Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The World Bank legal review gathers this input from around the world and compiles it into a useful resource for all development practitioners and scholars. The subtitle of this volume, legal innovation and empowerment for development, highlights how the law can respond to the chal-lenges posed to development objectives in a world slowly emerging from an economic crisis. The focus on innovation is a call for new, imaginative strategies and ways of thinking about what the law can do in the development realm. The focus on empowerment is a deliberate attempt to place the law into the hands of the poor; to give them another tool with which to resist poverty. This volume shows some of the ways that the law can make an innovative and empowering difference in development scenarios. Development problems are complex and varied, and the theme of innovation and empowerment naturally has a broad scope. Consequently, this volume reaches far and wide. It considers the nature, promise, and limitations of legal innovation and legal empowerment. It looks at concrete examples in places such as Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and Latin America. It considers developments in issues with universal application, such as the rights of the disabled and the effectiveness of asset recovery measures. The theme of legal innovation and empowerment for development complements substantive and institutional sensibilities in current development policy. Substantively, development policy discourse seems to have moved away from tacking hard toward statist policy or neoliberal policy. Although this brief introduction cannot do justice to the richness and complexity of these contributions, it does consider each focal point in turn.

Dissenting opinions appear to have become an accepted practice in international arbitration. Th e current debate concentrates on their procedure, form, and content. Alan Redfern noted that “[a]t present, a generally relaxed attitude towards dissenting opinions seems to be taken not only by the arbitral institutions, but also by the arbitrators themselves … .” In this contribution, I would like to explore the cautionary note with which Redfern concluded his seminal article, namely, that the “[t]ime has perhaps come to inquire whether the present leniency towards dissenting opinions … has gone too far.” I propose to do so with respect to investment arbitrations because ade available publicly, particularly party-appointed arbitrators’ dissenting opinions.

Par leur mode de rédaction, les dictionnaires de droit civil révèlent une conception du sens en droit qui se caractérise par son objectivité, son historicité et son unité, c’est-à-dire par un ensemble de qualités qui sont intimement liées dans l’imaginaire des civilistes. Ce faisant, les dictionnaires de droit civil présentent un certain découpage du monde qui ne tient pas toujours compte des sens multiples que les juristes attribuent aux termes fondamentaux de leur vocabulaire. C’est en dégageant l’origine et la raison d’être du décalage entre le sens tel qu’il est défini et celui qui est vécu que l’auteur montre à quel point les dictionnaires de droit civil s’inscrivent dans une relation complexe qu’entretiennent les juristes avec leur langage.

This is the version of record of an article authored by Michael Trebilcock and published by the Cambridge University Press.

This is an accepted manuscript of an article authored by Michael Trebilcock, and later published in International Economic Governance and Non-Economic Concerns.

There has been a dramatic shift in the focus of trade policy concerns in recent years from the barriers that lie at the border to the barriers which exist “within the border.” The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) and other regional trading arrangements have been largely successful in reducing both the levels of tariffs worldwide and the scale of other border measures such as quotas. This has revealed a new and more subtle category of measures which restrict trade – the numerous regulations which governments enact to protect the health and safety of their citizens and the environment in which they live. Such regulations vary tremendously across borders: one nation's bunch of grapes is another nation's repository of carcinogenic pesticide residue. These efforts to protect citizens from the hazards of everyday life have become a virtual minefield for trade policy makers, in part because such differences can often be manipulated or exploited to protect domestic industry from international competition, and in part because even when there is no protectionist intent on the part of lawmakers, through a lack of coordination, mere differences in regulatory or standard-setting regimes can function to impede trade through increasing multiple compliance costs. It has thus become increasingly difficult to delineate the boundaries between a nation's sovereign right to regulate and its obligation to the international trading community not to restrict trade.

This is the version of record of a chapter authored by Nancy Gallini and Michael Trebilcock, and published by the University of Calgary Press.