Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This article explores the terms “BRI dispute” and “BRI jurisprudence”. It undertakes a practical and theoretical analysis that considers whether “BRI disputes” have distinct and visible characteristics and are capable of being identified in a legal sense. This is important since practitioners – arbitration centres and law firms – use the term broadly and without specific criteria. By exploring the customary usage and the approach of legal scholars to the term, presenting examples of “BRI disputes” and examining their unique features, and constructing a theoretical approach (utilizing the concepts of ratione materiae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione personae; and considering the jurisprudence of the ICSID), this article moves from a broad to a narrow analysis to develop both a definition and a system of registration of “BRI disputes” for use by academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

Cette réflexion se propose de contribuer au développement des modes amiables de règlement des différends dans la culture juridique béninoise afin de permettre aux justiciables, majoritairement analphabètes, d'avoir des alternatives opportunes aux voies judiciaires classiques. Tandis que la justice fait face à de nombreux défis, aussi bien en France qu'au Bénin, le développement et la promotion remarqués des modes amiables de règlement des différends connaissent un certain succès en la matière en France. Au Bénin, le législateur encourage, incite mais ne propose aucun régime particulier pour le recours effectif au règlement amiable des différends. Cette recherche tente ainsi d'examiner de façon approfondie et d'interroger les différends mécanismes législatifs existants, tant les enjeux en termes d'accès à la justice sont considérables. Les principaux enjeux de cette thèse sont donc liées aux perspectives du développement des mode amiables et à leur encadrement pour remédier aux insuffisances et contre-performances de la justice étatique béninoise.

This study investigates the impact of the arbitration cases under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) scheme on cross-border direct investment in the form of merger and acquisition deals. The initiation of ISDS claims has significant and negative effects on direct investment from the claimant home country to the developing or weak-institution responding country. Indirect expropriation claims often have stronger effects than direct expropriation claims. The investor-win arbitration cases produce a significant substantiation effect by reducing merger flows, while the state-win cases produce an acquittal effect that encourages the subsequent capital inflow to the respondent state. Both effects are more striking in weak-institution or less developed target countries. We also detect some spillover effects of ISDS arbitration.

On 23 November 2017, OHADA member states adopted the Uniform Act on Mediation. The Act lays down rules relating to mediation of disputes which, if successful, ends in a settlement agreement. Settlement agreements that are not freely respected by the parties will have no effect unless they are forcefully executed. Forceful execution is made with the help of a court or notably public who are empowered to insert an executory formula on the agreement after verification of its regularity. These local authorities involved in the enforcement process rely on domestic laws of member states which vary from state to state. This has the effect of tainting the harmonization process intended by the OHADA lawmaker and may be inimical to investors. This raises the problem of the suitability of the Act to dispute settlement as regards enforcement of settlement agreements. With the help of qualitative and comparative analysis, this article brings to limelight the intricacies of the enforcement of settlement agreements underOHADA. It concludes that enforcement of settlement agreements is rendered simple and rapid but faces serious drawbacks which could be alleviated by setting up OHADA mediation institution to oversee the entire mediation process, besides other recommendations.

