Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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.

随着社会的发展以及科技的进步，特别是经历了三年疫情之后，在线工作以及网络庭审等数字化技术也趋于普遍。数字化技术的发展和应用为商事仲裁带来了诸多机遇，例如有效提高效率、降低成本、增强透明度和便捷性。通过电子化提交文件、在线视频庭审、电子送达等方式，商事仲裁程序可以更加迅速地进行，同时减少了对物理空间和纸质文件的依赖。电子送达作为商事仲裁程序中的重要环节，是商事仲裁数字化发展进程中的必然方向。电子送达有着即时性、便捷性、成本低等优势，但因仲裁委员会的独立性，各仲裁委员会的仲裁规则中，设置了不同的电子送达规范，这不利于电子送达的统一适用性，也不利于电子送达的长远发展。本文重点分析电子送达制度的优势及不足，为完善商事仲裁的电子送达制度提出切实可行的建议。 With the development of society and the advancement of technology, especially after three years of COVID-19, digital technologies such as online work and online court trials have become more common. The development and application of digital technology have brought many opportunities for commercial arbitration, such as effectively improving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing transparency and convenience. The process of commercial arbitration has been accelerated through electronic submission of documents, online court trials, and electronic delivery, while reducing reliance on physical space and paper documents. Electronic delivery, as an important part of commercial arbitration procedures, is an inevitable direction in the digital development process of commercial arbitration. Electronic delivery has the advantages of immediacy, convenience, and low cost. However, due to the independence of arbitration commissions, different electronic delivery standards are set in the arbitration rules of each arbitration commission, which is not conducive to the unified applicability of electronic delivery and the long-term development of electronic delivery. This article focuses on analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of the electronic delivery system, and proposes suggestions for improving the electronic delivery system in commercial arbitration.

行政协议在社会管理领域的广泛应用凸显出服务型政府柔性管理的特点。理论界过分重视行政协议的“行政性”而忽略其“协议性”，不利于吸引社会资本合作与纠纷的高效解决。本文立足于行政协议“行政性”与“协议性”的双重属性，基于德国双阶层理论，参考法国的实践经验，阐述行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序的理论基础。实践中行政协议纠纷呈现高增长态势，法院办案压力不容小觑；新《仲裁法》草案删除平等主体规定，为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供制度空间；仲裁程序具有专业性、高效性特点，均为行政协议纠纷适用仲裁程序提供现实正当性基础。产生行政协议纠纷时应结合争议条款的性质、产生的时间点、内容等综合判断；完全行政性质的行政协议纠纷禁止仲裁，否则允许采用仲裁程序解决争议；仲裁机构应专门设置行政争议解决人员及部门。 The wide application of administrative agreements in the field of social management highlights the characteristics of flexible management of service-oriented governments. The theoretical community attaches too much importance to the “administrative” nature of administrative agreements and ignores their “agreement”, which is not conducive to attracting social capital cooperation and efficient dispute resolution. Based on the dual attributes of “administrative” and “agreement” of administrative agreements, this paper expounds the theoretical basis for the application of arbitration procedures in administrative agreement disputes based on the two-tier theory of Germany and with reference to the practical experience of France. In practice, administrative agreement disputes have shown a high growth trend, and the pressure on courts to handle cases should not be underestimated. The new Arbitration Law deletes the provision on equal subjects to provide institutional space for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. The arbitration procedure is professional and efficient, and provides a realistic and legitimate basis for the application of arbitration procedures for administrative agreement disputes. When a dispute arises over an administrative agreement, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the nature, time and content of the disputed clause; Arbitration is prohibited for administrative agreement disputes of a completely administrative nature, otherwise arbitration procedures are allowed to be used to resolve disputes; Arbitration institutions shall set up special administrative dispute resolution personnel and departments.

