Bibliographie sélective OHADA

In social life, there are often differences in perceptions between humans, causing problems or disputes, whether minor or serious. Likewise in the relationship of economic activities or more commonly known as business relations. Not infrequently humans experience a clash and differences of opinion that lead to disputes. Various problems will always arise in business as long as humans run their business solely for profit, so there are often differences of opinion because the parties will not be harmed which will eventually lead to disputes. In the end, dispute resolution, especially business disputes, is often resolved through a trial in court through a lawsuit by one of the parties who feel aggrieved. However, what was expected from the settlement turned out to be unsatisfactory for the parties because the settlement through litigation sometimes took a long time to obtain legal certainty so that it actually harmed business people because of the loss of time, energy and materials. As an alternative to resolving business disputes, business actors have a tendency to avoid disputes in court and choose to use mediation or through arbitration institutions. This study will briefly describe the comparison of business dispute resolution through court mediation with settlement through arbitration institutions. The research was conducted through descriptive empirical legal research.

Esta tese trata da estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral. Ao se falar da estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral, são muito comuns as afirmações de que, no processo arbitral, o tratamento é diferente, pois é mais flexível. Também, comumente se afirma que a estabilização da demanda na arbitragem se daria no momento de assinatura do termo de arbitragem. No entanto, entende-se que o tema não foi analisado de forma aprofundada, e, inclusive, com base nas pesquisas realizadas, poucas foram as obras nacionais que trataram especificamente da estabilização da demanda arbitral. Diante disso, este trabalho buscará analisar como se dá a estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral e as hipóteses de modificação da demanda no decorrer do processo. Para tanto, inicialmente serão apresentadas considerações iniciais, necessárias ao desenvolvimento do trabalho, como a natureza jurídica da arbitragem e sua inclusão na teoria geral do processo. Após, analisa-se o processo arbitral, a formação da demanda na arbitragem e como se dá a definição das regras a serem observadas no processo arbitral, e como são definidos os poderes jurisdicionais dos árbitros. Ainda, ao se falar de estabilização da demanda, necessariamente deve ser estudado o conteúdo da demanda arbitral e sua individualização, ou seja, o que constitui o objeto litigioso do processo arbitral. Em seguida, será feita a investigação de quais são os elementos da demanda arbitral, as teorias que tratam de cada um deles e qual deve ser seu conteúdo mínimo. Ultrapassada essa investigação e fixados os conceitos necessários ao desenvolvimento do tema, serão analisadas as linhas gerais da estabilização da demanda, sua natureza jurídica e os fundamentos que embasam não só a regra da estabilização da demanda, mas também sua mitigação, do que decorre da análise dos sistemas rígidos e flexíveis. Definidos os conceitos gerais acerca da estabilização da demanda arbitral, analisaremos como outros ordenamentos tratam da questão, bem como as disposições no processo estatal brasileiro, para que se possa compreender o que o sistema processual entende como estabilização da demanda e as hipóteses de mitigação. Em seguida, trataremos do momento de estabilização da demanda arbitral, possibilidade de modificação dos elementos da demanda e consequências da violação da regra da estabilização da demanda. Por fim, todo estudo teórico deve mostrar seu viés prático, de modo que as análises que foram feitas possam ser aplicadas pelas partes e pelo árbitro. Por essa razão, o último capítulo é dedicado às recomendações sobre o tratamento da estabilização da demanda na arbitragem. This thesis addresses the stabilization of demand in the arbitral procedure. When discussing the demand stabilization in the arbitration procedure, it is widely asserted that in the arbitration proceeding the treatment is different since it is more flexible. Furthermore, it is commonly stated that the stabilization of demand in arbitration would occur when the terms of reference are signed. Nevertheless, it is understood that the issue has not been analyzed comprehensively and, based on the research conducted, few Brazilian studies have specifically addressed the stabilization of the arbitral demand. Thus, this study will analyze how the stabilization of the demand occurs in the arbitration procedure and the hypotheses of modification of the claim in the course of the procedure. For this purpose, the necessary initial considerations for the development of the study will be presented, such as the legal nature of arbitration and its inclusion in the general theory of procedure. After that, we will analyze the arbitration process, the formation of the demand in arbitration, and how the rules to be observed in the arbitration process are defined, as well as the jurisdictional powers of the arbitrators. Afterward, we will then proceed to the analysis of the arbitration process, the constitution of the demand in arbitration, and how the rules to be observed in the arbitration procedure are defined, as well as how the jurisdictional powers of the arbitrators are defined. Moreover, when discussing the stabilization of the demand, one must necessarily study the content of the arbitration claim and its individualization, i.e., what constitutes the litigious object of the arbitration procedure. Following that, an investigation of the elements of the arbitration claim, the theories that deal with each of them, and what the minimum content should be, will be carried out. Once this investigation has been concluded and the concepts necessary for the development of this thesis have been established, the general lines of the stabilization of demand will be analyzed, as well as its legal nature and grounds that support, not only the rule of stabilization of demand, but also its mitigation, which follows from the analysis of rigid and flexible systems. Once the general concepts concerning the stabilization of arbitral demand are defined, we will analyze how other legal systems address the issue, as well as the provisions in the Brazilian state process, so that we can comprehend what the procedural system understands as stabilization of demand and the hypotheses of mitigation. Next, we will address the moment of stabilization of the arbitral demand, the possibility of modifying the elements of the claim and the consequences of the violation of the rule of stabilization of demand. Finally, every theoretical study must reveal its practical side, so that the analyses that have been made can be applied by the parties and the arbitrator. For this reason, the last chapter is devoted to recommendations on the treatment of demand stabilization in arbitration.

