Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Derrière les controverses qui jalonnent l’histoire de l’idée de Constitution économique émerge la question éminemment politique de la marge de manœuvre laissée aux autorités publiques dans la sphère économique. La notion cristallise ainsi une tension fondamentale : entre démocratie et État de droit, quel doit être modèle d’organisation et d’ordonnancement juridique de l’économie? Des physiocrates aux néolibéraux, de la République de Weimar à l’intégration européenne, des constitutions nationales à la Global Governance, cet ouvrage collectif nous invite dès lors à explorer la généalogie du concept polémique de Constitution économique. Les auteurs ouvrent alors, à travers un dialogue interdisciplinaire constant, une réflexion globale autour des enjeux juridiques et politiques du processus actuel de constitutionnalisation de l’ordre de marché en Europe.

Conséquence de la compétition que les États se livrent pour attirer le maximum d’investisseurs, la mise en concurrence des systèmes juridiques nationaux s’est traduite par une libéralisation continue du droit qui a eu un effet direct sur l’idée de Constitution économique. Celle-ci a non seulement vu son épaisseur normative se renforcer du fait de la neutralisation des dispositifs juridiques dirigistes mais elle s’est également universalisée en raison de la conversion de la quasi-totalité des pays au dogme de « l’attractivité ». Toutefois, ce mouvement généralisé vers le tout libéral commence à être remis en cause sous l’effet de facteurs divers qui se traduisent par une demande sociale et politique pour plus de régulation étatique. Il en résulte à la fois un regain de l’unilatéralisme qui affecte la force des principes qui sous-tendent l’idée de constitution économique et une prise en compte plus affirmée des valeurs et intérêts collectifs qui altère la substance de ces principes.

Sometimes foreign investors after the dispute have arisen or when it is predictable and with the intention of bringing the dispute to arbitration, change their nationality or acquire new nationality. The phenomenon called Nationality Planning eases foreign investors’ access to a desirable treaty and increases the chance of bringing disputes against host states.So host states try to avoid these disputes by raising objections to Ratione Temporis or claiming abuse of rights. Arbitration tribunals’ approach towards their Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights is material in host states’ success in limiting Nationality Planning. So the question to be answered is that what requirements are considered by arbitrations in determining Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights and how these two are different. Arbitral precedent shows that these tribunals make distinction between cases of nationality planning contrary to their Ratione Temporis and cases that are considered as abuse of rights. However, in practice their strict approach results in limited acceptation of objections to Ratione Temporis or abuse of rights claims. گاه سرمایه‌گذار خارجی پس از بروز اختلاف یا زمانی که اختلاف قابل پیش‌بینی است و به قصد طرح دعوی در مرجع داوری، اقدام به تغییر تابعیت یا کسب تابعیت جدید می‌نماید. این اقدام که برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت نام دارد، دسترسی سرمایه‌گذار خارجی به یک معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری مطلوب را تسهیل کرده و احتمال طرح دعوی علیه دولت میزبان را افزایش می‌دهد. از این‌رو دولت‌های میزبان تلاش می‌کنند با طرح ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا سوء استفاده از حق، مانع پذیرش چنین دعوایی شوند. رویکرد مراجع داوری در احراز صلاحیت زمانی خود و تشخیص موارد سوء استفاده از حق، در موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت دولت میزبان در مقابله با برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت تعیین‌کننده است. بنابراین باید به این پرسش پرداخته شود که مراجع داوری چه شرایطی را برای احراز صلاحیت زمانی و سوء استفاده از حق در نظر می‌گیرند و چگونه میان این دو تمایز قائل می‌شوند. رویه مراجع داوری حاکی از آن است که این مراجع میان مواردی از برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت که مانع صلاحیت زمانی آن‌هاست و مواردی که سوء استفاده از حق تلقی می‌گردد، تمایز قائل می‌شوند. هرچند رویکرد سخت‌گیرانه آنها در عمل موجب می‌شود تنها در موارد محدودی ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا ادعای سوء استفاده از حق مورد پذیرش واقع شود.

