Bibliographie sélective OHADA

International arbitration is often presented as an efficient and appropriate alternative to domestic court systems for resolving conflicts. For international arbitration to be effective, it is essential that the procedure adopted be open and accountable. This article will discuss the significance of openness in international arbitration and how it may promote justice, foster trust, and avoid corruption and misbehaviour.

A reconstruction of CCMA commissioners' perceptions of dispute resolution in South Africa: A multi-perspective approach This study focuses on the problems in the dispute resolution system in South Africa. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of commissioners of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) regarding the capacity of parties to effectively deal with labour .conflict and disputes within the legal framework provided by the Labour Relations Act (LRA) (66/95). This includes an investigation into the reasons for the high referral rate of unfair dismissal cases to the CCMA and the influence of the case-overload on the effective functioning of the disputé resolution system. The · functionalist and conflict theoretical perspectives are used to study the structural aspects of the dispute resolution system and to explore structural strain. The interactionist perspective is used in the methodology of this study to reconstruct the perceptions of a group of CCMA commissioners. This study is predominantly of a qualitative nature and was conducted in an exploratory manner through in-depth interviews and e-mail questionnaires. Dunlop's open systems approach allowed for the conceptualisation of the major dispute resolution components of the labour relations system. T!Je analysis of the transformation of conflict formed the basis for understanding the background, the problem statement, the aims and assumptions of this study. lt was found that the guidelines in Schedule eight of the LRA (66/95) have become the norm for dealing with conflict within an enterprise, creating complex and technical processes for dealing with disputes. However, most of the employers and individual employees do not have the knowledge and skills to operate effectively in the system. This has led to a new type of adversarialism in the individual employment relationship, which is based on rights, rules and power. The very technical nature of the internai conflict resolution mechanisms, the incapacity of the parties and the adversarial nature of the labour relationship have resulted in the high referral rate and consequent problems that the CCMA is experiencing.

This thesis examines two research questions: first, whether confidentiality in international commercial arbitration (‘ICA’) is an ‘accepted principle’, and second, if the answer to the first question is positive, whether confidentiality should be regulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (‘UNCITRAL’) Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985), with amendments adopted in 2006 (‘Model Law’) and how such a provision would be framed. To place the questions in context, there is empirical evidence that confidentiality is expected by users of ICA but despite this expectation there appears to be no uniform approach on confidentiality in national laws and institutional rules.

仲裁协议是仲裁的起点与基石，但在我国的仲裁实践中仲裁协议内容不规范，出现各类瑕疵的情况比比皆是。我国的仲裁法对于瑕疵仲裁协议并没有规定针对性的解释原则或系统性的方法，只规定了当事人可以就纠纷达成补充协议，若无法达成补充协议，则该瑕疵仲裁协议无效。因此相较于国际上诸多尽可能将仲裁协议效力尽可能作有效认定的国家与国际组织而言，我国法院在裁定瑕疵仲裁协议的效力时往往会过于严苛，将协议效力裁定无效。本文目的在于借鉴外国法对于瑕疵仲裁协议效力的认定标准以及解释原则，为我国法院实践中针对瑕疵仲裁协议效力的处理提出行之有效的认定与解释原则。 The arbitration agreement is the starting point and cornerstone of arbitra-tion, but in China's arbitration practice, the content of the arbitration agreement is not standard-ized, and various defects are common. China’s arbitration law does not stipulate the principle of targeted interpretation or systematic method for defective arbitration agreements, but only stipu-lates that the parties may reach a supplementary agreement on the dispute, and if a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the defective arbitration agreement is invalid. Therefore, compared with many international countries and international organizations that try to make as effective a determination as possible about the validity of an arbitration agreement, Chinese courts tend to be too strict in ruling on the validity of a defective arbitration agreement and rule that the validity of the agreement is invalid. The purpose of this paper is to refer to the determination standards and interpretation principles of foreign laws on the validity of defective arbitration agreements, and to propose effective principles for the determination and interpretation of the validity of defective ar-bitration agreements in the practice of Chinese courts.

国际商事仲裁协议的有效性关系到仲裁协议的仲裁准据法确定、裁决执行、仲裁机关选择等问题，因而在国际商事仲裁实践中具有重要意义。影响仲裁协议效力的原因一般为仲裁条款约定不明，约定机构不准确，协议内部矛盾等原因。对于国际贸易中，仲裁协议的效力可以参考国际通行的效力确定准则，尽可能撮合交易，确立有效性。可以通过利于有效性、准据法分裂和突破书面形式等辅助手段确定有效性，借以实现国际仲裁协议的有效性最大化。 The validity of an international commercial arbitration agreement is related to issues such as the determination of the applicable law of the arbitration agreement, the enforcement of the award, and the selection of the arbitration institution, so it is of great significance in the practice of international commercial arbitration. Reasons that affect the validity of an arbitration agreement are generally unclear stipulations in the arbitration clause, inaccurate agreement institutions, and internal contradictions in the agreement. For international trade, the validity of an arbitration agreement can refer to the internationally accepted criteria for determining the validity of an arbitration agreement to match transactions as much as possible and establish validity. Validity can be determined through auxiliary means such as favoring validity, splitting applicable law, and breaking through written forms, so as to maximize the validity of international arbitration agreements.

