Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Le recours à l’arbitrage en matière des litiges contractuels entre des parties privées présente des avantages par rapport aux procédures devant les tribunaux. Les avantages de l’arbitrage qui a une valeur particulière en matière contractuelle se multiplient : les arbitres peuvent être choisis en raison de leurs compétences spéciales selon le sujet du contrat; la confidentialité peut être préservée; l’arbitrage peut être utilisé pour régler des questions sur le même sujet ou des sujets semblables mais survenant dans des pays différents, ceci peut présenter l'avantage de régler en une seule fois tous les différends entre les parties, surtout en matière de commerce.

Dans une économie de plus en plus globalisée, faute d’harmonisation juridique, les parties aux litiges contractuels n’hésitent plus à consulter les forums juridiques pour identifier les pays susceptibles de leur offrir le meilleur niveau de protection. Presque tous les litiges en matière contractuels se prêtent au début des conflits à la médiation. Il arrive souvent que lors d’un litige relatif aux droits contractuels, les parties recourent à la médiation. Cependant, pour pouvoir y recourir de manière utile, il est important d’éluder certains obstacles. Un litige ayant trait à un contrat, soulève des questions complexes de faits et de droit, peut nécessiter des dépenses importantes et exiger la présence de témoins experts. Puisque l’obligation contractuelle émise sera presque toujours un enjeu, un litige ayant trait au commerce, notamment international, commande une connaissance approfondie de la législation sur les objets de transactions, ainsi qu’une expérience des tribunaux qui traitent la plupart du temps de ces questions. En pratique, l’espace de rencontre entre la médiation et les litiges contractuels est le contrat lui-même. Or, le domaine contractuel est le domaine privilégié de la médiation. En réalité, la médiation peut avoir lieu dans les relations liée aux contrats de commerce, dans lequel une dévolution des droits contractuels est prévue. Ce mode alternatif fournit un moyen pour éviter les contentieux judiciaires.

Au rang des défis fiscaux posés par l’essor du numérique au Cameroun, figure l’optimisation fiscale agressive des GAFAM. Cette dernière apparait comme une forme aboutie de résistance à l’impôt. Car elle consiste en un ensemble de pratiques allant de la récusation du consentement fiscal, au maniement des techniques complexes telles que les prix de transfert et les dispositifs hybrides, pour loger dans des paradis fiscaux, les bénéfices résultants de l’exploitation des données collectées au Cameroun. Ces pratiques remettent incontestablement en cause l’ordre fiscal établi et empêchent la mobilisation optimale des ressources fiscales. Cependant, là n’est pas le seul regard susceptible d’être posé sur ladite optimisation fiscale agressive des GAFAM. Car en scrutant de près la nature et la portée des réformes fiscales adoptées par les publics Camerounais pour y remédier, il est possible de voir en cette dernière, une source matérielle de résilience de l’impôt. Among the tax challenges posed by the digital boom in Cameroon is the aggressive tax optimisation of GAFAM. The latter appears to be a successful form of tax resistance. It consists of a set of practices ranging from the challenge of tax consent, to the use of complex techniques such as transfer pricing and hybrid devices, to house in tax havens, the profits resulting from the exploitation of data collected in Cameroon. These practices undoubtedly challenge the established tax order and prevent the optimal mobilisation of tax resources. However, this is not the only view that can be taken of the said aggressive tax optimisation by GAFAM. By closely examining the nature and scope of the tax reforms adopted by Cameroonian governments to remedy the situation, it is possible to see in the latter a material source of tax resilience.

