Bibliographie sélective OHADA

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study provides exploratory insight into the social justice mandate of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) in the context of labour relations in South Africa. As a vehicle for the advancement of social justice through the efficient resolution of labour disputes, the CCMA is a compelling actor in the pursuit of social justice in South Africa’s labour environment. Social justice as a legislative and policy imperative requires an investment in understanding its conceptual ideals and demands in order to empower those acting in its pursuit with the knowledge they need to fulfil its demands. The CCMA’s most critical functionary, its commissioner, holds the key to unlocking labour justice for many members of the public. One wonders, given the criticality of advancing social justice in labour relations, whether social justice is appropriately understood in order to enable the kind of decision-making that efficiently and consistently addresses the workings of power and inequality as they manifest in employment relationships. This study’s main provocation is to transform the pursuit of social justice (in the South African labour context, at least) from an elusive endeavour to a more tangible, realistic one. It attempts to offer a way of thinking about and applying social justice in the practice of labour dispute resolution in South Africa and the CCMA context. It critically explores the interwoven mechanisms of power, prejudice, and injustice and how these mechanisms work to sustain unequal labour relations. The commissioner’s role is thus a critical one, that involves a deliberate pursuit to recognise, understand and interrupt these movements of power and mitigate the effect of inequality. Any movement towards social justice that does not pay close attention to this matrix of power and prejudice threatens to dilute the transformative potency of social justice. This study identifies and discusses the decisions of commissioners that fall short of the kind of conscientious decision-making required by a mandate of social justice. Discussions in this study also point out significant achievements in centralising social justice principles in decision-making processes at the CCMA, where arbitrators, in reducing injustice and advancing justice in labour relations, show a conscientious consideration and appreciation of historical contexts, power, privilege and disadvantage. Living up to the constitutional imperative to transform society in the way of equality, commissioners ought to develop their agency and be empowered by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to disrupt inequality. This study contributes to the understanding and clarification of social justice and its implications for the South African labour environment. It also posits ubuntu as an important consideration in the balancing exercise required to achieve justice.

Il ne suffit pas d’adopter un nouvel Acte uniforme pour satisfaire à la demande ou garantir une sécurité juridique apparente du droit africain des affaires ou encore enrichir le régime uniforme du règlement des différends dans l’espace OHADA ; ou même pallier le vide législatif qui existait encore au sein de l’OHADA sur la médiation. Il ne s’agit pas d’un Acte uniforme de plus, mais d’un réel instrument juridique qui pourrait favoriser le retour des investisseurs et améliorer les conditions des affaires dans l’espace OHADA. Il faut chercher à savoir si cette nouvelle approche de la justice sera une réussite dans ledit espace.

La mediación y el arbitraje en línea han surgido como soluciones eficaces para la resolución de conflictos en un mundo digitalizado, ofreciendo ventajas como reducción de costos, accesibilidad y flexibilidad horaria. Sin embargo, enfrentan desafíos como la brecha digital y la seguridad de la información. Un estudio basado en encuestas a profesionales y usuarios confirma la utilidad de estas herramientas, pero subraya la necesidad de mejorar la infraestructura tecnológica y establecer marcos regulatorios claros. A pesar de los obstáculos, estos métodos representan una evolución significativa en la gestión de disputas legales.

The freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law to the merits is often presented as an important benefit of arbitrating disputes involving intellectual property (IP). Yet, the reality is more uncertain and controversial than is commonly assumed. Is party autonomy really permitted in IP arbitration? Should it be? This article answers these questions with regard to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, using recent examples drawn from arbitral practice. It first examines the situation where the parties only made a choice of contract law, and considers in this regard whether that law can and/or should be extended to infringement claims and/or the remedies to infringement, either directly or through the technique of characterization. After discussing the impact of overriding mandatory rules in contractual IP cases, the article then examines the situation where the parties chose a law to govern IP questions, including by way of a broad choice-of-law agreement covering non-contractual problems. It seeks to provide as much guidance as possible to arbitral tribunals, using mainly the distinction among infringement, ownership, and validity issues, and by distinguishing among different scenarios in which party autonomy is more or less acceptable.