A presente tese se ocupa de analisar a possibilidade de vinculação de não signatário da convenção de arbitragem ao processo de jurisdição privada via desconsideração da personalidade jurídica no âmbito de arbitragens domésticas. Para tanto, no Capítulo 1, examinam-se premissas teóricas ligadas ao processo de aquisição da personalidade jurídica; de como ele opera limitando a responsabilidade dos integrantes do ente personalizado; e do embate entre autonomia da atividade societária e abuso de direito do qual pode resultar a desconsideração da personalidade jurídica. A teoria desconstitutiva é verificada desde sua criação até os dias atuais, enfatizando-se seu modo de funcionamento à luz dos pressupostos que autorizam sua incidência e os efeitos que se seguem desse reconhecimento segundo a concepção clássica da técnica desconstitutiva. No Capítulo 2, aborda-se o papel da autonomia da vontade para a teoria geral dos contratos e para a arbitragem, apontando-se o alcance e a classificação desta última para, a seguir, adentrar no tema da verificação do consentimento para arbitrar conflitos. Nesse contexto, são analisadas diversas teorias que fundamentam a participação de parte não signatária em arbitragens para se chegar à formulação daquilo que se denominou de consentimento suficiente para arbitrar conflitos. Ao ensejo do estudo das diversas teorias que embasam a extensão da cláusula compromissória, procura-se assinalar distinções, mas também semelhanças, que tornem viável apropriar seus argumentos, quando for o caso, para a específica hipótese de vinculação de terceiro via desconsideração da personalidade jurídica. No Capítulo 3, o epicentro da tese, são investigados os fundamentos que, segundo se defende, autorizam a hipótese. Para tanto, são levados em consideração implicações próprias da natureza jurídica da arbitragem e da regra do kompetenz-kompetenz; a equiparação entre árbitros e juízes togados no exercício de suas funções; o valor da efetividade para a jurisdição arbitral, com foco na análise econômica do direito e no impacto para os custos transacionais da arbitragem ao se rechaçar a hipótese defendida; a boa-fé objetiva como meio apto a identificar o consentimento suficiente; e, finalmente, uma análise individual de alguns trabalhos doutrinários que defendem a hipótese contrária, expondo criticamente seus motivos. Como resultado dos pontos abordados, procura-se responder se a análise da pretensão desconstitutiva por árbitros choca-se com o sistema por alargar os limites da convenção, seja em razão da matéria, seja em virtude dos sujeitos contratantes do pacto arbitral. A conclusão a que se chega é no sentido de que a conjugação desses fatores possibilita a vinculação de parte não signatária ao processo arbitral em razão da utilização abusiva da personalidade jurídica, sendo essa a solução mais consentânea com os propósitos da técnica desconstitutiva estampada no art. 50 do CC e conforme o que dispõe o sistema arbitral. This thesis is dedicated to analyzing the possibility of binding a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement to the private jurisdiction process via disregard doctrine in domestic arbitrations. To this end, Chapter 1 analyzes the theoretical premises linked to the process of acquisition of legal entity, the way it operates in limiting the liability of the members of the personalized entity, and the conflict between the autonomy of the companys activity and abuse of rights, which may result in the disregard of legal entity. The disregard doctrine is verified from its conception to the present days, emphasizing the way it works according to the requirements that allows its incidence and the effects from its recognition according to the classic doctrine of the corporate veil. Chapter 2 deals with the role of autonomy of the will in the general theory of contracts and arbitration, pointing out the reach and classification of the arbitration to then go into the theme of the verification of consent to arbitrate conflicts. In this context, the various theories that support the participation of a non-signatory party in arbitration proceedings are analyzed to formulate what is called "sufficient consent" to arbitrate disputes. In the course of analyzing the various theories on which the extension of the arbitration clause is based, an effort is made to point out distinctions as well as similarities that could make feasible to adopt their arguments, where appropriate, for the specific hypothesis of binding a third party through vail of legal entity. In Chapter 3, the epicenter of the thesis, the grounds by which, according to what has been defended, the arguments that authorizes the hypothesis are examined. To this end, the implications of the legal nature of arbitration are taken into consideration; the rule of kompetenz-kompetenz; the equivalence between arbitrators and judges in the exercise of their functions; the value of effectiveness for the arbitral jurisdiction, focused on the Economic Analysis of Law and the impact on the transactional costs of arbitration when the defended hypothesis is rejected; objective good faith as liable ground for identifying sufficient consent; and finally, individual analysis of some doctrinal works defending the contrary hypothesis, critically exposing their motives. As a result of all the points analyzed, an attempt is made to answer whether the analysis of the unconstitutional claim by arbitrators clashes with the system by extending the limits of the arbitration convention, whether due to the subject matter or to the contracting parties of the arbitration agreement. The conclusion is that the combination of these factors allows the binding of the non-signatory party to the arbitration process due to the abusive use of the legal entity, being this the most consistent solution with the purposes of the unconstitutional technique stamped in article 50 of Brazilian Civil Code and according to what the arbitration system disposes of.

