Bibliographie sélective OHADA

International commercial arbitration has established itself as the main dispute resolution mechanism for international commercial disputes. This increased visibility has drawn attention to arbitrators’ public role, leading to a well-established general perception that arbitrators are bound to special obligations, such as the duty to be independent and impartial or the obligation to assure that arbitral proceedings are not abused to achieve nefarious goals. Despite this general acknowledgement, little attention has been paid to the mechanisms that ensure that arbitrators adhere to these obligations. In particular, there has been limited analysis of the underlying mechanisms that incentivise the production and enforcement of professional norms in this field. <p></p> This thesis argues that the particulars of the arbitration market largely explains why the evolution of the regulation of international arbitrators has not matched those of other professions. At the same time, it will argue that those same particularities create incentives for several actors, most notably the arbitral community itself, to step in and occupy this regulatory vacuum. In particular, it explores the notion that the market strategies employed by arbitrators, arbitral institutions and other members of the arbitral community have the production of professional norms as a by-product. It further explores how the arbitral market tends to create an environment where compliance with professional norms is rewarded, leading, at the same time, the arbitral community to work as a network that promotes adherence to professional norms through mostly informal sanctions.

In international arbitration, arbitrators have procedural powers that allow them to manage and conduct the arbitration proceedings in a fair and efficient manner. These powers are typically set out in the arbitration rules that the parties have agreed to, such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) rules or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) rules. Arbitrators have the authority to determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration, including the admissibility, relevance, materiality, and weight of the evidence presented. They can also decide on the language to be used in the arbitration and the location of the hearings. In addition, arbitrators can issue orders and directions as needed to ensure the fair and efficient conduct of the proceedings. This may include ordering the production of documents or witness testimony, or setting time limits for the submission of evidence. The present paper critically examines the lex arbitri, the law that governs the arbitral proceedings, and makes out a case that lex arbitri cannot be challenged in court, as the parties to the arbitration have agreed to resolve their disputes through arbitration rather than through the courts. However, if the tribunal exceeds its powers or acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the lex arbitri, the parties may have grounds to challenge the tribunal's decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or due process. The paper summarises some key judgments in which Courts have upheld or quashed the Tribunals procedural orders. It will be concluded that the procedural powers of arbitrators in international arbitration are real and not perfunctory, though bounded within powers extended by Parties to the arbitral tribunal.

随着世界经济全球化，国内外企业之间的商贸往来迅猛发展，出现商事争议与纠纷的案件也呈现上升趋势，仲裁以其高效、快速等优点成为解决国际商事纠纷的最终方式之一。本文从仲裁的优点入手，首先阐述了完整仲裁过程中各个关键环节及注意事项，然后用流程图和横道图两种形式体现了一个完整的仲裁过程，最后就国际工程项目仲裁管理给出了具体建议。 With the globalization of the world economy, the commercial exchanges between domestic and foreign enterprises are developing rapidly, and the number of commercial disputes cases is growing quickly. Considering its advantages of high efficiency and speed, arbitration has become one of the final ways to solve international commercial disputes. This paper firstly presents the advantages of arbitration, then expounds the key stages and attention during the whole arbitration process. Flow chart and Gantt chart are drawn to show logics of the process. Specific suggestions on the arbitration management of international projects are given at the end of the article.

Les traités internationaux d'investissement permettent souvent à l'investisseur étranger de poursuivre le pays d'accueil devant un tribunal d’arbitrage international en cas de violation des dispositions du traité. Le nombre de différends entre investisseurs et États augmente si rapidement que certains pays expriment leur malaise à l'égard du régime actuel du droit international de l'investissement. Le premier chapitre donne aux lecteurs une vue générale sur l'efficacité et les effets de spillover de l'arbitrage international en matière d'investissement. En se basant sur une vaste littérature interdisciplinaire, nous réexaminons les critiques récentes et identifions la cause sous-jacente de la crise relative à l'arbitrage international. Nous concluons qu'il est possible pour les pays d'adapter le régime actuel du droit international à de nouvelles situations plutôt que de le quitter. Le deuxième chapitre étudie le règlement amiable des différends entre investisseurs et États. En nous fondant sur la riche littérature économique et sur une nouvelle base de données de différends relatifs à la violation des traités, nous constatons que l'expérience de l'État hôte, les perspectives du différend, la nature des mesures réglementaires, l'identité des investisseurs et les traités d'investissement néerlandais influencent significativement la probabilité d'un règlement rapide du différend. Le troisième chapitre se concentre sur une dimension institutionnelle de l'arbitrage : l'efficacité du CIRDI dans la résolution des différends. Le délai de résolution et la qualité du jugement final, représentée par la probabilité d'avoir des recours post-sentence, sont utilisés comme indicateurs de l'efficacité. Nous soulignons comment les caractéristiques biographiques et professionnelles des arbitres affectent l'efficacité du CIRDI.