Measures taken by governments during armed conflict to safeguard their essential interests sometimes cause damages to foreign investors. The investors thus affected seek remedies in the arbitration tribunals invoking breach of host government obligations to protect investments. The host government also usually attempts to assert as defense non-precluded measures to prove its irresponsibility, or if it proves responsible, justify it by resorting to circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the customary international law. But since different courts do not consider the same requirements to invoke these rules, there is no certainty that the parties to the lawsuit will be able to invoke them and, as a result, the scope of government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during the armed conflict is obscure. To clarify the scope of the host government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during armed conflicts and balance the interests of the investor and the host government during the investment disputes arising from the armed conflict, this article explores the possibility and requirements of invoking circumstances precluding wrongfulness and non-precluded measures and the relationship between them. اقداماتی که دولت‌ها در زمان مخاصمات مسلحانه در جهت حفظ منافع اساسی خود انجام می‌دهند گاه موجب ورود خسارت به سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی می‌گردد. سرمایه‌گذاران آسیب‌دیده در محاکم داوری با استناد به نقض تعهدات حمایتی توسط دولت میزبان، خسارات وارده به خود را طلب می‌نمایند. دولت میزبان نیز معمولاً برای اثبات عدم مسئولیت خود به شرط اقدامات منع نشده مندرج در معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری استناد می‌کند و یا در صورت اثبات مسئولیت، به منظور توجیه آن به معاذیر رافع وصف متخلفانه در حقوق بین‌الملل عرفی متوسل می‌شود. اما از آنجا که محاکم مختلف، شرایط یکسانی را جهت استناد کشور میزبان به شرط اقدامات منع نشده و معاذیر رافع وصف متخلفانه در نظر نمی‌گیرند، قطعیتی در امکان استناد به آن‌ها وجود ندارد. در نتیجه، قلمرو تعهد دولت به حمایت از سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در زمان مخاصمات مسلحانه در هاله‌ای از ابهام فرو رفته است. این مقاله با هدف روشن ساختن قلمرو تعهد دولت میزبان به حفاظت از سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در هنگام مخاصمات مسلحانه و به منظور توازن منافع سرمایه‌گذار و دولت میزبان در دعاوی سرمایه‌گذاری ناشی از مخاصمات مسلحانه، امکان و الزامات استناد کشور میزبان به معاذیر عرفی رافع وصف متخلفانه و شرط اقدامات منع نشده و ارتباط میان آنها را مشخص می‌نماید

ﻴﻌﺗﺑﺭ ﺍﻷﻤﻥ ﺍﻠﻗﺎﻨﻭﻨﻲ ﻤﻥ أهم ﺍﻠﻌﻧﺎﺼﺭ ﺍﻠﺗﺣﻓﻳﺯﻴﺔ للمستثمرين، وهو ما أدى بالمشرع إلى ﺗﻟﺑﻳﺔ رغبات ﺍﻠﻣﺳﺗﺛﻣﺭﻴﻥ الأجانب ﻋﻥ طريقة إبرام اتفاقيات ﺜﻧﺎﺌﻳﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻠﻌﺩﻴﺩ من الدول من ﺃﺠﻞ ﺤﻣﺎﻴﺔ الاستثمار الأجنبي ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎفة ﺇﻠﻰ ﺘﻗﻧﻳﻧﻪ ﻠﻟﻭﺴﺎﺌﻞ ﺍﻠﺑﺩﻴﻠﺔ ﻠﺣﻞ ﺍﻠﻧﺯﺍﻋﺎﺕ ومن ﺒﻳﻧﻬﺎ فنية ﺍﻠﺗﺣﻛﻳﻡ. ﻏﻳﺭ ﺃﻨﻪ إذا كانت النزاعات ﺍﻠﻣﺣﺗﻣﻞ ﻨﺷﻭﺒﻬﺎ تثور بين ﺍﻠﻣﺳﺗﺛﻣﺭ ﺍﻻﺠﻧﺑﻲ والدولة، فيلاحظ أن بعض الخلافات قد تقوم بين الأعوان لاقتصاديين الذين يمارسون نشاطهم في نفس القطاع وعلى وجه الخصوص تلك النزاعات المحتملة بين المستثمر الأجنبي والمتعامل الاقتصادي الوطني. فمن ﺃﺠﻞ ضمان تسوية عادلة لمثل هذه النزاعات، كرس المشرع طريقة بديلة لحل هذه الخلافات وتتمثل في التحكيم أمام سلطات الضبط المستقلة Security is considered to be one of the most important motivational elements for investors. This has led the legislator to satisfy the wishes of foreign investors in the way of concluding bilateral agreements with many States to protect foreign investment, as well as to legalize alternative dispute resolution , including arbitration techniques. In addition to disputes between the State and the foreign investor, disputes may arise between the latter and the national operator operating in the same sector of activity. In order to ensure a fair settlement of such disputes, the legislator has established an alternative method of resolving these disputes, namely arbitration before independent control authorities.