Le tribunal arbitral tranche le litige conformément aux règles de droit, mais cette garantie est fragile car le législateur OHADA ajoute à moins que les parties lui aient conféré mission de statuer en amiable composition. Ces amiables compositeurs sont donc des arbitres qui peuvent ne pas appliquer la loi, qui peuvent statuer en équité, ce qui implique la reconnaissance, aux arbitres, d’un pouvoir modérateur sur les obligations contractuelles litigieuses. Mais cette autorisation de statuer en amiable composition ne leur interdit pas de statuer en droit, simplement, le tribunal arbitral amiable compositeur qui appliquerait exclusivement les règles de droit, doit s’expliquer sur la conformité de celles-ci à l’équité. L’arbitrage tend aussi à la satisfaction de l’idéal du procès équitable. C’est ainsi que l’équité est une exigence dans la constitution et lors des suites du tribunal arbitral. The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the rules of law; but this guarantee is fragile because the OHADA legislator adds unless the parties have given him the mission to rule in amicable composition. These amicable composers are therefore arbiters who may not apply the law, who can rule in equity; which implies the recognition, to the arbitrators, of a moderating power over the disputed contractual obligations. But this authorization to rule in amicable composition does not prevent them from ruling in law. Clearly, the amicable arbitral tribunal which would exclusively apply the rules of law, must explain their compliance with fairness. Arbitration also tends to satisfy the ideal of a fair trial. This is how fairness becomes a requirement in the constitution and during the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal.

La présente contribution intitulée « Le règlement des différends en matière d’environnement au Cameroun » ; vise la mise en œuvre des règles de protection de l’environnement de par l’impact des actes mis en cause ou du préjudice causé, selon l’origine des acteurs ou selon les règles invocables. Ce faisant, elle s’intéresse aux solutions qu’apportent certaines dispositions relatives à la matière environnementale au cameroun. A l’analyse, on observe dans la première hypothèse, que les modes alternatifs de règlement non contentieux des différends se veulent plus rapide et accessibles tout en favorisant le respect des lois environnementales. Dans la seconde hypothèse, il s’agit de faire appel au juge judiciaire pour trancher les différends. De par son impact, la position du juge apparaît comme l’outil essentiel d’identification des dommages susceptibles d’être causés à l’environnement et constituant le socle sur lequel est construit le plan de gestion de l’environnement. The present contribution entiled « The settlement of environmental disputes in Cameroon » ; aims at the implementation of environmental protection rules according to the impact of the acts in question or of the damage caused, depending on the origin of the impact or according to the invocable rules. In doing so, it looks at the solutions provited by certain provisions relating to environmental matters in Cameroun. On analysis, it can be observed in the first hypothesis, the alternative methods of non-contentious settlement of disputes that are intented to be faster and more accessible while promoting compliance with environmental laws. In the second hyperthesis, it is a question of appealing to the judicial judge to settle disputes. Because of its impact, the position of the judge appears to be the essentiel tool for identifying the damage likely to be caused to the environment and constituting the basis on which the environmental management plan is built.

In an era where technology is rapidly transforming the legal landscape, Transforming Arbitration explores how innovations like AI, blockchain, the Metaverse, and Web3 are reshaping arbitration as a key form of dispute resolution. The book features insights from leading academics, practitioners, and policymakers, offering a comprehensive look at how these advancements are influencing our conceptual, substantive and procedural understandings of many parts of this field. Each chapter examines the challenges and opportunities presented by these technologies, raising important questions about the compatibility of traditional arbitration processes with digital innovations. As the legal field adapts to developments like cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and 'virtual' disputes, this book provides valuable guidance on the future implications for arbitration. By questioning established norms and advocating for fresh approaches, Transforming Arbitration is a vital resource for legal professionals and scholars committed to evolving with the times. Combining theoretical exploration with practical recommendations, this collaborative volume equips the legal community with the tools to navigate the complexities of our digital age with confidence and foresight.

