Bibliographie sélective OHADA

La fabrication, l’utilisation et la vente aux États-Unis d’un produit couvert par un brevet américain, sans l’autorisation du breveté, constitue une contrefaçon de ce brevet. Toutefois, certains développements législatifs et des décisions de justice rendues ces dernières années ont montré que la portée d’un brevet américain pouvait être étendue à des activités se produisant en dehors du territoire américain. The unauthorized making use or sale within the United States of a product covered by a U.S. patent infringes the patent. However, in many cases damages and liability for infringing U.S. patents can extend beyond purely domestic uses to cover activities taking place far outside the United States. U.S. patents may cover activities that have little or nothing to do with the United States. Many companies are unaware of this surprisingly broad geographic reach. This article reviews such activities.

The Uniform Act related cooperative societies (UA-COOP) is the main source of cooperative law in all the seventeen States parties to the OHADA founding Treaty. Ten years after its entry into force (2011-2021), the aim of this study is to assess the level of enforcement of this Act. More concretely, the aim is to compare the state of cooperative law at the time of the entry into force of the UA-COOP (2011) with the current situation (in 2021). Such a comparison should make it possible to assess the contribution of the UA-COOP to the development of cooperative law and strengthening of national cooperative movements in the OHADA zone.

"The aim of this book is to analyse the level of implementation of the Uniform act on cooperatives (Acte uniforme relatif au droit des sociétés coopératives, AUSCOOP) ten years after its enactment. The authors' analysis, conclusions and recommendations lead to two main ideas: on the one hand, the need to correct the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the Act, and on the other hand, the lack of coherence of the Act with the area’s legal environment.

L'Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif révisé a considérablement amélioré la situation du débiteur à travers le renforcement des mesures de sauvetage et la légitimation du droit au rebond qui lui permet sous certaines conditions de bénéficier de la purge de ses dettes. Ce changement de paradigme devrait absolument tenir compte des intérêts des créanciers qui attendent désespérément le règlement de leurs créances. L’ambition de la présente étude est de démontrer que malgré le vent de la modernité, le législateur OHADA n’en a pas tenu compte dans la dernière réforme de la matière collective au vu de l’importance des ajustements qui profitent principalement au débiteur. Ce renforcement des mesures de protection en faveur d’un seul protagoniste n’augure pas des lendemains meilleurs dans un espace juridique où les États membres n’ont pas la culture, encore moins des possibilités de consentir facilement aux entreprises nécessiteuses, des crédits comparables à ceux régulièrement obtenus des créanciers.

OHADA bölgesindeki yabancı yatırımların yasal korunması bahassederken yasal mekanizmaların varlığı fikrine atıfta bulunur. Yabancı yatırımlarının korunmasının sağlanması Bu Örgüte üye olmayan ülkelerin vatandaşları. Mukayese arama sürecinde Türk hukuku ile anlayışlı olmalıdır. Bu yatırımlar için optimal yasal güvenlik modeli olmalidir çünkü OHADA yasa nispeten yeni ve yapım aşamasındadır. Talking about the legal protection of foreign investments in the OHADA zone inevitably refers to the idea of the existence of legal mechanisms capable of ensuring the protection of investments of economic operators who are nationals of non-member countries of this Organization. The comparison with Turkish law must to be understanding in the process of seeking the model of optimal legal security for these investments, because the OHADA law remains relatively new and under construction.

In recent years, investment arbitration tribunals are increasingly confronted with allegations of corruption, mostly invoked by host States as a defense to investors’ claims. After an affirmative finding of an alleged corrupt act between the investor and a public official of the host State in the establishment or conduct of the investment, tribunals have adopted a binary approach to the issue – if they uphold allegations of corruption, they completely dismiss the investor’s submissions. This binary approach has resulted in an asymmetry of liability for the two parties to a corrupt act (i.e., investors and host States/host State officials), failing to take into account the inherent bilateralism of corruption and the fact that domestic laws and international norms have outlawed both the act of offering and of accepting bribes. In particular, public officials’ free participation in a corrupt act to advance investments is attributable to the host State and requires State responsibility under international law. Moreover, the increasingly prevalent practice of inserting anti-corruption provisions in investment treaties has reinforced this lop-sided feature, as well as offering only weak effectiveness in terms of deterring corruption. After a careful examination of the treatment of corruption issues in investment arbitration and investment treaties, this thesis proposes a paradigm shift from the current asymmetric approach to a more balanced approach. It calls on investment tribunals to take a dual-track approach that investigates both corruption and investors’ claims, and ensures that each party assumes responsibility for its own misconduct. It also proposes that treaty drafters include anti-corruption provisions that impose strong obligations of anti-corruption on both sides of corruption (i.e., investors and host States) rather than merely on a single party to it

The reform of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism has provoked much debate among legal scholars and practitioners. The critiques of ISDS mainly arise from concerns regarding the legitimacy of the mechanism such as the perceived tolerance for the lack of impartiality and consistency. To allay these concerns, there have been proposals to reform ISDS by establishing investment courts with tenured judges and appellate tribunals. However, international adjudication systems like ISDS cannot be fully analogized to domestic courts in common law countries: ISDS falls into a broader international regime where there are neither hierarchical/centralized decision-making and enforcement authorities nor a multilateral investment treaty, and the rules and principles on foreign investment protection are fragmented in around three thousand Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs). Against this backdrop, this thesis argues that, although there is a general agreement among the international community to further legalize international investment law, the process of legalization via the specific avenue of reforming the adjudication mechanism (i.e. ISDS) is subject to (1) the institutional constraint of international investment law, especially the lack of shared understanding among the international community regarding the treatment of foreign investments, and (2) the internal constraints of adjudication as a mode of social ordering. It further cautions that pursuing predictability while disregarding the low level of shared understandings regarding investment protection may cause more legitimacy problems than it solves