国际投资仲裁实践中，仲裁庭随意解释、扩大解释、解释不一致或背离缔约国真实意图的情形极为常见。《维也纳条约法公约》第31条至33条作为习惯国际法条约解释的黄金法则，对仲裁庭条约解释权的引导至关重要。利用法律解释理论，对《维也纳条约法公约》第31条的重构，利用该公约引导与规范仲裁庭的条约解释权，强化文本解释的框架作用，将文本解释与目的解释相结合，正确理解嗣后解释与系统解释的辅助作用，引入演化解释法，以推动仲裁庭正确理解投资条约条款，作出准确、有效、合理的解释。 In the practice of international investment arbitration, it is extremely common for arbitral tribunals to arbitrarily interpret, expand interpretation, interpret inconsist-ently or deviate from the true intent of the contracting parties. Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Con-vention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), as the golden rule of treaty interpretation in customary state law, are crucial in guiding the power of treaty interpretation of arbitral tribunals, using the theory of legal interpretation, the reconstruction of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea-ties, the use of the Convention to guide and rule the treaty interpretation power of the arbitral tri-bunal, strengthen the framework role of textual interpretation, combine textual interpretation with purposive interpretation, correctly understand the auxiliary role of subsequent interpretation and systematic interpretation, and introduce the evolutionary interpretation method in order to pro-mote the arbitral tribunal to correctly understand the provisions of investment treaties and make accurate, effective and reasonable interpretation.

The success of commercial arbitration law and practice is achieved as a result of several factors. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether efficacy of commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hindered by the legal framework which does not conform to the United Nations Commission Trade Law on International Commercial Arbitration, UNCITRAL Model Law. Examining such other factors as support of the courts and government, the study specifically investigated the impact of lack of education about commercial arbitration for the business community and unregulated arbitrators on the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho. With the use of the desk reviews and interviews as data collection methods for this study, the evidence obtained has revealed that efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho is hampered by the law which is outdated and inconsistent with the UNCITRAL Model law. As such, support for the mechanism by the courts has been found to be at stake or adversely affected. Lack of support from the government and that of awareness campaigns about the mechanism for the business community have also been noted for constraining the efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in the country. Further noticeable from the findings include limited commitment from the legal profession and unregulated arbitrators, both of which could have significantly obstructed the mechanism. The study thus concludes that there is an urgent need for law reforms and concerted commitment from the relevant stakeholders to help towards achieving efficacy of the commercial arbitration, law and practice in Lesotho.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

Cet article, est une contribution à la réflexion sur le statut de l’arbitre en droit OHADA, entamée par plusieurs chercheurs africains, et au centre de laquelle se trouve la problématique de l’immunité en droit de l’arbitrage OHADA. Le débat sur le choix d’un système d’immunité et la définition d’un véritable statut pour l’arbitre est toujours d’actualité. Cet article fait le point global des approches et conceptions sur l’immunité diplomatique des arbitres de la CCJA. En effet, le débat sur la responsabilité touche de façon étroite celui du statut de l’arbitre : la responsabilité étant la résultante d’un statut, cela nous permettra d’aborder la question du statut juridique de l’arbitre en droit OHADA. Dans un contexte où les différentes législations, la jurisprudence ou encore les conventions internationales, n’abordent que très peu le statut de l’arbitre, la détermination des éléments permettant de préciser les contours des devoirs, droits et obligations de l’arbitre, contribuera de façon certaine à mieux appréhender la mission de l’arbitre.

The position of international arbitration awards which is different from national arbitration awards and district court decisions causes differences in the rights and obligations of the parties to arbitral awards, especially those relating to legal remedies against awards. The formulation of the problem in this study is how are the rights and obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia. The research method used in this article is legal research using primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study state that the rights possessed by the parties to international arbitral awards in Indonesia are related to legal remedies against decisions, namely corrections to these international arbitral awards. The corrections to the decisions here are not only limited to administrative corrections but also corrections related to the principal international arbitral awards made before the request for execution was registered at the Central Jakarta District Court. While the obligations of the parties to international arbitral awards are to carry out international arbitral awards in good faith.