For several decades, environmentalists have raised the alarm regarding the impending environmental catastrophe that results from the Anthropocene. Much attention has been given to the role that States play in contributing to ecological damage being wrought upon the Earth. However, we have only looked at the environmental destruction perpetrated by multinational companies (“MNCs”) in the past decade. Natural disasters like the Deepwater Horizon explosion have placed MNCs' dangerous impact on the environment in sharp relief. At the same time, revelations in the Carbon Majors Report and global litigation quantify the damage MNCs cause to the environment. Multinational companies (“MNCs), as a result of globalisation and trade liberalisation, are powerful entities within the global economy. Despite their size, MNCs remain primarily unregulated in international human rights law. Debates regarding who bears the duty for human rights intersect with a battle of political will between the Global North and Global South for developing binding human rights duties for MNCs. As a result, they can commit environmental harm, especially in the Global South, with relative impunity due to a lack of effective liability mechanisms. The doctrine of separate legal personality creates specific issues for holding MNCs liable for environmental harms in the Global South. Domestic courts in home States struggle to exercise jurisdiction over the environmental harms MNCs commit. In contrast, systemic barriers in host States create situations where victims are unable to seek redress within their State. To address these concerns, this thesis proposes a global liability regime founded on the principle of integrated regulation. This regime will utilise regulation at the institutional, national and international levels to enforce the environmental obligations of MNCs, rooted in the right to a healthy environment. This gives rise to multiple intersection human rights obligations which will regulate the behaviour of MNCs. This thesis recognises that such a framework requires a drastic reform in how the law and companies are conceptualised. However, such a reform would have wide-reaching implications for vindicating human rights violations.

L’obligation de neutralité et le devoir de réserve trouvent-ils à s’appliquer aux propos tenus en dehors de son travail par un salarié de droit privé chargé d’une mission de service public ou mis à disposition d’une collectivité territoriale ? A cette question précise, la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation répond par l’affirmative, à l’occasion d’une affaire relative au licenciement d’un salarié employé par une mission locale, à la suite de propos à connotation politique et religieuse tenus sur Facebook.

Le désavantage des personnes handicapées dans le secteur de l’emploi, dû à leur déficience et aux représentations sociales qui leur impriment la caractéristique d’incapable potentiel, justifie l’élaboration des politiques en vue de leur insertion socioprofessionnelle. Le droit camerounais s’en fait l’écho et la politique qui s’en dégage laisse constater l’existence de deux nécessités relativement opposables, mais logiquement conciliables. Autant cette politique est alimentée par une logique d’intégration ou d’inclusion, autant elle n’est pas dépouillée de l’exigence de rendement qui sous-tend par principe tout emploi. La logique d’intégration compose ainsi avec l’exigence de rendement les deux faces d’une même médaille de cette politique d’insertion socioprofessionnelle. Cependant, en l’absence d’un suivi de la mise en œuvre effective de cette politique, il semble que la logique d’intégration est malheureusement sacrifiée sur l’autel de l’idéal de rendement ; ce qui justifierait la persistance de la marginalisation des personnes handicapées en matière d’emploi. The disadvantage of people with disabilities in the employment sector, due to their deficiency and the social representations that imprint on them the characteristic of potential incapacity, justifies the development of policies with a view to their socio-professional integration. Cameroonian law echoes this and the policy that emerges from it reveals the existence of two relatively opposable, but logically reconcilable necessities. As much as this policy is fueled by a logic of integration or inclusion, it is not stripped of the performance requirement that in principle underlies all employment. The logic of integration thus composes with the requirement of performance the two sides of the same coin of this policy of socio-professional integration. However, in the absence of monitoring of the effective implementation of this policy, it seems that the logic of integration is unfortunately sacrificed on the altar of the ideal of return; which would justify the persistence of the marginalization of people with disabilities in employment.