我国立法规定债权人以诉讼方式行使代位权，但是由于存在债权人与债务人、债务人与次债务人、债权人与次债务人三种交互错杂的民事法律关系，因此而产生各方利益权衡的难题。原《合同法司法解释(一)》目前已经废止，且现行的《民事诉讼法》及相关司法解释中并未对代位权诉讼的管辖作出规定，在实践中，代位权诉讼的管辖应当如何确定，代位权特殊地域管辖与仲裁管辖应当如何协调适用存在认识分歧。虽然代位权纠纷是一种常见的争议类型，但司法实践是一个循序渐进的过程，有必要对基于个案的分散性规则进行归纳整合，以更好地服务于代位权与仲裁制度的理论发展与规则适用。基于此，本文将近几年司法实践中的代位权管辖纠纷案例以及相关学术观点进行整合，探析化解仲裁协议与代位权行使之间的冲突的有效路径，以期能促进司法实务界对该问题进一步统一认识，进而减少因程序问题理解不一致导致的司法资源浪费。 China’s legislation provides that the creditor to litigation to exercise subrogation, but due to the existence of the creditor and the debtor, the debtor and the relative, the creditor and the relative of the three kinds of interlocking civil legal relations, and therefore the interests of all parties to produce the problem of weighing. The original “contract law judicial interpretation (a)” has been repealed, and the current “civil procedure law” and the relevant judicial interpretation of the subrogation lawsuit did not make provisions of jurisdiction, in practice, subrogation lawsuit jurisdiction should be how to determine the subrogation of special territorial jurisdiction and arbitration jurisdiction should be coordinated with the application of the existence of differences in understanding. This paper will judicially practice cases and related academic views on subrogation litigation jurisdiction, with a view to promote the judicial practice on the issue of further unification of understanding, thereby reducing the waste of judicial resources due to inconsistent understanding of procedural issues.

在当前司法实践中，重新仲裁制度可以有效减轻当事人的诉讼负担，缓解司法压力，但是我国的重新仲裁制度还有很大不足，重新仲裁制度主要适用于实体问题，对于程序性问题关注较少，并且重新仲裁与仲裁裁决的终局性和既判力相矛盾，重新仲裁的启动主体与审理主体过于单一。重新仲裁制度应当适用于程序瑕疵，而非实体争议，要发挥撤销仲裁的积极作用，化解重新仲裁与仲裁裁决的终局性和既判力的矛盾，通过规范重新仲裁的启动主体和审理主体，明确重新仲裁的主体，来完善重新仲裁程序，为法院提供合理、具体、可操作的适用思路。 In the current judicial practice, the re-arbitration system can effectively reduce the litigation burden of the parties and alleviate the judicial pressure, but there are still great deficiencies in China’s re-arbitration system, which is mainly applicable to substantive issues, and pays less attention to procedural issues, and the re-arbitration contradicts the finality and res judicata of the arbitral award, and the initiation of re-arbitration and the subject of the trial are too single. The re-arbitration system should be applied to procedural defects rather than substantive disputes, and should play a positive role in revoking arbitration, resolve the contradiction between the finality and res judicata between re-arbitration and arbitral awards, and improve the re-arbitration procedure by standardizing the initiation and hearing subjects of re-arbitration, and clarifying the subject of re-arbitration, so as to provide the courts with reasonable, specific and actionable application ideas.

国际商事智慧仲裁的萌芽与发展得益于互联网技术的革新，伴随着新型仲裁模式而来的是诸多法律问题，其中包括当事人事前未选择仲裁地，且争议发生后也无法及时达成对仲裁地选择的新合意。对此，非本地化仲裁理论虽认为仲裁庭只需按照当事人商定的规则进行仲裁，而无需受制于仲裁地的法律规范，但该理论的适用会面临巨大挑战，比如：现阶段还未出现纯粹的非本地化理论的应用案例、仲裁裁决的质量及仲裁的实用性是否会受到影响等。相反，淡化的中间立场或许更适合此情境下的国际商事智慧仲裁，既合理地尊重了当事人的意思自治，又将案件与仲裁地的法律规范连接起来，保障了裁决的法律效力。 The germination and development of international commercial smart arbitration benefited from the innovation of Internet technology. Along with the new arbitration model came many legal issues, including the fact that the parties did not choose the place of arbitration in advance, and they were unable to reach a timely agreement on the place of arbitration after the dispute occurred. In this regard, although the theory of non-localized arbitration holds that the arbitral tribunal only needs to conduct arbitration in accordance with the rules agreed upon by the parties and does not need to be subject to the legal norms of the place of arbitration, the application of this theory will face huge challenges. For example: at this stage, there are no pure application cases of non-localization theory, whether the quality of arbitration awards and the practicality of arbitration will be affected, etc. On the contrary, a downplayed middle position may be more suitable for international commercial smart arbitration in this situation. It not only reasonably respects the autonomy of the parties, but also connects the case with the legal norms of the arbitration place, ensuring the legal effect of the award.