A arbitragem é um meio de resolução de litígios, que se alicerça na autonomia privada e é reconhecida, quer internacionalmente, quer nas constituições estaduais analisadas, como um modo de exercício, alternativo aos tribunais estaduais, do direito fundamental constitucional à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. A questão que se coloca é a de saber se, em primeiro lugar, as partes podem acordar renunciar, validamente, a direitos fundamentais processuais na arbitragem e, podendo, com que requisitos e dentro de que limites, para, em segundo lugar e em particular, aplicar os requisitos e limites referidos à (in)admissibilidade da renúncia ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional. Partindo da ponderação do âmbito, conteúdo e regime dos direitos fundamentais em confronto, de um lado, à tutela jurisdicional efetiva, incluindo o direito à arbitragem e outros direitos fundamentais processuais, como o de impugnar a sentença arbitral em determinados casos e, do outro lado, à autonomia privada, que fundamenta a renúncia, e sem prejuízo de a ponderação dever ser feita em cada caso concreto, concluo que a renúncia àqueles direitos é válida, se cumprir determinados requisitos subjetivos e objetivos, que identifico, incluindo os limites e os respetivos critérios para aferir da referida (in)validade. Quanto ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional, concluo que, sem prejuízo e com base nas soluções consagradas de jure constituto, a renúncia por acordo das partes é, do ponto de vista constitucional normativo e, de jure constituendo no direito português, válida, desde que se respeitem aqueles requisitos. Em particular, tem de existir um meio de impugnar a sentença arbitral, quando esta viole, de forma grave, direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, que não estão na disponibilidade das partes, nos casos e termos necessários a garantir o conteúdo essencial do direito fundamental à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. No entanto, há margem do legislador para adotar o regime mais adequado ao propósito referido. Na arbitragem internacional, do ponto de vista normativo-constitucional, podem as partes renunciar, total e/ou parcialmente, à anulação na sede, quando há a possibilidade de controlo último, pelo menos de violações graves de direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, aquando do reconhecimento e execução da sentença arbitral, sendo esta a solução legal que, na minha opinião, melhor se coaduna com a arbitragem internacional no seu todo. Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism rooted in private autonomy and internationally recognised, as well as in the national constitutions analysed, as an alternative means to state courts for exercising the constitutional fundamental right to effective judicial protection. The primary question of this dissertation is whether the parties can validly agree to waive fundamental procedural rights in arbitration, and if so, under what conditions and within what limits. Secondly, I specifically apply these conditions and limits to the (in)admissibility of waiving the right to seek annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration. By weighing the scope, content and framework of conflicting fundamental rights – the right to effective judicial protection (encompassing the right to arbitration and other fundamental procedural rights, such as the right to challenge the arbitral award in certain cases), against private autonomy (which justifies the waiver) – and, without prejudice to the necessary case-by-case balancing, I conclude that the waiver of these rights is valid, provided that subjective and objective requirements, including the limits and criteria for assessing the (in)validity of the waiver, are met. Regarding the right to request annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration, I conclude that, without prejudice to and relying on legal solutions established de jure constituto, the waiver by agreement of the parties is valid from a normative constitutional perspective and de jure constituendo under Portuguese Law, provided such subjective and objective requirements are respected. Specifically, there must be a means to challenge the arbitral award when it seriously violates fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State, which are beyond the parties’ disposal, in certain cases and under certain terms as necessary to protect the core essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. However, the legislator retains discretion to adopt the most appropriate legal framework for this purpose. In the context of international arbitration, from a normative-constitutional perspective, the parties may waive annulment at the seat, in whole and/or in part, provided there is the possibility of ultimate oversight, particularly in cases involving serious violations of fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State at the stage of recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. In my opinion, this legal solution is the one that best aligns with the global system of international arbitration.

L’acte uniforme originel sur les procédures collectives avait prévu une procédure préventive, le règlement préventif, au bénéfice des débiteurs qui traversent des difficultés sérieuses. La nécessité de la consécration d’une procédure à la fois amiable et préventive s’est imposée. C’est désormais chose faite depuis la révision de 2015. Le législateur a ainsi consacré les procédures de conciliation et de médiation à l’article 2-1 de l’Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif (AUPC). Si pour la mise en œuvre de la première, il faut se référer à l’AUPC, la deuxième est règlementée dans l’Acte uniforme sur la médiation (AUM). Nous proposons donc dans cette étude, à la suite de la présentation de ces procédures amiables comme modes anticipatifs et efficaces de sauvetage d’entreprises, des pistes de réflexion afin de rendre effectif le recours à cet arsenal juridique.