This thesis investigates the relationship between cross-country mandatory environmental, social and governance (ESG) regulations and firm-level outcomes, such as ESG performance, corporate finance, and investment, for both developing and developed countries. ESG performance is initially examined to determine whether mandatory ESG regulations affect it and to what extent. Second, the study investigates the impact of mandatory ESG on corporate finance and investment. Lastly, the study explores whether mandatory ESG regulations affect firm-level outcomes based on countries' governance and economic systems, and industries. The study uses a large sample of 69,010 firm-years across 73 countries, over the period 2005 – 2020 to address the foregoing issues. In addressing the impact of mandatory ESG regulations on ESG performance, the study employs a difference-in-differences (DiD) design. The DiD technique can isolate the effect of regulatory shocks to firm-level outcomes. According to the DiD analysis conducted, cross-country mandatory ESG improves firm-level ESG performance in developed countries, but not in developing countries. The study also concludes that mandatory ESG regulations have a positive impact only on ESG components in developed countries and have a more dominant impact on environmental (E) component. The findings are robust to a range of checks and test cases, including a triple DiD design set-up and propensity score-matched sample. The study employs an investment Euler equation framework and generalised method of moments (GMM) estimators to explore how mandatory ESG impacts corporate finance and investment. Euler frameworks account for the dynamic nature of investment, whereas GMMs account for endogenous dynamics in dynamic models. The study demonstrates that mandatory ESG increases corporate investment by increasing firms' access to external funds. The findings are robust to a battery of tests, including a triple DiD design set-up, propensity score-matched sample and the parallel trends assumption. Using an investment Euler equation framework and the GMM estimators, the study explores whether the impact of mandatory ESG on corporate finance and investment is dependent on a country's governance and economic system. When mandatory ESG is affected by country factors such as governance systems and economic well-being, the effect of mandatory ESG on investment via internal finance channel persists, according to the study. However, while consistent results are found in developed countries, inconsistent results are found in developing countries. According to the study, oil, gas, and mining firms are likely to respond effectively to mandatory ESG regulations because of increased scrutiny and pressure. Overall, the findings from the study imply that cross-country mandatory ESG has had a positive impact on corporate ESG performance, finance, and investment. For firms located in developed countries, these findings hold consistently, while for those located in developing countries, the opposite holds true. Also, the study reveals that firms in the oil, gas, and mining industries effectively respond to regulatory requirements. As a result, this study provides policy makers and accountants with an understanding of how mandatory ESG impacts firm ESG activities and performance, which is crucial for regulatory reforms.

This paper discusses the practice of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. The main purpose is to highlight and clarify the gaps between CSR regulations and human rights abuses caused by business organizations.

The health of a country’s banking system is a key determinant to the development of the country. A fragile banking system portends danger not only to the financial system but the entire economy. This study investigates the state of the Nigerian banking system in terms of stability or fragility from 1981 to 2020. We used the banking system fragility index (BSFI) proposed by Kibritçioğlu (2003) to analyze Nigerian banking industry aggregate data from three risk areas: credit, market and liquidity. We estimated that out of the 40 years examined, the banking system was fragile for 23 years given their BSFI less than 0 while it was not fragile for 17 years with BSFI = 0 or greater. We found that most of the years when the Nigerian banking system was fragile were periods of relaxed monetary policies, deregulation and credit expansion. Secondly, the years of banking system stability were when the county’s banking system was subjected to stiff regulation and consolidation. Given the number of years that the system was fragile, we observed that sustained economic growth and development requires that the banking system remain strong as long as possible, and that the Nigerian situation could not promote this important objective. We recommend that the financial regulatory authorities put in place more stringent policies as banks are more fragile during the deregulation of the banking industry.

Recent scandals have brought rankings to the forefront of the legal profession. Several of the most prestigious academic institutions have withdrawn from being ranked, citing the problematic nature of the rankings. However, rankings persist for both legal academics and practice, and there is substantial sentiment to improve the methodologies, with little detail as to how to improve. In this paper, we rank law firms on their clients’ IPO performance. We focus on the most relevant outcomes: litigation, first-day returns, disclosure, and legal fees. The focus on these measures provides benefits relative to other methodologies, which typically focus on inputs or size-related characteristics. Namely, this ranking is less manipulable and more accurately captures performance metrics that matter most to clients’ shareholders. Our rankings control for observable and unobservable deal characteristics, which helps ensure we capture law firm quality, not client traits. With the rankings based on legal fees, potential clients can compare the benefits of a particular law firm (e.g., lower litigation or higher selling prices) against the additional cost of hiring a higher-quality law firm. Hence, our rankings allow for a value-for-the-money comparison of law firms for clients selling shares in an IPO.