This introduction provides the reader with a general characterization of the 39 Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs) created by the 1919-1923 peace treaties to address disputes between private persons and between private persons and states as a result of the First World War. Noting that the rich literature published on the MATs was followed by near-silence after 1945, it mentions the numerous questions that they still raise today, before explaining how the various contributions to the book edited by the authors address them.

The processes by which a model of social regulation channels its way of resolving conflicts make the strength of its conflict resolution system. Court justice has lost its exemplary function. The crisis of effectiveness and the crisis of legitimacy that the processual mode of dispute resolution is undergoing in our States, make it a justice system that is considered to have broken down. The need for justice thus directly raises the question of social regulation, the relevant model of social regulation. The call for a ‘right to sue’ open to the system of alternative dispute resolution rather than restrictively to the judiciary to resolve disagreements is the spearhead of the combinatorial approach to the administration of conflicts, the ferment of a plural approach to access to justice. Has Cameroonian law begun to renew its vision of the right to take legal action? Does it renew the dominant classical approach to the system of social regulation? The study notes the global and integral recognition of the alternative dispute resolution system, another, less contentious, way of dealing with disputes, the emergence within the traditional dispute resolution system of a right to amicable dispute resolution, but in an embryonic state. It then poses, in a prospective approach, the need for a unitary and global approach to private justice as challenges to be met to ensure the quality of this form of justice.

يعتبر الإستثمار من أهم العوامل المساعدة في عملية تطوير إقتصاديات الدول وتنميتها تكنولوجيا، لذلك يجب على الدولة المضيفة أن تحقق مناخاً إستثمارياً مشبعاً بالتسهيلات والضمانات لجذب الإستثمار، وهذا يعتبر حماية قانونية للمستثمر الأجنبي. ترتبط عقود الإستثمار الدولي بالخطط التنموية للدولة المضيفة، وفي ظل تشعب العقود الإستثمارية باعتبارها مركبة، فإنّ النزاع متوقع لا محالة، ونظرا لمزايا التحكيم، وفي ظل تخوف المستثمر الأجنبي من قضاء الدولة المضيفة، فإنّ التحكيم الدولي أصبح بمثابة القضاء الطبيعي لتسوية منازعات العقود الإستثمارية، وهذا ما يترتب عليه استبعاد القضاء الوطني من نظر النزاع وكذلك إعمال مبدأ الإختصاص بالإختصاص واِستقلال التحكيم عن العقد الأصلي. Abstract : Investments is considered one of the most important factors that helps the process of developing country’s economies and technology. Therefore, the host country must achieve an investment atmosphere imbued with facilities and guarantees to attract investments, and this is a legal protection for the foreign investor. International investment contracts are linked to the host country’s development plans, given the complexity of investment contracts as composed, the dispute is inevitably expected, and the view of advantages of arbitration, and in the view of the foreign investor’s fear of the host county’s judgment, international arbitration has become the natural judiciary for settling investment contacts disputes, and this results in the exclusion of the national judiciary from examining the dispute, as well as the implementation of the principle of jurisdiction and the independence arbitration from the original contracts.

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.

仲裁保密性在传统上被默认为仲裁的一部分，是民商事仲裁的显著特征和重要优势，也是民商事主体选择仲裁的重要原因。但随着社会的发展，仲裁保密观念开始发生转变，提高仲裁透明度的呼声越来越高，仲裁保密性呈现明显弱化趋势。即便如此，基于仲裁保密制度自身的价值、公开先例的缺乏以及保密性作为仲裁的重要特征，仲裁保密性仍有存在的必要性，不能轻易废除。面对新的发展形势，仲裁保密性相关研究应与时俱进，不断创新，为仲裁活动的开展创造良好的保密环境。基于此，为更好地维护仲裁保密性，应明示仲裁保密义务、采用“原则 + 例外”立法模式，并重视仲裁规则对保密性的确认。 The confidentiality of arbitration is traditionally regarded as a part of arbitration by default, which is an important characteristic and advantage of civil and commercial arbitration, and also an important reason for civil and commercial subjects to choose arbitration. However, with the development of society, the concept of arbitration confidentiality began to change, the call to im-prove the transparency of arbitration is growing higher and higher, the confidentiality of arbitration shows a clear trend of weakening. Even so, due to the value of the arbitration confidentiality system, the lack of public precedent and confidentiality as an important feature of arbitration, the confidentiality of arbitration is still necessary and can not be easily abolished. Facing the new development situation, the research on arbitration confidentiality should keep pace with the times, keep innovating and create a good environment for the development of arbitration. Therefore, in order to protect the confidentiality of arbitration, we should clearly state the obligation of arbitration confidentiality, adopt the legislative mode of “principle + exception”, and attach importance to the confirmation of the confidentiality of arbitration rules.

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.