For the first time, a monograph provides a systematic, in-depth account of contract interpretation in investment treaty arbitration and offers a conceptual paradigm that would enhance the quality of the tribunals’ reasoning.; Readership: The monograph is of relevance for legal scholars, practitioners and policymakers in the field of investment treaty arbitration. The book will also be of additional value to postgraduate and doctoral students.

The global financial crisis led to the introduction of special resolution regimes for financial institutions. The most prominent innovation of these resolution regimes is the so-called bail-in tool, which allows regulators to recapitalise financial institutions by expropriating shareholders and creditors. This thesis analyses the conditions under which a hypothetical bail-in of a financial institution would constitute a compensable breach of international investment law. It identifies the issues that are most likely to be relevant if a bail-in were to be litigated before an investment arbitration tribunal. The thesis first addresses jurisdictional issues, in particular the question of whether bail-inable instruments can even be considered an investment in procedural terms. The analysis then continues to substantive standards of protection. It deals comprehensively with the question of expropriation and related issues such as compensation, the right to regulate, and causation. It concludes with possible violations of the fair and equitable treatment standard.

There is a growing concern over the qualifications and social interactions of investment treaty arbitrators. The characteristics of this class of international adjudicators have significantly evolved over the past few decades. The contemporary arbitration panelist interacts within a broad and complex network of arbitration participants. Their patterns of social behavior both within the community of panelists and within the broader network of actors in arbitration proceedings have fundamentally reshaped the composition, dynamics and culture of the arbitration community. These new forms of relationships and patterns of conduct are new in the context of public international law. These have created unprecedented challenges to the investment treaty arbitration system. New manifestations of attributes and social behavior of panelists demonstrate inadequacies of the existing standards, rules and procedures that govern panelists. This study surveys problematic patterns of social behavior of investment treaty adjudicators and shows how certain instances of social behavior inevitably or potentially jeopardize the very foundations of the system. This research empirically examines the voting behavior of two distinct groups of party-appointed panelists, and the results reveal a relationship between appointments and the decision-making attitude of adjudicators. It further methodically maps the pool of ICSID panelists and answers the question ‘who are ICSID panelists?’ It reviews the evolution of the attributes of ICSID adjudicators, assesses the composition of the ICSID pool, and evaluates the social interactions of this group of investment treaty adjudicators. To address the challenges that investment treaty arbitration faces, a radical and multidimensional shift is occurring in the system. This transformation is directed towards greater control over the qualifications and conduct of adjudicators. These developments reconstruct the composition of the pool of adjudicators and influence how they interact with other actors in investment treaty arbitration proceedings. The ongoing reform progress indicates that the attributes and behavior of future investment treaty adjudicators would likely be different from the characteristics and conduct of the contemporary generation of panelists.

Avec la résurgence des problèmes environnementaux, le droit international des investissements se retrouve aujourd'hui face à l'urgence de sa propre réadaptation. Et, comme réponse unique à un impératif catégorique, l'équilibre des intérêts émerge en tant qu'un principe général de droit (PGD), de nature souple et autonome, à qui ses diverses fonctions (logique, axiologique, unificatrice et correctrice) confèrent une utilité opérationnelle au sein de l'ordre juridique international, et dont la mise en œuvre en droit international des investissements est l'expression de la dimension évolutive. En tant que principe référentiel, il est consubstantiel au droit international des investissements et vise à faire prévaloir un idéal normatif (le droit de l'équilibre) sur un autre (le droit de la protection). Toutefois, l'aporie de l'équilibre des intérêts est d'être, à la fois, une affirmation du principe de la souveraineté réglementaire et une limitation de celui-ci. Dans un premier temps, sa mise en œuvre se traduit par la prise en compte de l'intérêt général dans le balancier état-investisseur et, dans un second temps, cette exigence ne se concrétise qu'au bout d'un double test de la proportionnalité et du raisonnable. Alors que sa source de régénération par rapport au reste du système est la protection internationale des valeurs fondamentales et socio-environnementales, sa structure de base demeure le couple droit-obligation et s'apparente à une transversalité normative qui combine à la fois la lex lata et la lex ferenda d'une part, la soft law et la hard law d'autre part. Malgré sa fécondité croissante, il est possible de le décrire comme étant la source d'un droit poly-normatif et « open-textured » qui possède à la fois un noyau d'applicabilité, une teneur variable et une juridicité foisonnante. Le profil abrégé de cette construction normative pourrait alors se matérialiser en droit international des investissements par: la prise en compte de l'intérêt général, la responsabilité sociale des entreprises multinationales, la réciprocité par équivalence des droits et obligations des parties, la flexibilité réglementaire et la compatibilité d'avec les autres normes de protection internationales.