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have recently gained prominence in global markets and feature among the world’s most influential enterprises. The aim of this research project is to analyse the international norms in force regulating whether SOEs are considered state or non- state actors, and their conduct state or non-state conduct, the interpretation and application of these norms by adjudicators in different international regimes, and to provide alternative prisms through which these rules and decisions can be assessed and re-thought by political actors. I show that, in relation to SOEs, the concepts ‘state and ‘act of state’ have been ascribed diverse meanings by adjudicators and other international actors, who have employed legal standards with divergent wording and thresholds when dealing with similar questions. I argue that the fragmented meaning of these terms should be understood, in part, as a result of the inherent malleability of these terms and the different expert vocabularies employed across regimes. It is exhibited that adjudicators in the international trade and investment regimes are more inclined towards piercing the corporate veil of SOEs, potentially evidencing the existence of biases against SOEs, which are perceived as inherently economically inefficient and politically motivated actors in an indiscriminatory manner. In the last chapter, I introduce alternative lines of thought regarding the regulation of SOEs in international law. I suggest that, instead of engaging in theoretical discussions on the proper delineation between the public and the private sector, it is more useful to focus on the distributional impact of international rules on various actors, especially on developing and emerging economies where the presence of SOEs is very high. Such alternative prisms of analysis open paths for future research and practice, with the goal of designing an international economic order that incentivises institutional experimentation in the pursuit of economic development and distributional equity.

La place de l'arbitrage en droit de l'investissement est discutée. Les réfutations à son encontre grandissent. De nombreuses problématiques édulcorent la définition même de la notion d'investissement. Les controverses doctrinales restent toujours nombreuses et débattues à ce sujet. De même, des doctrines s'affrontent sur la question de savoir s'il faut ou non élaborer un corps de règles cohérentes pour des sentences arbitrales homogènes. L'opposition à l'arbitrage dans le droit de l'investissement se retrouve aussi dans les problématiques liées à l'exequatur des sentences arbitrales liées à l'arbitrage d'investissement dans l'Union européenne. Un manque de soutien apparent au développement de l'arbitrage dans l'Union européenne s'est installé, comme le démontre le récent traité CETA conclu entre l'Union européenne et le Canada. L'arbitrage d'investissement ferait courir le risque d'un recul de la souveraineté. En effet, du fait l'arbitrage d'investissement, les Etats seraient moins incités à légiférer sur des matières pouvant avoir un impact sur l'activité d'une entreprise étrangère, par crainte d'une procédure arbitrale. Un lien délicat apparait alors, entre souveraineté et arbitrage d'investissement. Plusieurs doctrines se sont longtemps affrontées, notamment celle élaborée par Calvo et Drago en Amérique Latine entre 1870 et 1900, proposant de réduire les droits des investisseurs étrangers, face à une doctrine opposée, celle militant pour un standard minimum international de protection des investisseurs étrangers. Or, une renaissance de ces débats apparaît aujourd'hui, avec une problématique liée à la souveraineté de plus en plus ancrée dans les débats liés à l'arbitrage d'investissement. Pourtant, l'arbitrage d'investissement doit être perçu comme une méthode permettant à des investisseurs de bénéficier d'un arbitre indépendant et permettant de « dépolitiser » les contentieux. Mais des Etats admettent de moins en moins que leurs lois établies démocratiquement pour l'intérêt général puissent être contestées par des investisseurs étrangers devant un tribunal arbitral. Des auteurs parlent de « chilling effect », par lequel des Etats n'osent plus légiférer, par crainte de contentieux ultérieurs. De plus en plus d'Etats refusent que leur droit soit remis en cause par des juges privés. Plusieurs questions se posent. Est-il toujours concevable de protéger davantage un investisseur étranger qu'un investisseur national ? Est-il légitime de privilégier des juges privés, plutôt que des juges nationaux pour trancher les litiges en matière d'investissement ? L'utilité de l'arbitrage peut être comprise, dans des pays où la justice étatique est dite « corrompue » ou « biaisée ». En pareille situation, un investisseur étranger est légitime à vouloir saisir un arbitre neutre et indépendant. Mais la légitimité d'avoir recours à l'arbitrage dans des pays développés bénéficiant d'une justice étatique indépendante pose plus de difficultés. Dès lors, faudrait-il limiter l'arbitrage d'investissement aux pays souffrant d'un déficit d'indépendance de justice étatique ? Et donc d'exclure ce mode de règlement des litiges en la matière dans l'Union européenne ? La « politisation » du débat est en pleine renaissance. L'arbitrage d'investissement est un domaine relativement jeune et il convient de se demander s'il s'agit là d'un mode de règlement des litiges adéquat et d'un mode adapté au commerce international en général ? Assistera-t-on prochainement ou assiste-t-on déjà à ce que des auteurs qualifient de « fin de cycle » ? Il s'agit de questions ancrées dans l'actualité, que ce soit en France ou ailleurs dans le monde. The place of arbitration in investment law is discussed. The rebuttals are growing. Many issues water down the very definition of the notion of investment. The doctrinal controversies are still numerous and debated on this subject. Similarly, doctrines clash on the question of whether or not it is necessary to develop a body of coherent rules for homogeneous arbitral awards. The opposition to arbitration in investment law is also found in issues related to the exequatur of arbitral awards related to investment arbitration in the European Union. An apparent lack of support for the development of arbitration in the European Union has set in, as demonstrated by the recent CETA treaty concluded between the European Union and Canada. Investment arbitration would run the risk of a decline in sovereignty. Indeed, because of investment arbitration, States would be less encouraged to legislate on matters that could have an impact on the activity of a foreign company, because of the fear of arbitration proceedings. A delicate link then appears between sovereignty and investment arbitration. Several doctrines have long clashed, in particular the one developed by Calvo and Drago in Latin America between 1870 and 1900, proposing to reduce the rights of foreign investors, in front of an opposing doctrine, that campaigning for a minimum international standard of protection for foreign investors. A revival of these debates is appearing today, with an issue linked to sovereignty increasingly rooted in the debates linked to investment arbitration. However, investment arbitration must be seen as a method allowing investors to benefit from an independent arbitrator and allowing disputes to be “depoliticised”. But states admit less and less that their laws democratically established for the general interest can be challenged by foreign investors before an arbitration tribunal. Authors talk about the “chilling effect”, by which States no longer dare to legislate, because of the fear of subsequent litigation. More and more States refuse to have their rights challenged by private judges. Several questions arise. Is it always conceivable to protect a foreign investor more than a national investor ? Is it legitimate to favor private judges, rather than national judges, to settle investment disputes ? The usefulness of arbitration can be understood in countries where state justice is said to be “corrupt” or “biased”. In such a situation, a foreign investor is legitimate in wanting to seize a neutral and independent arbitrator. But the legitimacy of having recourse to arbitration in developed countries benefiting from independent state justice arouses more difficulties. Therefore, should investment arbitration be limited to countries suffering from a lack of independence of state justice ? And therefore to exclude this method of settling disputes in this area in the European Union ? The “politicization” of the debate is in full revival. Investment arbitration is a relatively young field and it is worth asking whether it is an adequate mode of dispute resolution and a mode suitable for international trade in general ? Will we soon witness or are we already witnessing what some authors describe as the “end of the cycle” ? These are issues rooted in the news, whether in France or elsewhere in the world.