随着“去法院中心主义”的改革，司法实践中仲裁机构的重要性越来越突出，通过仲裁分流案件的需求日益迫切，仲裁法修改在即，有必要构建更包容开放的仲裁制度。在担保制度中，主合同与从合同往往会出现约定管辖不一致的情形，当主合同约定仲裁管辖而从合同约定法院管辖或者未作约定时，主合同的仲裁协议能否扩张至担保合同是一个值得研究的问题。实践中同案不同判的现象时有发生，现行立法对仲裁协议效力扩张持否定态度，由此会产生债权人先起诉保证人的案件无法审理等一系列问题。解决上述问题需要做出原则规定、例外规定以及补充规则，在尊重当事人意思自治的基础上兼顾诉讼效率。 With the reform of “de-court centralism”, the importance of arbitration institutions has become more and more prominent in judicial practice, the demand for diverting cases through arbitration has become increasingly urgent, and the arbitration law is about to be revised, so it is necessary to build a more inclusive and open arbitration system. In the guarantee system, the agreed jurisdiction between the master contract and the accessory contract is often inconsistent. When the master contract stipulates arbitration jurisdiction and the accessory contract stipulates court jurisdiction or fails to do so, whether the arbitration agreement of the master contract can be extended to the guarantee contract is a problem worthy of study. In practice, the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case occurs from time to time, and the current legislation holds a negative attitude towards the expansion of the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement, which will lead to a series of problems such as the case that the creditor sued the guarantor first and could not be tried. To solve the above problems, we need to make principles, exceptions and supplementary rules, and give consideration to litigation efficiency on the basis of respecting the autonomy of the parties.

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.

自WTO上诉机构停摆危机出现，WTO和成员一直在探索缓解僵局之法。其中利用《关于争端解决规则和程序的谅解》(DSU)第25条“速效仲裁”进行上诉替代的方案备受瞩目。2020年，欧盟、中国等WTO成员据此建立了《多方临时上诉仲裁安排》(MPIA)。事实上，DSU第25条在MPIA建立之前鲜有人注意，MPIA的建立使人们开始注意到这一条款。MPIA运行至今，取得了一些成果，但也有缺陷浮现，需要我们多加关注，及时调整。 Since the emergence of the WTO Appellate Body suspension crisis, the WTO and its members have been exploring ways to ease the deadlock. Among them, the option of using Article 25 of the Understanding on Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures (DSU) on “quick-impact arbitration” for appellate substitution has attracted a lot of attention, and in 2020, the European Union, China and other WTO members established the Multi-party Interim Appellate Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) on the basis of the Arrangement. As a matter of fact, little attention was paid to Article 25 of the DSU before the establishment of the MPIA, but the establishment of the MPIA has drawn people’s attention to this provision. The operation of the MPIA has achieved some results so far, but there are also shortcomings emerging, which require us to pay more attention to and make timely adjustments.

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.

O presente artigo tem como objetivo refletir sobre a importância do direito da proteção de dados, nomeadamente o regulamento geral da proteção de dados (RGPD), na arbitragem internacional, algo que implica conciliar leis e tratados internacionais distintos. Por essa razão, abordamos os problemas relativos ao âmbito de aplicação material e territorial do regulamento, bem como a questão das transferências internacionais de dados pessoais para países terceiros. Analisamos, igualmente, quais os dados pessoais que podem ser tratados num contexto de arbitragem internacional. Finalmente, a nossa investigação toma em consideração os principais problemas relativos ao procedimento arbitral e avalia se o RGPD pode oferecer, quando aplicável, uma resposta coerente para os problemas de direito da proteção de dados pessoais que surgem no contexto da arbitragem internacional. Num mundo mais tecnológico do que nunca, o presente estudo procura demonstrar como poderão dois mundos tão distintos (direita proteção de dados pessoais e arbitragem internacional) colidir para uma aplicação comum sempre que se torne necessário. This study aims to reflect on the importance of data protection law, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), when it comes to International Arbitration, which is something that implies the need to articulate different laws and international treaties. For this reason, we address the different issues regarding the material and territorial scope of the regulation, as well as the question of transfers of personal data to third countries. We also analyze which personal data can be processed during an international arbitration. Finally, our investigation takes into consideration some of the main issues regarding the proceeding of arbitration itself and evaluates whether the GDPR can offer, when applicable, a coherent answer to the data protection’s issues emerging in international arbitration. In a world more technologic than ever, this study aims to demonstrate how these two different worlds (data protection law and international arbitration) can collide for a common application whenever it is necessary.