International Investment Agreements seek to promote foreign investment whilst protecting foreign investors. Despite the goal of International Investment Agreements being to secure parity between the interests of the host State and the foreign investor, there has been consequential disparity in the protection of the interests of both parties. Notably, the host State is susceptible to disadvantage. This research examines the extent to which International Investment Agreements in Tanzania have facilitated this disparity. In particular, the research evaluates the inclusion of fair and equitable treatment provisions in Tanzania’s International Investment Agreements and the extent to which fair and equitable treatment provisions have in some way facilitated this disparity. The research examines systematically the fair and equitable treatment provisions contained in twenty IIAs signed by Tanzania between 1965 and 2013 (eleven of which are still in force). The research takes a comparative approach in evaluating and contrasting the Tanzanian provisions with other fair and equitable treatment clauses in IIAs signed by India, Morocco and the Netherland. The Tanzanian provisions are vague and non-uniform in comparison. The research is situated in the broader context of national sovereignty and the relationship between Tanzania and its foreign investors under international law. The substance of the analysis centres on foreign investors in the mining sector in Tanzania and the extent to which these investors have sought to take advantage of the fair and equitable treatment clauses in the IIAs in order to pursue their activities to the detriment of local populations. The research evidences the negative impact of their claims that changes in government policy (often aimed at benefiting citizens) amount to unfair treatment of the foreign investor. This has a significant impact on the ability of the government to develop its policies around sustainable development, environmental protection and the guarantee of human rights of the citizens of the host State. The research demonstrates that a clearer and fuller articulation of fair and equitable treatment clauses within Tanzania’s IIAs can act as a corrective to the disparity between the host State and the international investor. This requires that IIAs are drafted to include an exhaustive and full list of the State’s obligations towards the foreign investor so as to limit foreign investor claims against the host State. The impact of not doing so has grave implications for the rights of the citizens of Tanzania and unnecessarily tips the balance of power in favour of the foreign investor and away from the host State. This undermines the ability of the host State to assert its sovereignty within its own borders.

La thèse porte sur les rapports entre l’investissement dans la conception d’objets immatériels et la propriété intellectuelle. Elle interroge la vocation du droit de la propriété intellectuelle à la protection d’un tel investissement. À l’examen du droit positif, il n’est pas aisé d’identifier une réponse claire à cette question.L’existence de la protection est incertaine, alors même que la technique employée est adéquate. Discutée, elle mérite d’être repensée. Son avenir dépend par ailleurs de son caractère souhaitable, et donc de sa légitimité. Aussi, pour être effective, la protection doit faire l’objet d’un choix politique de société. Proposantune lecture de la propriété intellectuelle sous l’angle de sa finalité de protection de l’investissement, l’étude est menée à l’appui de la construction d’un concept juridique d’investissements immatériels. Celle-ci permet de présenter le sujet et ses problématiques de façon renouvelée, afin de dépasser les difficultés. Le résultat de l’exercice de conceptualisation, conjugué à un exercice de classification juridique de la réalité, sert de base à un essai de reconstruction prospective du système juridique de la propriété intellectuelle. Les catégories, qualifications et régimes de ce dernier sont réaménagés, pour le faire évoluer en équilibre et cohérence, vers une fonction assumée de protection de l’investissement. L’enjeu est d’aboutir à un système de protection légitime, sécurisant et fidèle à la réalité et ses attentes.

The States, international organizations and interest groups are increasingly concerned with treaty claims of foreign investors, who sometimes seek compensation for the States' legitimate regulatory measures, such as tobacco plain packaging, nuclear energy phase out and environmental regulations. International investment law has yet to develop a comprehensive and predictable framework addressing some of the basis questions related to compensability of legitimate regulatory measures. The thesis carries out a comparative legal analysis to identify the key features of the prohibition of uncompensated expropriation as a general principle of law, and explores the rationale of that principle in political philosophy. Equipped with the results of this analysis, it proceeds to propose an analytical approach addressing practical questions related to the compensatory protection of foreign investments.