The right to water in investment arbitration has been one of the most contentious issues before investment arbitration tribunals in recent decades. The privatization of public services, including water and sanitation, and assigning them to foreign investors has caused the right to water as a vital benefit being repeatedly raised in investment arbitrations. However, due to tribunals’ narrow interpretation of jurisdiction and applicable law, this fundamental human right has been considered irrelevant and ignored, and this has fueled the legitimacy crises in investment arbitration. This research seeks to indicate the potentiality of more protection of the right to water through balancing the states international obligations in the two areas of investment law and human rights law. Proposed methods for integrating human rights with investment law include the correct interpretation of jurisdictional clauses and the applicable law based on the treaties interpretation principles, systematic integration and the inclusion of new clauses in investment agreements. طرح حق بر آب در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری یکی از مناقشه‌انگیزترین مباحث پیش روی دیوان‌های داوری در چند دهه اخیر بوده است. خصوصی‌سازی خدمات عمومی از جمله آب و فاضلاب و سپردن آنها به سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی موجب شده تا حق بر آب بعنوان یک منفعت عمومی و حیاتی بارها در داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری مطرح شود. با تفسیر مضیق محاکم از شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم، این حق بنیادین بشری در برخی موارد نامربوط و نادیده تلقی شده و این امر به بحران مشروعیت در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری دامن زده است. این جستار می‌کوشد تا امکان حمایت بیشتر از حق بر آب را از طریق برقراری تعادل بین تعهدات بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در دو عرصه حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری و حقوق بشر نشان دهد و در پایان روش‌هایی را برای ادغام این دو از جمله تفسیر درست شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم با تکیه بر اصول تفسیر معاهدات، تلفیق سیستمیک و گنجاندن بندهای جدید در موافقتنامه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری پیشنهاد کند.

En droits français et koweïtien, il existe une juridiction de référé quelque soit la matière. Cette juridiction a le pouvoir de prendre des mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires pour régler momentanément une situation urgente ou pour sauvegarder provisoirement et rapidement un droit dans l’attente qu’un jugement au fond soit rendu. Toutefois, en matière arbitrale, le juge étatique n’est pas le seul compétent pour pouvoir prendre lesdites mesures. En effet, l’arbitre désigné dans la convention d’arbitrage dispose également de cette prérogative. À ce titre, les juges étatiques ou arbitraux français et koweitiens, bénéficient de points forts mais également de faiblesses lorsqu’ils rendent ces mesures. D’une part, les juges des référés français et koweïtiens disposent de toutes les prérogatives permettant de rendre leurs décisions provisoires d’une manière efficace et rapide. Toutefois, la lourdeur des règles procédurales applicables devant les juridictions de référé peut s’avérer dissuasif. Elles peuvent ainsi préférer se tourner vers l’arbitre puisque les règles de procédure propre à l’arbitrage sont souvent perçues comme étant modernes, simples et rapides. Toutefois, les arbitres de ces deux États ne disposent pas de l’impérium, qui garante garantissant l’efficacité et l’effectivité de leurs mesures. À ce titre, la substance de cette thèse résidera dans la comparaison entre le juge des référés et les arbitres français et koweitiens concernant l’efficacité et la célérité de leurs mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires. La présente thèse s’attachera à démontrer, au travers de cette comparaison, que l’arbitrage est préférable au traitement du litige malgré l’absence de certaines prérogatives importantes qui aident les arbitres pour rendre leurs mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires rapides et efficaces. In French and Kuwaiti national courts, the power of urgency exists regardless of the nature of the courts, civil or commercial. The power of urgency entitles to grant all provisional and precautional orders to address an emergency situation or to preserve the right of the parties without prejudice to the origin of the substantive right. However, in the case of an existence of an arbitration agreement, the judge does not have the right to grant these orders solely. In fact, the arbitrator appointed in the arbitration agreement also has the right to this privilege. In this regard, every French and Kuwaiti judge whether an arbitrator or a national judge has points of strength and weakness when granting these orders. On one hand, the French and Kuwaiti national judge has all the privileges that entitle them to grant provisional and precautional orders effectively and quickly. However, the nature of the procedures used to grant these orders can sometimes be stressful and exhausting to the parties involved in a way that affects the speed and effectiveness of these orders. On the other hand, the procedures followed before the arbitrators are easy, fast, and effective, but the arbitrators do not have the power to redress to ensure the execution of these orders, which affects the administration of justice. Therefore, the essence of this study lies in the comparison between the national judge and the arbitrator, French and Kuwaiti, in terms of the effectiveness and the speed of granting provisional and precautional orders. This study shows that arbitration is always preferred by disputants to obtain provisional and precautional orders more quickly and effectively than national courts.