The author of Third Party Funding in International Arbitration challenges the structural inconsistencies of the current practices of arbitration funding by arguing that third party funding should be a forum of justice, rather than a forum of profit. The author introduces a new methodology with an alternative way of structuring third party funding to solve a set of practical problems generated by the risk of claim control by the funder.

L’accession à l’indépendance de certains pays en Afrique ne s’est toujours pas déroulée sans heurts. Certains colonisateurs ont été obligés d’abandonner leurs colonies à la merci des vainqueurs, lors du déroulement de la première guerre mondiale. Ainsi, les traités ou accords existants jusque- là, les cartes topographiques et autres documents officiels qui, demeurent des archives historiques des territoires non encore indépendants, sont délaissés à la faveur de nouveaux maitres. Le sacro-saint principe de l’intangibilité des frontières héritées de la colonisation uti possedetis juris a souvent été respecté par les futurs pays nouvellement indépendants, et quelques fois, ce principe a été contesté, d’où l’avènement des différends territoriaux et maritimes. Les procédés de règlement pacifiques de différends tels que les bons offices, la médiation, la négociation, peuvent ne pas aboutir. De ce fait, il y a lieu d’invoquer la voie judiciaire par le truchement de la Cour internationale de justice. C’est un choix d’une des parties en cause car, d’autres juridictions à l’échelle sous régionale ou régionale peuvent également connaître des différends surgissant entre États. Dès que les parties sont dans une phase judiciaire, il importe pour chacune d’elles de soutenir leurs arguments par des moyens quasi- incontestables pour étayer les prétentions avancées. The attainment of independence by some countries in Africa has not always been smooth. Some colonisers were forced to abandon their colonies to the mercy of the victors during the First World War. Thus, the treaties or agreements that had existed until then, the topographic maps and other official documents that remained as historical archives of the territories that were not yet independent, were abandoned in favour of the new masters. The sacrosanct principle of the intangibility of borders inherited from colonisation uti possedetis juris has often been respected by the newly independent countries, and sometimes this principle has been challenged, hence the advent of territorial and maritime disputes. Peaceful dispute resolution processes such as good offices, mediation and negotiation may not be successful. As a result, it is necessary to invoke the judicial route through the International Court of Justice. This is a choice made by one of the parties involved because other jurisdictions at the sub regional or regional level can also deal with disputes arising between States. Once the parties are in a judicial phase, it is important for each of them to support their arguments with quasi-indisputable means to substantiate the claims made.