The State Judge's Relinquishment of Jurisdiction over Arbitration Agreements under Ohada Law. The use of arbitration instead of state judges is increasingly popular in the business world. The parties to contracts thus prefer to choose a judge more quickly and less cumbersomely, with more confidentiality and less publicity. If the advantages of resorting to arbitration are undoubted, its effects leading to the total withdrawal of state jurisdictions attract the attention of many. The incompetence of the judge due to arbitration then tends to completely rule out the latter, which merits a better understanding of the powers and competence of the arbitrator and a good understanding of the place of the state judge in the arbitration procedure.

This thesis critically examines a much-debated issue in international law: the legitimacy of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS). The system was initially conceived to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for the protection and promotion of foreign investment. In time, this objective has incited a discussion on the legitimacy of the system as the developed world has started to experience the role of host states. Since then, they have taken the lead in the reform process to achieve a balance between host state's and foreign investors' rights. To this effect, both the European Union (EU) and the Third Way Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are for centralization of the system arguing its current problems emanate from its ad hoc and decentralized nature. Although both are aimed at system centralization, the paths they take to achieve it clearly differ. The EU seeks a permanent investment court by which ad hoc arbitration would give way to a more centralized framework. However, TWAIL advocates for a return to the pre-ISDS era, where national courts resolve investment disputes between foreign investors and states. The effectiveness of these two reform ideas in addressing the purported legitimacy concerns of the ISDS is critically examined in this thesis using Martti Koskenniemi's legal approach. Ultimately, it asserts that neither proposal is adequate to resolve the legitimacy issue of the system, as legitimacy can only be achieved by strengthening the principle of justice, which is feasible alone through a more decentralized structure.

L’arbitrage étant l’un des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends, sa particularité est qu’il est confidentiel, secret, rapide, conventionnel et juridictionnel. En ce qui concerne spécifiquement l’obligation de confidentialité et de secret, son étendue est double. D’abord, il y a l’étendue matérielle, qui porte sur la procédure arbitrale, la composition du tribunal arbitral, la nature du litige, les ordonnances du tribunal arbitral, les documents soumis par les parties litigantes, les délibérations et la sentence. En second lieu, il y a l’étendue personnelle, qui concerne les témoins, les parties, les arbitres, le comité d’arbitrage, l’institution ou le centre d’arbitrage, le secrétaire du tribunal arbitral, les experts et tous les autres intervenants de la procédure arbitrale. La problématique centrale est d’analyser comment la confidentialité, le secret, la protection des données personnelles, y compris dans l’hypothèse du recours à l’intelligence artificielle peut être adressée et solutionnée dans le cadre d’une procédure arbitrale.

Le sujet de thèse explore comment définir les critères d’arbitrabilité des litiges acceptés par la justice arbitrale et étatique en France et dans l’espace OHADA. Les recherches ont montré que chaque système juridique a déjà des critères établis par les législateurs et la doctrine. L’arbitrage, étant à la fois juridictionnel et conventionnel, implique une interaction entre les justices arbitrales et étatiques, nécessitant des critères d’arbitrabilité efficaces. Ces critères doivent distinguer clairement les litiges arbitrables des inarbitrables et repartir soigneusement les compétences entre les juridictions. Alors, notre thèse questionne l’efficacité de ces critères et propose des améliorations pour remédier à leurs limites. The thesis topic explores how to define the arbitrability criteria of disputes accepted by arbitration and state justice in France and in the OHADA space. Research has shown that every legal system already has criteria set by legislators and doctrine. Arbitration, being both jurisdictional and conventional, involves an interaction between the arbitral and state courts, requiring effective arbitrability criteria. These criteria must clearly distinguish between arbitrable and non-arbitrable disputes and carefully allocate jurisdiction between the courts. So, our thesis questions the effectiveness of these criteria and proposes improvements to remedy their limitations.