Au cours des dernières décennies, le régime de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (« RDIE »), par le biais de l’arbitrage ad hoc, a été l’objet d’un examen approfondi et de critiques croissantes. Au fur et à mesure que les États défendeurs de diverses régions ont perdu des affaires d’arbitrage d’investissement, ils ont été comme désenchantés par ce type de mécanisme de résolution des litiges, dans ce qui est désormais connu comme le contrecoup de l’arbitrage d’investissement. Plus récemment, ces critiques se sont intensifiées au point que l’Union Européen a remplacé le RDIE contemporain par une cour permanente d’investissement pour régler ces différends. Une approche intermédiaire de la réforme du système par l’établissement d’un organe d’appel visant à donner de la cohérence aux nombreuses sentences arbitrales ad hoc est également envisagée. Cette thèse analyse les principales critiques du système du RDIE actuel afin d’examiner sa pertinence et effectue une comparaison entre les options de réforme, la manière dont elles sont censées résoudre les défauts du système, ainsi que les implications découlant de certaines des solutions les plus débattues. L’objectif de la thèse est de faire valoir qu’une refonte radicale ou révolutionnaire du système d’arbitrage des investissements ne fera que générer des incertitudes, susciter des problèmes juridiques et pratiques très complexes, et ne n’apportera finalement pas de meilleurs résultats. L’accent devrait plutôt être mis sur une indispensable évolution ou réforme substantielle au niveau des traités, afin de tirer les leçons des cas passés et de s’assurer que la rédaction des traités répond mieux aux défis actuels. = The dispute settlement regime between investors and States through ad hoc arbitration has come under heavy scrutiny and mounting criticism in the past few decades. As respondent States in various regions have lost investment arbitration cases, those States have become disenchanted with this form of dispute resolution mechanism in what has become known as the backlash against investment arbitration. More recently, these critiques have escalated to the extent that the European Union has replaced it with a completely new scheme that includes dismantling the investment arbitration system by replacing it with a permanent investment court to settle such disputes in its trade agreement. An intermediate approach to reforming the system, the establishment of an appellate body aimed at providing consistency to the numerous ad hoc arbitration awards, is also being considered. This thesis analyses the main criticisms of the current investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) system to determine its validity and carries out a comparison between the policy reform options, how they are intended to solve the system’s purported flaws, as well as the implications arising from some of the hotly debated options. The aim of the thesis is to argue that drastic overhaul or revolutionary reform to the investment arbitration system will only lead to uncertainties, more complex legal and practical problems and would not yield better results. Instead, the focus should be on the evolution of substantive reform at the treaty level, to address the lessons learned from past cases and ensure that treaty drafting responds to current day challenges.

La négociation est une institution fascinante du droit de l’investissement, polyvalente et multifonctionnelle. L’étude systématisée de la négociation dans le droit de l’investissement fait ressortir que cette institution est plus qu’un simple moyen permettant de parvenir à des accords. En réalité, la négociation est partout dans le droit de l’investissement. Il s’agit de la seule institution véritablement transversale au droit des investissements, qui intervient de nombreuses manières dans les rapports entre les investisseurs et les États d’accueil. Nous pouvons attester de l’existence des négociations avec la négociation des accords internationaux d’investissement ou de contrats d’investissement entre l’État d’accueil et l’investisseur. De surcroît, la négociation est un instrument au service de l’instance juridictionnelle qui sert aux arbitres dans l’interprétation des accords ainsi que pour la détermination de la responsabilité des parties. Si les divers rôles de la négociation dans le droit de l’investissement ont fortement contribué à l’évolution du droit international, la négociation reste une institution peu connue. Sa nature, sa portée, et son contenu juridique restent peu étudiés et non systématisés dans le droit de l’investissement. De ce fait, cette recherche offre une analyse approfondie de la négociation afin de trouver sa place dans l’ordre juridique de l’investissement (en général) et dans le règlement des litiges (en particulier). Nous examinerons dans cette recherche les nombreux apports de la négociation au droit de l’investissement permettant d’affirmer que la négociation constitue le mécanisme essentiel dans la conclusion des accords ; qu’elle impose aux parties des comportements précis ; qu’elle est un instrument qui permet aux tribunaux internationaux de déterminer la responsabilité des parties en fonction de leurs actions et inactions ; enfin, qu'elle constitue un instrument qui aide la justice arbitrale à interpréter les accords ponctuels. Ainsi, cette recherche a pour ambition de comprendre la nature, la portée et les fonctionnalités de la négociation dans le règlement des litiges transnationaux d’investissement. Negotiation is a fascinating instrument of Investment Law, versatile and rich in legal content. The systematic study of negotiation in Investment Law reveals that this institution is much more than just an instrument for reaching agreements. In fact, negotiation is everywhere. It is the only institution of Investment Law that is truly transversal, intervening in many layers of the relationship between investors and Host States. We can recognize the existence of negotiations from the very beginning of an investment process (the negotiation of a contract between the investor and the Host State), as well as negotiations over the course of the life and operation of an investment, and negotiations at the termination of a transnational investment project. Moreover, negotiation is an instrument that serves arbitral tribunal as element for the interpretation of the agreements, and the determination of the parties’ liability. The various roles of negotiation in Investment Law have certainly contributed to the evolution of international law. Nevertheless, negotiation remains an unknown institution to lawyers, regarding its nature, scope, uses and legal content. Investment law requires a thorough analysis of this institution and a structure that adapts to the transnational legal order. In this research, we will examine numerous contributions of negotiation to Investment Law: as a necessary mechanism for the conclusion of agreements that impact Investment Law; as a mandatory rule that it imposes specific behaviors on the parties in respect to the principle of good faith; as an instrument that serves international tribunals to determine the parties’ liability for their actions taken over the course of negotiations, and as an instrument to assist the justice system to construe contracts. Thus, the ambition of this research is to comprehend the nature, scope, and the features of negotiation in International Investment Law. La negociación es un instrumento fascinante de Derecho de las inversiones, a la vez versátil y rico en contenido legal. El estudio sistematizado de la negociación en el Derecho de las inversiones revela que esta institución es mucho más que un instrumento para alcanzar acuerdos. En realidad, la negociación está en todas partes en el derecho de las inversiones. Es laúnica institución verdaderamente transversal al Derecho de las inversiones, que interviene de varias formas en la relación entre inversionistas y los Estados receptores de inversión. Podemos constatar la existencia de las negociaciones desde el inicio de un proceso de inversión (en la negociación de un tratado bilateral deinversión, o de un contrato entre el inversionista y el Estado anfitrión), negociaciones durante la vida y la operación de una inversión y negociaciones encaminadas a la terminación o liquidación de la inversión transnacional. Resalta, además, que la negociación es un instrumento al servicio de la instancia jurisdiccional, que sirve a los árbitros en su tarea de interpretación de acuerdos, y a la determinación de la responsabilidad de las partes. Los diversos roles que presenta la negociación en el Derecho de las inversiones ciertamente han contribuido a la evolución del Derecho internacional. Sin embargo, la negociación sigue siendo una institución poco conocida por los juristas, especialmente en lo tocante a su naturaleza, alcance, usos y contenido legal. ElDerecho de las inversiones requiere de un análisis exhaustivo de esta institución, acompañado de una estructura que se adapte al orden legal transnacional.En esta investigación examinaremos las diversas contribuciones que hace la negociación al Derecho de las inversiones, a saber: se muestra como un mecanismoinevitable para concluir acuerdos que terminan contribuir en la evolución del Derecho de las inversiones; impone a las partes comportamientos específicos enrespeto del principio de la buena fe; es un instrumento para que los tribunales internacionales determinen la responsabilidad de las partes en razón de sus accionesdurante la fase de negociación y se constituye en un instrumento que asiste al sistema de justicia en la tarea de interpretar los acuerdos. La ambición de esta investigación no es otra cosa que comprehender la naturaleza, el alcance y la funcionalidad de la negociación en el Derecho internacional de las inversiones.