This paper comprehensively analyses the potential of blockchain technology and smart contracts to revolutionise dispute resolution. As dispute resolution methods evolve, blockchain and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, transparency, and fairness, are becoming more critical. That is especially the case in mediation and construction adjudication, which are less traditionally formal and tend to be carried through much more quickly than other forms of dispute resolution. The opportunity of blockchain comes from its ability to demonstrate a tamper-proof, clear record, reducing risks of misunderstanding and bias. This facilitates the transfer and verification of evidence both in the carrying out of projects and during dispute resolution processes. Smart–digital contracts with terms coded indirectly- allow for automated contract enforcement. They execute automatically upon meeting specific conditions. This automation brings a new efficiency level, cutting the time and costs of conventional dispute resolution. Nonetheless, integrating blockchain and smart contracts in dispute resolution faces several challenges. The current limited understanding and acceptance of these technologies in the legal sector is an imminent issue. Legislative changes are necessary to provide a solid legal framework for these technologies in legal processes and to address potential inconsistencies of approach. Such reform requires strong cooperation among lawmakers, technologists, and legal experts to ensure implementation that adheres to legal and ethical norms and ensures that the technologies can be applied with confidence by the stakeholders within the process. This collective effort is crucial for seamlessly integrating blockchain and smart contracts into legal frameworks.

The transformation of international trade from conventional to digital impacts several things, including resolving international trade disputes. In order to realize an efficient and effective dispute resolution process, many countries have implemented ODR to settle international trade disputes. This study aims to analyze the implementation of ODR in various countries and examine issues with unclear guidelines based on international law. This research observes the development of ODR in Indonesia and the urgency for its implementation in Indonesia. The research is normative juridical, with a statutory and comparative approach. The results obtained in this study are model law arrangements relating to the standardization of ODR Providers aimed to protect the personal data of the parties, unification of ODR dispute resolution clauses, and formulation of national legal instruments to create legal certainty regarding ODR, including ODR proceedings, permits, and monitoring,  as well as recognition and execution process of electronic ODR decisions.

La Procédure de règlement des différends opposant les opérateurs de communications électroniques au Cameroun prévoit, en premier, la saisine de l’Agence de Régulation des Télécommunications (ART). Cette dernière devra tenter de concilier les parties. Si cette tentative de conciliation échoue, alors le dossier sera transmis au Comité de Règlement des Différends (CRD) qui devra trancher le litige. Au cas où la décision intervenue est contestée par une des parties, elle pourra saisir soit les juridictions de droit commun, soit l’arbitre. Cependant, le législateur de 2010 n’a pas résolu toutes les questions relatives à l’intervention de cet arbitre. Par exemple, qui le constitue ? Quelles règles gouvernent la procédure et sur la base de quelles normes doit-il trancher ? Où aura lieu l’arbitrage ? L’examen de la loi de 1998 qui a été abrogée par celle de 2010, plus explicite sur la question, nous livre un régime qui tantôt rapproche le régulateur d’un centre d’arbitrage sur certains aspects, tantôt l’éloigne sur d’autres.

Le règlement des différends par les parties à une relation d’affaires, à travers l’arbitrage, n’est pas un fait nouveau dans les pays africains. Seulement, la nécessité était posée d’adapter ce mode alternatif aux réalités économiques africaines. Pendant longtemps, la majeure partie des contentieux dans lesquels les parties africaines sont impliquées, était réglée en dehors de ses frontières. Ce qui ne favorisait pas leur participation active. Mais la mise en place de l’OHADA et surtout, la création de la CCJA et plus tard son Centre d’arbitrage, suivis par les différents Centres d’arbitrage des Etats ont permis de faire de l’effectivité de l’arbitrage, une réalité. De l’arbitrage traditionnel, l’OHADA, a élargi le champ d’application de ce droit, en y incluant l’arbitrage des investissements, à l’occasion de la réforme du 23 et 24 novembre 2017. Actuellement, cette réforme fait l’objet de nombreuses critiques, notamment, sur le fait que pour certains, ce mécanisme favorise plus l’investisseur étranger que l’Etat partenaire, et que la notion même de l’investissement, n’a jusque-là pas fait l’objet d’une définition claire, tant en droit, en jurisprudence encore moins en doctrine. Pour mettre en œuvre l’arbitrage, les parties font recours à des arbitres, auxquels elles confient leurs différends suivant une convention d’arbitrage ou un instrument d’investissement qui détermine leur mission. Cette dernière peut être accomplie selon les cas, sous la forme d’un arbitrage institutionnel ou ad hoc, et finira par une sentence arbitrale, qui tranchera ce conflit. Comme dans la justice étatique, cette sentence est susceptible des voies de recours. L’arbitrage ne va pas sans écueils : de la constitution du tribunal arbitral à la sentence finale, plusieurs difficultés peuvent surgir.