Le principe de l’autonomie de la clause compromissoire est au cœur du mécanisme de l’arbitrage, tout en demeurant complexe et polyvalent. Cette étude met en lumière les différentes dimensions de ce principe, tout en identifiant ses limites face aux exigences fondamentales de justice et d’ordre public. L’autonomie de la clause compromissoire signifie d’abord que cette clause, bien qu’intégrée dans un contrat principal, existe et survit de manière indépendante. Concrètement, cela veut dire qu’une contestation ou une invalidité du contrat principal n’affecte pas automatiquement la clause compromissoire. Cette indépendance permet aux parties de préserver leur engagement à soumettre les litiges à un tribunal arbitral, offrant ainsi une sécurité juridique et une continuité au processus de résolution des conflits. L’arbitrage repose ici sur un engagement volontaire et anticipé, qui ne saurait être remis en cause par des circonstances affectant le contrat lui-même. Au-delà de cette indépendance, l’évolution du principe d’autonomie a permis d’introduire une autre dimension : la liberté de choix dans les règles qui régissent la clause compromissoire. Cela signifie que les parties ne sont pas nécessairement liées aux règles du contrat principal. Cette forme d’autonomie favorise la flexibilité, permettant aux parties de concevoir une procédure arbitrale adaptée à leurs besoins spécifiques. Cependant, cette liberté rencontre certaines limites, notamment en matière d’ordre public, qui agit comme un rempart pour protéger les valeurs fondamentales de justice et d’équité. Un autre aspect fondamental de ce principe est son interaction avec le concept de compétence-compétence, selon lequel le tribunal arbitral est habilité à statuer sur sa propre compétence. Cette relation étroite entre les deux principes peut créer une certaine confusion, car si l’autonomie de la clause concerne sa validité et son indépendance, la compétence-compétence relève plutôt du pouvoir décisionnel des arbitres. Toutefois, ces deux notions, bien que distinctes, contribuent ensemble à garantir l’efficacité de l’arbitrage en permettant de résoudre rapidement les questions liées à la compétence et à la validité de la clause. L’étude aborde également la transmissibilité de la clause compromissoire, qui pose un défi théorique à l’idée d’autonomie. En cas de cession ou de transfert du contrat principal, la clause compromissoire accompagne généralement le contrat, ce qui semble paradoxal par rapport à son indépendance. Cette apparente contradiction s’explique toutefois par la nécessité pratique d’assurer la continuité des mécanismes d’arbitrage, en particulier dans des situations complexes comme les contrats multipartites ou les groupes d’entreprises. Enfin, le principe d’autonomie, malgré sa robustesse et son importance dans l’arbitrage, demeure encadré. La protection des intérêts fondamentaux des parties les plus vulnérables et des principes essentiels de justice impose des limites nécessaires. L’ordre public joue ici un rôle clé en veillant à ce que la liberté contractuelle ne se traduise pas par une atteinte aux droits fondamentaux ou aux valeurs essentielles de la société. En conclusion, l’autonomie de la clause compromissoire est un instrument essentiel qui garantit la stabilité et l’efficacité de l’arbitrage. Elle repose sur une double dynamique : une indépendance par rapport au contrat principal et une flexibilité permettant aux parties d’organiser librement la procédure arbitrale. Toutefois, cette autonomie doit coexister avec des limites claires pour concilier la liberté contractuelle avec les exigences de justice, assurant ainsi un équilibre nécessaire entre efficacité et protection des principes fondamentaux. The principle of the autonomy of the arbitration clause is central to the arbitration mechanism, while remaining both complex and multifaceted. This study sheds light on the various dimensions of this principle and identifies its limits in the face of fundamental justice and public policy requirements. The autonomy of the arbitration clause primarily signifies that the clause, although incorporated into a principal contract, exists and survives independently. In practical terms, this means that a dispute regarding or the invalidity of the principal contract does not automatically affect the arbitration clause. This independence enables the parties to uphold their agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, thereby ensuring legal certainty and continuity in conflict resolution processes. Arbitration thus rests on a voluntary and preemptive commitment that cannot be undermined by circumstances affecting the main contract. In addition to this independence, the development of the principle of autonomy has introduced another significant aspect: the freedom of the parties to determine the rules governing the arbitration clause. This autonomy allows the parties to deviate from the rules of the principal contract, fostering flexibility and enabling the design of arbitration procedures that meet their specific needs. However, this freedom is not without limits, particularly where public policy intervenes as a safeguard to preserve fundamental principles of justice and fairness. A crucial component of this principle is its interaction with the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, which empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. This close relationship between the two concepts may cause confusion: the autonomy of the arbitration clause concerns its validity and independence, whereas kompetenz-kompetenz pertains to the decision-making authority of arbitrators. Despite their distinctions, both principles collectively enhance the effectiveness of arbitration by facilitating the prompt resolution of jurisdictional and validity-related challenges. This study also explores the issue of the arbitration clause’s transmissibility, which presents a theoretical challenge to the notion of autonomy. In cases where the principal contract is assigned or transferred, the arbitration clause typically follows the contract, creating a seemingly paradoxical situation regarding its independence. This apparent contradiction can, however, be justified by the practical need to maintain the continuity of arbitration mechanisms, particularly in complex contexts such as multiparty contracts or corporate groups. Ultimately, despite its essential role and resilience, the autonomy of the arbitration clause is subject to necessary constraints. The protection of vulnerable parties and the preservation of fundamental principles of justice impose clear limitations. Public policy serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure that contractual freedom does not infringe upon fundamental rights or societal values. In conclusion, the autonomy of the arbitration clause is a cornerstone of arbitration’s stability and effectiveness. It is characterized by independence from the principal contract and the flexibility afforded to the parties in shaping their arbitration proceedings. However, this autonomy must be balanced against clear limits to harmonize contractual freedom with justice requirements, ensuring an essential equilibrium between efficiency and the protection of core principles.