Indonesia has ratified the WTO/TRIPs Agreement convention and is in full compliance and non-reservation, the insistence of developed countries’ owners of Intellectual Property Rights against Indonesia, and the need for national Intellectual Property Rights. By looking at the above, legal protection is needed for every product and service, especially licenses for trade secrets in the Intellectual Property Rights component. The state imposes criminal sanctions on violators of Trade Secret rights as stipulated in chapter 17 (1) constitution number 30/2000. However, it is also hoped that the act of imposing sanctions by the state will return to the interests of the protected party by making the crime a complaint offense chapter 17 (2) constitution number 30/2000. There are repressive legal actions that can be carried out as chapter 11 constitution number 30/2000 states that the holder of trade secret rights or the licensee may sue anyone who deliberately or without rights commits the actions referred to in the article in the form of (a). Compensations claim and/or; (b). Cessation of all actions referred to in chapter 4 constitution number 30/2000.

The main purpose of this research is to explain and identify the major Investor-State Arbitration (ISA) problems in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's government is committed to providing legal security for the resolution of foreign investment disputes. The dispute resolution system's assessment is very important for foreign investors because they pay special attention to the dispute resolution system and consider it a criterion for their investments. This research will be the first comprehensive study about the Investor-State Arbitration problems in Afghanistan. In the writing of this research, the library method has been used. To extract reasons, laws, books, articles, and reliable scientific sources have been used. Afghanistan is a good market for foreign investment because it has good investment opportunities in different sectors. Foreign investors can choose the easiest and best mechanisms, such as arbitration in their contracts to deal with disputes. But the resolution of foreign investment through arbitration has some problems, and sometimes foreign investors are facing challenges with the settlement of their disputes through arbitration internationally and domestically in Afghanistan.