The surge in online interactions has led to a parallel rise in civil and commercial disputes that transcend geographical boundaries. As traditional dispute resolution mechanisms face challenges adapting to this evolving paradigm, conflicts increasingly migrate to online platforms. Within this proliferating landscape, it is crucial to recognize the scarcity of research devoted to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) providers and the myriad types of services they currently offer to users worldwide. Despite the ongoing geographical expansion of ODR, the inquiry into how procedural justice principles manifest in these digital dispute resolution systems remains notably under-explored. A growing body of literature underscores that procedural justice is critical for building users’ trust, enhancing the legitimacy of organizations among communities, and fostering compliance with outcomes. The ability of ODR providers to meet users' expectations in terms of procedural justice can significantly shape users' perception of ODR institutions as trustworthy and dependable. This bears paramount implications for the ongoing development of ODR, whose acceptance varies widely across jurisdictions. This doctoral thesis delves into the intricate intersections of procedural justice within the realm of international civil and commercial ODR, examining the nuanced dynamics that emerge in virtual spaces. Ultimately, it seeks to understand how procedural justice principles, rooted in the notion of fairness, manifest and evolve in the context of ODR, exploring the impact of digital interventions on the perceived fairness of dispute resolution processes. Understanding procedural justice in ODR is not merely an academic pursuit; it holds profound implications for legal practitioners, policymakers, and society at large. This research aims to contribute valuable insights that can inform the design of fairer and more effective ODR systems.

This paper examined international arbitration as a tool for resolving investment disputes in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, a critical industry that contributes significantly to Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange earnings and government revenues. This sector is marked by high-risk investments and complexity and often faces disputes arising from regulatory changes, fluctuating global prices, environmental concerns and contractual breaches. Arbitration, particularly in cross-border investments, provides a neutral, efficient and flexible mechanism for resolving such disputes. Using a doctrinal research methodology, the study analysed statutes, case law, international treaties, and academic sources. Findings revealed that while arbitration offers benefits such as neutrality and enforceability, there are still some challenges that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Issues include resistance to enforcement of arbitral awards by Nigerian courts on grounds of national interest, high arbitration costs and biases favouring foreign investors. Nigeria’s legal framework, including the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, supports arbitration but lacks procedural clarity, leading to delays and inefficiencies. The paper concluded that legal reforms are essential to strengthen arbitration processes, enhance enforcement mechanisms and align Nigeria’s framework with international standards. Such reforms would foster investment stability and improve Nigeria’s attractiveness as an investment destination by reducing legal uncertainties. The paper recommended legislative and judicial improvements in order to achieve these goals.

Technology is continuously evolving and has changed human interaction. It is consequently changing the ways disputes are solved. International dispute resolution procedures, and international arbitration, more specifically, are considerably influenced by the rapid expansion of innovative technologies. Years after the dot-com boom, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) emerged and evolved considerably. Due to the digitalization of ODR methods, remote arbitration (or e-arbitration) is expanding. Arbitration is of particular interest due to its formal and binding nature, from a theoretical perspective. E-arbitration, as other ODR methods have attractive features as well as drawbacks, which are addressed in this document.  The purpose of this paper is three-fold: providing an overview of e-arbitration and the different considerations of this method, presenting the e-arbitration models of the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and suggesting recommendations to improve international e-commerce arbitration, notably through a revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law).