The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) is an industry ombud recognised under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). The MIOSA regulates the interaction and provides for alternative dispute resolution in the automotive and related industries in South Africa. Moreover, the MIOSA is an impartial organisation that focusses on the resolution of disputes where a deadlock has been reached between the automotive and related industries and their customers, as well as relationships among participants in the automotive and related industries to the benefit of the parties. The role of the MIOSA is to make recommendations in cases referred to it where parties cannot reach common ground and are unable to arrive at mutually acceptable agreements following a dispute. This analysis explores and proffers possible solutions to address the challenges that impede the MIOSA from discharging its role and mandate under the CPA effectively in resolving consumer disputes in the South African automotive industry.

Corporations have been established and recognized in Indonesia as entities engaged in business activities since 1602. In these business activities, disputes can occur regarding the non-disbursement of Bank Guarantees through the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI). Therefore, this research uses the Normative Juridical method through a literature review. The research questions considered are (1) What is the guarantee of legal certainty in the process of resolving business disputes regarding Bank Guarantee payments through the Arbitration Board? (20) What can the Supreme Court Decision provide legal certainty for resolving business disputes through arbitration in Indonesia? The process of resolving business disputes in default on Bank Guarantee payments through the Arbitration Court has fulfilled the legal certainty principle. The results showed that the rules were available through different Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Laws, as well as other laws applied consistently in the BANI Surabaya Decision Number 59/ARB/BANI-SBY/XI/2021. The Supreme Court Decision Number 918 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2023 tried the appeal case and rejected the application for annulment of the arbitration decision from the Applicant. In addition, legal certainty is created for corporate legal efforts to take the arbitration route.

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.