A questão fundamental que está por detrás da investigação feita para elaboração deste estudo consiste em saber se a arbitragem é jurisdição. A pesquisa foi conduzida de forma analítica de molde a que conclusões fossem alcançadas no sentido de se saber até que ponto a arbitragem é mesmo jurisdição. É claro que, para que isso fosse feito, isto é, para que esse caminho fosse percorrido, o primeiro tema a ser tratado deveria ser, necessariamente, a própria jurisdição. Trata-se de um conceito construído pela cultura humana cujo conteúdo, exatamente por isso, variou ao longo da história. Seguiu-se a mesma abordagem no que diz respeito à arbitragem. Assim, o primeiro objetivo desta tese foi o de acompanhar a evolução do conceito de jurisdição, ao longo do tempo, como forma de composição de conflitos, desde o direito romano, até a atualidade. Foi explorado o caminho pelo qual passou a jurisdição, com o fim de se investigar por qual motivo, em determinado momento, se começou a afirmar, de modo peremptório, que a jurisdição seria uma atividade realizada exclusivamente pelo Estado. O segundo objetivo consistiu em analisar a arbitragem, pondo-a lado a lado com a jurisdição estatal, explorando-se os pontos que ambos os fenômenos apresentam em comum, assim como os que diferenciam essas duas formas de exercício do poder-dever de julgar. Por isso, foi objeto de investigação e reflexão uma outra função da jurisdição estatal, recentemente assumida de forma clara pela jurisdição estatal, que é a de contribuir para a criação do direito. Procurou-se identificar em que contexto e extensão isso pode acontecer, tanto na jurisdição do Estado, quanto na jurisdição contratada pelas partes. Em um terceiro momento deste estudo, colocamos luzes sobre determinados institutos do processo civil, desenvolvendo-os, também, no terreno do procedimento arbitral. Num quarto e último momento, nossas reflexões se voltaram para o problema de se saber até que ponto a arbitragem seria mesmo jurisdição, equivalente à jurisdição estatal, em todos os seus aspectos, em toda a sua extensão, seus limites e suas funções. The fundamental question behind the research done to prepare this paper is whether arbitration is jurisdiction. The research has been conducted in an analytical manner so that conclusions could be reached in order to know to what extent arbitration is even jurisdiction. For this to be done, the first topic to be addressed should necessarily be jurisdiction itself. This is a concept constructed by human culture whose content, precisely for this reason, has varied throughout history. The same approach has been followed about arbitration. Thus, the first aim of this thesis was to follow the evolution of the concept of jurisdiction, over time, as a form of dispute resolution, since Roman law, until today. Jurisdiction has been explored, to investigate why, at a certain point, it began to affirm, peremptorily, that jurisdiction would be an activity performed exclusively by the State. The second aim was to analyze arbitration, placing it side by side with State jurisdiction, exploring points that both: state and arbitral jurisdiction have in common, as well as those that differentiate these two forms of judging. Therefore, another function, recently clearly assumed by the state jurisdiction, which is to contribute to the creation of law, has been object of investigation and reflection. It was sought to identify in what context and extent this can happen, both in the State and arbitral jurisdiction. In a third moment of this study, we shed light on certain institutes of civil procedure, developing them, also, in the field of arbitration procedure. In a fourth and last moment, our reflections turned to the problem of knowing to what extent arbitration would even be jurisdiction, equivalent to the State jurisdiction, considering all its aspects, its extent, limits and functions.