Dans la conception traditionnelle de la diplomatie, l'action extérieure des États est cantonnée aux domaines politique, économique et culturel. Le droit est plus rarement pris en compte comme outil d'influence dans l'action extérieure des États.Or, le droit joue un rôle fondamental dans la diplomatie économique. En effet, un pays qui n'est pas capable de défendre son système juridique est un pays qui économiquement est en péril, car c'est un pays qui ne peut pas s'exporter.Si la France par exemple, ou d'autres pays, se mettent à la remorque de l'Alternative Dispute Resolution jusque dans leur propre droit interne, ces pays ne pourront plus exporter leur système juridique au risque de ne plus pouvoir exporter tout court. Ils risquent alors de perdre une partie essentielle et substantielle de leur capacité de projection sur la scène internationale.De même, lorsque la francophonie économique perd du terrain, c'est tout un pan de la diplomatie économique qui perd de sa force de frappe.Avec les clauses compromissoires et clauses de médiation inspirées des modèles anglo-saxons qui se répandent dans les contrats internationaux, comment les juridictions des pays francophones qui ont été calquées sur le système judicaire français pourront-elles continuent à exister ? Les arbitres anglo-saxons finiront-ils par imposer lentement mais sûrement la Common law ? Il y a là un enjeu de diplomatie économique énorme.Nous verrons comment défendre au mieux la francophonie économique et juridique en évitant que l'Alternative Dispute Resolution ne devienne le cheval de Troie du droit anglo-saxon, avec à terme, le risque que des systèmes nationaux disparaissent.Ce sont là des questions légitimes et très graves, et l'on peut comprendre qu'elles soient posées avec une certaine persistance.Avec l'élargissement continu du champ des relations internationales, le droit doit devenir l'objet d'une politique extérieure stratégique à part entière. C'est pourquoi nous plaidons pour la mise en place d'une diplomatie juridique française et formulons des recommandations ainsi qu'une stratégie d'influence juridique extérieure.En prenant la défense et en illustrant le droit continental et le droit français dans le droit global à travers les exemples de la médiation et de l'arbitrage international, nous espérons contribuer à l'ébauche d'une théorie de la diplomatie juridique et à ouvrir des pistes nouvelles de réflexion en matière d'influence internationale, en particulier d'influence juridique internationale.Nous espérons contribuer ainsi modestement mais utilement à la défense du droit français et du droit continental pour que la confrontation et la compétition des système juridiques n'aboutissent pas à la domination d'un système juridique sur un autre mais que cette compétition aille au contraire dans le sens d'un meilleur équilibre entre les systèmes juridiques, dans le sens du progrès et de l'amélioration du droit français et du droit continental, mais aussi - s'il se peut -dans le sens des progrès dans la défense des causes et des valeurs universelles. In the traditional conception of diplomacy, the external action of States is confined to the political, economic and cultural domains. Law is more rarely taken into account as a tool of influence in the external action of States.However, Law plays a fundamental role in economic diplomacy. Indeed, a country that is not able to defend its legal system is a country that is economically in danger, because it is a country that cannot be exported. If France, for example, or other countries, follow the Alternative Dispute Resolution right up to their own domestic law, these countries will no longer be able to export their legal system at the risk of no longer being able to export at all. They then risk losing an essential and substantial part of their ability to project themselves on the international scene.Similarly, when the economic Francophonie loses ground, a whole section of economic diplomacy loses its strike force.With arbitration clauses and mediation clauses inspired by Anglo-Saxon models that are spreading in international contracts, how will the courts of French-speaking countries that have been modeled on the French judicial system be able to continue to exist? Will Anglo-Saxon arbitrators end up slowly but surely imposing the Common law? There is a huge stake in economic diplomacy here.We will see how best to defend the economic and legal Francophonie by preventing the Alternative Dispute Resolution from becoming the Trojan horse of Anglo-Saxon law, with the eventual risk that national systems will disappear.These are legitimate and very serious questions, and one can understand that they are asked with a certain persistence.With the continuous widening of the field of international relations, Law must become the object of a strategic foreign policy. This is why we plead for the establishment of a French legal diplomacy and formulate recommendations as well as a strategy of external legal influence.By defending and illustrating continental law and French law in global law through the examples of mediation and international arbitration, we hope to contribute to the sketch of a theory of legal diplomacy and to open new paths of reflection in terms of international influence, in particular international legal influence.We hope in this way to contribute modestly but usefully to the defense of French law and continental law so that the confrontation and competition of legal systems does not lead to the domination of one legal system over another but that this competition goes on the contrary in the sense of a better balance between legal systems, in the direction of progress and improvement of French law and continental law, but also - if possible - in the direction of progress in the defense of universal causes and values.

Depuis 2014, l’article L. 113-12-1 du code des assurances impose à l’assureur de motuver la résiliation du contrat d’assurance qu’il prononce. Cette obligation de motivation faite suite à des obligations similaires qui avaient été déjà consacrées. L’objet du travail présdenté est de comprendre les ressorts de l’obligation de motivation imposée à l’assureur qui souhaite résilier le contrat, d’identifier ce que cette obligation dit de la perception contemporaine du contrat d’assurance et ce, afin d’en proposer un régime cohérent et adapté. Au-delà de la question technique, il s’agit aussi de mener une réflexion sur la place du risque dans notre société. La thèse ici défendu est que le contrat d’assurance est devenu un « contrat de nécessité », ce qui conduit à considérer que la motivation exigée de l’assureur doit reposer sur des motifs de nature à démontrer que l’assurance du risque de l’assuré est impossible. Le caractère nécessaire du contrat d’assurance justifie que l’assurance ne puisse être rompue que si elle est ou est devenue impossible.