphères juridiques du Québec et de l’Ohada? Quels sont les effets juridiques issus de la comparaison de cette situation dans chacune de ces sphères? Telle se présente la substance de cette recherche dont la méthode comparative est alimentée par le paradigme de l’herméneutique juridique et son corollaire le pluralisme juridique. Les résultats issus du dialogue comparatif devraient participer à une amélioration des situations problématiques décelées dans les sphères concernées. The rule process of lawsuits based on arbitration has filled out huge economic ambitions related to judicial spheres where this mechanism has been established. The efficiency of this process, which among others, has led to an application, indeed a real execution of the protagonists, is somewhat a guarantee to the fulfilment of these ambitions. However, this process can be compromised because of the cancellation of the arbitral sentence by a judge whose intervention in the process can either reinforce it or destroy it. This situation mainly explains the reasons why the juridical doctrine is in favour of a solid collaboration. How do the juridical sphere of Quebec and Ohada tackle this issue of the cancellation of the arbitral sentence? What are the juridical effects stemmed from the comparism of this situation in both spheres? The way the substance of this research appears and whose comparative method is fed by the paradigm of the juridical hermeneutics and its juridical pluralism corollary. The results stemmed from the comparative dialog should participate in improving problematic situations detected in the applied spheres.