La première version de cet article (datant de 2010), traitait largement de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine, parfois confidentielle, et le droit de l’arbitrage du commerce international (au moins dans sa conception et sa présentation françaises) était chaque jour davantage affiné , il complétait des formations internationales, les sources s’éclaircissaient, les commentaires foisonnaient et, aujourd’hui, nous vivons sans doute l’âge d’or de l’arbitrage commercial international[1]. Surtout, la première édition n’avait pu rendre compte de la réforme opérée peu après par ‘‘‘décret du 13 janvier 2011’‘‘. Un décret du Premier ministre français, autant dire tout de suite que le champ de l’étude présentée ici est à dominante principale franco-française, et que la principale préoccupation ici relèvera du ‘‘droit de l’arbitrage’’ dans une conception comparée, mais à partir du modèle français. Ainsi des réflexions seront menées dans le cadre du droit comparé et conventionnel international de ce type de résolution extra-judiciaire qu’est l’arbitrage commercial international, avec la présence à Paris de la Chambre de commerce internationale (CCI) et de sa Cour internationale d’arbitrage (CIA/CCI ci-après). La France est à l’avant-garde du sujet. Compte tenu de l’application de la loi dans le temps et pour une meilleure intelligibilité de la réforme, une réforme voulue par les acteurs et les juristes, ‘‘lato sensu’’, le droit antérieur à la réforme de 2011 est rappelé plus ou moins cursivement, qui montrera utilement les nombreux « progrès » de la discipline.

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.

Qu’est-ce qu’une sentence arbitrale ? La sentence arbitrale est le résultat attendu par les parties qui se soumettent à une procédure arbitrale. Elle constitue le seul outil juridictionnel mis à la disposition de l’arbitre au cours d’un arbitrage. La sentence se voit revêtue d’un régime particulier, qui n’est pas ouvert aux autres types d’actes délivrés par l’arbitre, qui sont les ordonnances de procédures. La qualification en tant que sentence arbitrale d’une décision est donc une question primordiale, lorsqu’il est question d’arbitrage. La notion de sentence arbitrale n’est pas identique d’un droit à un autre et la définition française de la sentence arbitrale issue de l’arrêt Sardisud de la cour d’appel de Paris apporte son lot d’incertitudes en termes de qualification. En effet, la confrontation de cette définition à un certain nombre de cas d’objet d’étude suscite des interrogations. Ces interrogations poussent à l’analyse de chacun des critères permettant sa qualification, questionnant leur interprétation, mais aussi parfois leur nécessité. Certaines « zones grises » font naître des doutes de qualification de certaines décisions délivrées par l’arbitre en tant que sentence arbitrale : c’est le cas de la mesure provisoire, mais aussi de la sentence d’accord-parties. D’autres cas de figure posent des difficultés de qualification en deux temps, avec tout d’abord la question de la qualification de la procédure en tant qu’arbitrage et ensuite celle de la décision qui en découle en tant que sentence arbitrale. En effet, ces deux qualifications sont étroitement liées, d’une part puisque la sentence arbitrale ne peut exister sans arbitrage et d’autre part, car il existe une porosité des critères utilisés dans les définitions de l’arbitrage et de la sentence arbitrale. Ces difficultés de qualification en deux temps existent dans le cadre de la procédure d’arbitrage à deux degrés, la procédure devant un Dispute Adjudication Board en matière de construction, lors des procédures pré-arbitrales d’urgence, mais aussi lors d’une demande d’adaptation de contrat à un arbitre. L’étude de l’ensemble de ces cas de figure offre la possibilité de mettre à l’épreuve la définition actuelle de la sentence arbitrale, de souligner ses déficiences et de proposer une nouvelle approche de la notion de sentence arbitrale qui se décompose en deux propositions : d’une part, une interprétation plus élargie de certains critères utilisés dans la définition de la sentence arbitrale et d’autre part la disparition de certains critères qui apparaissent injustifiés.

OHADA is amongst an international organization consists of arbitral tribunal within regions in Africa to deal with international disputes on investment and commercial related. Henceforth, the purpose of the study examines the effectivity of arbitral awards enforcement under the perspectives of OHADA arbitration rules. The study axed through qualitative approach by interpreting legal rules, analyzing cases and commenting the weakness of the charter in terms of enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards. The decision of OHADA arbitral tribunal shall contain intrinsically legal effect to country members, however it leads problematics as the enforcement and recognition rules may be different in every country involved. Hence, the study interpreted the legal rules concerning enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards, effectiveness of the rules. In addition it exerted also the challenges and significant recommendation for improving the arbitration rules on enforcement of arbitral awards. It is found the weakness of the arbitral awards locates on refusal of concerned State to enforce the awards under the domestic law for undefinable conflict of interest