This paper analyzes the protection of Foreign Direct Investments in the OHADA area, specifically, its regulation by the Treaty of Organization and Harmonization in Africa of Business Law (OHADA Treaty). It is to restore legal and judicial security within their scope that OHADA member countries have undertaken to harmonize and unify their economic sector legislation to attract foreign investment as a factor in economic development. Several national and international legal instruments are responsible for the protection of foreign direct investment in OHADA countries. Indeed, the volume of foreign direct investment (FDI) to developing countries increased considerably during the 1990s; As Africa is now one of the favorite destinations for Western and even African investors, it is becoming a very profitable continent for investors. However, the issue of regulating or securing foreign investment in African countries is still flawed. The establishment of OHADA, in a way, is in the same direction; if we stick to the purpose of the organization prescribed in paragraph 5 of the preamble to the OHADA Treaty, which states that the purpose of the OHADA law is to "promote the growth of economic activity and encourage investment." Unfortunately, this objective remains only an announcement of the preamble to the Treaty, because of the definition of business law given by Article 2 of that treaty. However, the list of subjects is not exhaustive, investment remains absent. Thus, foreign investment is not regulated by the OHADA Treaty, so even investment-related activities are held by other subjects (corporate law, commercial law, and security law). The omission of FDI in the scope of the OHADA Treaty leads us to raise the question of its regulation.This work proposes a reflection that the OHADA Treaty should be modernized through reform including investment and many other issues to deal effectively with the issue of foreign investment given the ineffectiveness of national and sub-regional instruments in this area.

The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic law irrelevant in internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to international law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is an independent function of international law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by domestic law, it does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and international law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by state-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of state authority. قابلیت انتساب عمل به دولت در چارچوب اختلافات معاهده‌ سرمایه‌گذاری و تمرکز بر نقش‌هایی که حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق داخلی در چنین انتسابی ایفا ‌می‌نمایند در زمره‌ مباحثی است که در سال‌های اخیر بسیار مورد ‌توجه حقوقدانان بوده و ماده 3 مواد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل در ارتباط با مسئولیت دولت‌ها نیز بیانگر پیامد اصلی این بحث است که فی‌الواقع، حقوق داخلی را با مسأله متخلفانه بودن اعمال از حیث بین‌المللی بی‌ارتباط تلقی ‌ننموده، بلکه مقرر ‌می‌دارد مسئله مورد بحث، تابع حقوق بین‌الملل است لیکن حقوق بین‌الملل نیز خود تا حدِ ارتباط، حقوق داخلی را در نظر خواهد گرفت. بنابراین اگرچه توصیف خصوصیات یک عمل به عنوان عملی غیرقانونی از عملکردهای مستقل حقوق بین‌الملل است که تحت ‌تأثیر توصیف خصوصیات این عمل بموجب حقوق داخلی قرار نمی‌گیرد لیکن این گفته بدین معنی نیست که حقوق داخلی با توصیف عمل متخلفانه‌ بین‌المللی بی‌ارتباط ‌است؛ بالعکس، ممکن ‌است به طرق مختلفی به آن مرتبط‌ باشد. در این مقاله سعی بر‌ آن است که تلاقی چالش‌برانگیز حقوق داخلی و حقوق بین‌الملل در بحث قابلیت انتساب اعمال ‌صورت ‌گرفته در چارچوب معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری توسط ارگان‌های دولتی و نهادهای نیمه‌دولتی که عناصر اختیارات دولتی را اعمال می‌نمایند مورد واکاوی قرار‌ گیرد.