La thèse porte sur « L’exécution des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA ». Elle a pour but de démontrer comment mettre en œuvre ces sentences sans se heurter à l’immunité d’exécution des personnes qui en bénéficient. En effet, en l’absence d’une exception arbitrale, l’interdiction de l’exécution forcée et des mesures conservatoires à l’encontre de ces personnes semble s’étendre à l’exécution forcée des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA. Or, comme ces dernières, l’immunité d’exécution a également un fondement contractuel ; c’est une règle d’ordre public de protection à laquelle le bénéficiaire peut renoncer. Donc, son application ne serait requise que si son bénéficiaire n’y a pas renoncé. Mais, pour être valable, la renonciation à l’immunité d’exécution doit être expresse, au sens du droit international coutumier, dont fait partie la Convention des Nations Unies sur l’immunité juridictionnelle des Etats et de leurs biens du 2 décembre 2004, applicable en droit OHADA, pour raison de droit. Cette condition de validité de la renonciation pose le problème de l’efficacité des contrats soumis aux règles impératives du droit public ou des conventions et règlements d’arbitrage. Alors, faudrait-il envisager la réécriture des modèles habituels de conventions et règlements d’arbitrage pour y intégrer cette condition ? Cette approche garantirait l’effectivité des sentences arbitrales administratives, sur le fondement de la force obligatoire des contrats (Pacta sunt servenda) et de leur exécution de bonne foi. Aussi, pourrait-on renforcer cette renonciation par la mention de biens affectés à l’activité en cause ou à l’exécution de la sentence qui s’ensuivra sans lien avec l’activité qui y a donné lieu. En tout état de cause, l’immunité d’exécution ne s’oppose ni à l’identification des débiteurs des condamnations pécuniaires des personnes publiques, ni à l’exequatur des sentences arbitrales adm inistratives, ni même à l’exécution volontaire ou spontanée desdites sentences. Ainsi, en dépit de sa conception absolue ou stricte, l’immunité d’exécution de l’OHADA a des limites à l’égard des sentences arbitrales administratives.

International commercial arbitration imposes heavy costs to the parties involved. In this regard, one of the new phenomena in international commercial arbitration is "financing of court costs by a third party investor. There are several reasons for the emergence of a third party investor: 1- involved parties may not have the resources to pay for the costs of arbitration or they may be reluctant to use their funds to finance the litigation: 2. the uncertainty of receiving compensation as a result of paying the arbitration fees might encourage the parties to transfer this risk to a third party; 3. having its own advantages and disadvantages. Since the funder holds the power of the purse, TPF entails the risk of the control of the claim being transferred to the third party funder. We might ask whether international arbitration tribunals should examine the extent of the investor's influence in determining the allocation of costs or not. In addition, is it essential to disclose the third parties contracts confidential? Overall, it is concluded that those mentioned Tribunals should allocate and guarantee the arbitration cost and agree on disclosing of third parties fund contracts under urgent conditions by international arbitration tribunal. مراجعه به داوری تجاری بین­ المللی هزینه­ های کلانی را برای طرفین درگیر در فرآیند داوری به همراه دارد و تأمین این هزینه ­ها در خیلی از موارد به‌صورت مانع در مراجعه به داوری نمود پیدا می‌کند. در همین راستا یکی از پدیده‌های جدید در داوری تجاری بین ­المللی، «تأمین مالی هزینه دادرسی توسط سرمایه ­گذار ثالث» است. ظهور سرمایه­ گذار ثالث دلایل متعددی دارد؛ اولاً طرفین دعوی ممکن است فاقد امکانات مالی کافی برای هزینه ­های داوری باشند، ثانیاً ممکن است طرفین دعوی تمایلی به استفاده از منابع مالی خود برای تأمین مالی دادرسی پرهزینه نداشته باشند، ثالثاً عدم قطعیت ذاتی که در زمینه امکان اخذ خسارت در نتیجه دادرسی وجود دارد می ­تواند باعث تمایل طرف منازعه به انتقال این ریسک به شخص ثالث شود. پرسش این است که آیا محاکم تجاری بین‌المللی تعیین تخصیص هزینه‌ها بپردازد یا خیر؟ و آیا افشاسازی قراردادهای شخص ثالث ضروری می‌باشد؟ در نهایت این نتیجه حاص می‌شود که محاکم مذکور باید به تعیین تخصیص و تضمین هزینه‌های داوری پرداخته و از سویی با افشاسازی قراردادهای تامین مالی شخص ثالث در داوری تجاری بین ­المللی، در شرایط خاص و ضروری موافقت نمایند.