Patents are considered as investments protected under the International Investment Law. Although, these properties are protected under the principle of territoriality, similar to other investments, they can be expropriated as a result of host states’ regulatory measures inconsistent with protection standards stemming from foreign investment protection regulations and treaties including fair and equitable treatment and legitimate expectations of foreign investors. Considering the fact that few arbitration awards have been issued by arbitration panels in this regard, it is yet difficult to claim there is a strong precedent in International Investment Law. Nevertheless, reflecting the provisions of international regulations, the stance of the domestic law and the most important relevant case, this article provides the most significant elements of indirect expropriation as well as existing doctrines in this respect and further investigates whether invalidation of patents can amount to indirect expropriation. It will also be mentioned that despite the fact that according to several foreign investment protection treaties, invalidation of patents shall not be subject to regulations regarding indirect or creeping expropriation, the final determination lies with the arbitration panel. یکی از مصادیق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی مورد حمایت در حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، اختراعات است. این دسته از دارایی‌ها علی‌رغم به رسمیت شناخته شدن در پرتو اصل سرزمینی بودن حمایت، همانند سایر سرمایه‌گذاری‌ها می‌توانند تحت تدابیر حاکمیتی دول میزبان که مغایر با استانداردهای حمایتی نشأت گرفته از قوانین و معاهدات بین‌المللی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی همچون شرط رفتار عادلانه و منصفانه و صیانت از انتظارات مشروع و معقول سرمایه‌گذار می‌باشند، با خطراتی همچون سلب مالکیت مواجه شوند. نظر به صدور آرای معدود مراجع بین‌المللی در این خصوص، سخن گفتن از شکل‌گیری رویه‌ای متقن در این راستا دشوار می‌باشد. با این حال، در این نوشتار ضمن بررسی مهمترین عناصر متشکله سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم و دکترین‌های موجود در این زمینه، به بررسی قابلیت تطبیق ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع با سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم پرداخته و با تشریح مقررات برخی اسناد بین‌المللی، موضع حقوق داخلی و مهم‌ترین پرونده مربوط به این موضوع در حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی در ابعاد گوناگون آن مداقه نموده و در نهایت به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که حتی در صورت مستثنی نمودن ابطال گواهی ثبت اختراع از مقررات مربوط به سلب مالکیت در معاهدات حمایت از سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی، تشخیص نهایی تحقق سلب مالکیت با دیوان داوری است.

Le principe de proportionnalité a été récemment reconnu dans les traités et les accords internationaux du commerce et des investissements avec l’État. Cependant, peu d'études se concentrent sur la nature juridique, le contenu, la portée et les fonctions de ce principe dans le droit économique international. Cette thèse présente une analyse actuelle et détaillée sur ces questions.

Le présent rapport prône l’adoption de mesures de lutte contre la COVID concernant tout particulièrement la politique d’investissement soutenue par l’Accord portant création de la Zone de libre-échange continentale africaine afin de préserver les acquis du marché commun pour les entreprises et les citoyens africains et d’accroître les avantages en découlant. La Zone de libre-échange continentale africaine (ZLECAf) contribuera à générer les ressources financières nécessaires au développement économique de l’Afrique. Elle a pour objet de mettre en place un marché africain intégré où les biens, les personnes, les services et les capitaux circulent librement, complétant les efforts d’intégration régionale au profit des 1,3 milliard d’habitants du continent. Le produit intérieur brut combiné du marché de la ZLECAf est de 2 500 milliards de dollars. Elle a officiellement vu le jour le 21 mars 2018 à Kigali, date à laquelle 44 États membres de l’Union africaine ont signé l’Accord portant création de la Zone de libre-échange continentale africaine. L’Accord est entré en vigueur le 30 mai 2019 après le dépôt de l’instrument de ratification par le 22ème État membre de l’UA. La ZLECAf est entrée dans sa phase opérationnelle en juillet 2019. Les échanges régis par les règles de la ZLECAf ont débuté le 1er janvier 2021.

This work aims to find a practical solution to the problem that exists between intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and European Union (EU) law over conflict of jurisdiction issues. Currently, there is a problem as the EU Commission has rendered intra-EU BITs incompatible with EU law. This work argues that the current conflict of jurisdictional problems within investment agreements can be overcome by the creation of an EU investment court. The reliance on this court for the resolution of this conflict, as opposed to private law mechanisms, is important as it is the way forward in handling the conflict of jurisdiction issue at its best. This work argues that an EU investment court will be a panacea to the current problems concerning the conflict of jurisdiction. These problems will be presented through a positivist method where the law is analysed in its current form, highlighting its current weaknesses and resolving these weaknesses by proposing recommendations for such a court through a comparative examination of other international courts that fulfil a similar dispute resolution function, namely the Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The purpose of this work is manifold. The work will provide an analytical examination of the relationship between EU law and international obligations within intra-EU BITs. It will further explore and assess the viability of a range of alternative solutions to intra EU BITs enforcement within the EU. It will additionally examine the operation of the OHADA, the UPC and the WTO to inform the proposal of an EU investment court. This is important as the outcome of these examinations will support the argument made in this thesis. It will also impact dispute resolution beyond academia by providing a practical solution to alleviate the current challenges with intra-EU BITs. The recommendations thus can inform changes for lex ferenda.