As international trade is expanding, international trade and tax disputes are increasing. Under international tax agreements, there are two mechanisms for the resolution of potential disputes between contracting States. These agreements mostly rely on a form of negotiation known as the “Mutual Agreement Process (MAP)” as the main mechanism for the settlement of disputes. During the last decade, the inclusion of “ad hoc arbitration” as a new dispute resolution mechanism in international tax treaties has become popular to augment the MAP. Iran has long concluded several international tax agreements with several countries for the avoidance of double taxation. Due to Iran’s macroeconomic policy for relying more on tax revenues as an alternative to revenues from the petroleum industry, it is important that the Iranian lawyers seek to focus more on tax law and tax dispute resolution mechanisms. The purpose of this article is to introduce and critically analyse the dispute resolution mechanisms of international tax agreements. In this article, to make some suggestions for the improvement of the dispute resolution system of tax treaties, the strengths and weaknesses of the MAP and ad hoc arbitration, will be scrutinised by adopting a descriptive-analytical approach. همسو با گسترش تجارت فراسرزمینی،‌ میزان دعاوی مرتبط با تجارت و مالیات‌های بین‌المللی نیز افزایش یافته است. در بسیاری از معاهده‌های مالیاتی بین‌المللی برای حل اختلافات، دو ساز و کار با عنوان «فرآیند توافق دوجانبه» و «داوری موردی» وجود دارد. فرآیند توافق دوجانبه که مبتنی بر مذاکره بین طرفین معاهده است بعنوان ساز و کار اصلی و داوری موردی هم که در یک دهه اخیر در این معاهده‌ها رواج یافته، بعنوان ساز و کار مکمل فرآیند توافق دوجانبه برای حل اختلافات استفاده می‌شوند. ایران از دیرباز جهت اجتناب از مالیات مضاعف، معاهده‌های مالیاتی متعددی را با کشورهای مختلف منعقد نموده است. همچنین سیاست کلان اقتصادی کشور در سال‌های اخیر مبتنی بر اتکای بیشتر به درآمدهای مالیاتی بعنوان جایگزینی برای درآمدهای نفتی بوده است. لذا اهمیت شناخت این نوع معاهده‌ها و‌ مکانیسم‌های حل و فصل اختلافات آنها برای حقوقدانان کشور بیش از پیش آشکار می‌شود. هدف این مقاله معرفی،‌ تحلیل و نقد ساز و کارهای موجود در معاهده‌های مالیاتی بین‌المللی برای حل اختلافات می‌باشد. در این مقاله نقاط ضعف و قوت فرآیند توافق دوجانبه و داوری موردی به شیوه توصیفی-تحلیلی بیان و راهکارهایی جهت بهبود این مکانیسم‌ها ارائه می‌شود.

Article-by-article commentary

Bu tez, anlaşmazlıkları çözmede arabuluculuk konusunu ele almaktadır. Arabuluculuk konusu ticari mali muamelelerdeki anlaşmazlıklar ile sınırlıdır. Dolayısıyla tez ailevi anlaşmazlıklardaki nafaka gibi diğer mali anlaşmazlıklara değinmemektedir. Tez konusu fıkhi açıdan ele alındığı için, dört fıkhi mezhebin konuyla ilgili görüşleri, mukayeseli olarak işlenmiş, mezhepler arasında ihtilaf ve ittifak edilen noktalar ele alınmış ve görüşler arasında tercih yapılarak ortaya konulmuştur. Tez; bir mukaddime, üç bölüm, bir sonuç ve kaynakçadan meydana gelmektedir. Mukaddime de tezin planı, fihrist ve içerik ele alınmıştır. Tezin birinci bölümünde; arabuluculuk kavramının tanımı ve meşruiyeti, ikinci bölümde; arabuluculuğun rükünleri ve arabuluculukla ilgili hükümler ve şartlar, üçüncü bölümde ise; arabuluculuğun sonuçları ve etkisi ele alınmıştır. The dissertation aims to cover the subject of mediation in dispute resolutions exclusively in commercial disputes. Therefore, the research does not cover mediation in other disputes such as domestic disputes even when it's related to financial matters such as alimony. The research also studies mediation in commercial disputes from a jurisprudential perspective. Hence the jurists' opinions are presented and analyzed in a comparative approach to show its similarities, differences and present a jurisprudential preference. The dissertation is presented in an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion followed by the list of references and resources. The introduction provides an insight into the research contents and methodology. The first chapter discuss the definition of mediations and its legitimacy. The second chapter tackle the main pillars of mediations and clarify its ruling and conditions. Finally, the third chapter view the results of mediations and its expected impacts.

Dissenting opinions have increasingly gained acceptance in international arbitration, with arbitration rules and laws allowing them, by either providing directly for such a possibility, or indirectly, by referring to ‘arbitral awards taken with majority of votes.’ Alan Redfern’s seminal 2003 Freshfields Lecture on dissenting opinions has highlighted the benefits, as well as the concerns with dissenting opinions, in particular, with those directed to alleged irregularities in the arbitral procedure. More recently, in the motion to set aside the arbitral award in Vantage Deep Water Co. v. Petrobras Am., Inc., the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas has rejected Petrobras’ argument that ‘the arbitral process was [so] “fundamentally flawed” … that “produced the extraordinary Dissent filed” by Mr Gaitis.’ While it is accepted that dissenting opinions have no legal effects, and in particular no legal effects similar to arbitral awards, they can have significant impact on the set aside and recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Las opiniones disidentes han ganado aceptación en el arbitraje internacional mediante reglas de arbitraje y leyes permitiéndolos, ya sea aceptando directamente la posibilidad de emitirlos, o indirectamente refiriéndose a ‘laudos arbitrales decididos por mayoría de votos’. El seminario del 2003 de Freshfields dictado por Alan Redfern sobre opiniones disidentes llamó la atención sobre los beneficios y las preocupaciones, en particular, aquellas opiniones disidentes dirigidas a señalar irregularidades en el procedimiento arbitral. Más recientemente, durante el procedimiento para anular el laudo arbitral de Vantage Deep Water Co. v. Petrobas Am., Inc., la Corte del Distrito Sur de Texas rechazó el argumento de Petrobras de que ‘el procedimiento arbitral había sido [tan] “fudamentalmente viciado…” que “produjo la extraordinaria opinión disidente consignada” por el Sr., Gaitis’. Mientras que es aceptado que las opiniones disidentes no tienen efectos legales, y en particular ningún efecto legal parecido a los laudos arbitrales, pueden lograr impactar significativamente a lograr la nulidad y el reconocimiento y ejecución de los laudos arbitrales.