Il est admis que l’arbitrage international est impliqué dans l’assurance des politiques étatiques. Les droits nationaux contiennent des dispositions édictées en vue de protéger les intérêts étatiques et l’arbitre se trouve souvent amené à se prononcer sur une question qui met en jeu ces intérêts. Une telle opération n’est envisageable que si la matière en question est arbitrable. La question qui se pose est celle de savoir quelles sont les limites de l’arbitre dans la protection et l’assurance des politiques étatiques. En réalité plusieurs branches du Droit ont pour finalité d’assurer les politiques étatiques. A titre d’exemple, le droit de la propriété intellectuelle, le droit des sociétés, le droit de l’investissement et le droit de la concurrence peuvent être cités. Ce dernier constitue une bonne illustration des politiques étatiques. En effet, quand l’arbitre se charge de la mise en œuvre du droit de la concurrence, il est en train d’assurer le respect des politiques étatiques de l’Etat concerné.De ce fait, l’interaction entre l’arbitrage international et les ordres juridiques est devenue une réalité. Cette réalité procède de l’arbitrabilité des matières relevant de l’ordre public des Etats. Certains d'entre eux reconnaissent l’arbitrabilité des litiges intéressant l’ordre public comme le droit de la concurrence. D'autres n’acceptent pas que l’arbitre tranche ce type de litiges.La question de l’arbitrabilité objective nous conduit à étudier les différentes interactions entre l’arbitrage international et les politiques étatiques. Dans le cadre de cette étude, nous nous livrerons à l'étude des manifestations de cette interaction et des limites que l’arbitre doit considérer, du fait que la matière assurant des politiques étatiques, y compris le droit de la concurrence, n'est pas entièrement sujette à l’arbitrage.

Le consentement étatique à la compétence des juridictions internationales est un élément incontournable du droit international public. Il régit le le fonctionnement de la justice internationale. Cependant, malgré son ubiquité, la notion est mal comprise. Ce travail, à travers la jurisprudence de la CIJ, d'ITLOS, de l'OMC et du CIRDI, redéfinit ce consentement, à la lumière de son histoire, son rôle et ses enjeux. Cette re-contextualisation est accompagnée d'une présentation et d'une analyse des enjeux contemporains entourant la notion.

In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment principle that had been laid down in a bilateral investment treaty between Sweden and Romania. Considering investment incentives as a breach of the EU regulations regarding state aids, the European Commission then rendered a directive, prohibiting the enforcement of the arbitration award by the member states. As articles 53 and 54 of ICSID emphasize that the awards are binding, the EU Commission’s act of rendering the aforementioned directive, and the member states refusal to comply with the award equals to giving the EU law primacy over international law, which should be considered as a breach of their international obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the viewpoints of the parties and the courts which were asked to enforce the award, as well as to determine the nature of their acts.

The assessment of the investor’s nationality is of utmost relevance to determine the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in Investor-State Arbitration. In treaty-based arbitration the investor must give evidence that is protected by the BIT, which means that he must have the nationality of the State party to the BIT that is not the host State. The case law considers irrelevant the fact that the investor possesses another nationality besides the nationality of the State party to the BIT and considers also irrelevant the fact that the invoked nationality is not the dominant one. Things get more serious if the investor has also the nationality of the host State (double nationality). In this scenario the investor cannot launch an ICSID arbitration against the host State because the Washington Convention forbids it. The possibility of an ad hoc arbitration is subject to the interpretation of the applicable BIT which has led to an unstable case law both because the BITs are not all equal and because different tribunals have analyzed the dominant nationality doctrine in different ways. A determinação da nacionalidade do investidor é um dos elementos mais importantes para a verificação da jurisdição dos tribunais arbitrais nas arbitragens de proteção de investimentos. Nas arbitragens baseadas em BIT (bilateral investment treaties) o investidor que inicia a arbitragem tem de demonstrar que está protegido pelo BIT que pretende invocar, pelo que terá de possuir a nacionalidade do Estado parte nesse mesmo BIT, que não seja o Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. A jurisprudência tem considerado irrelevante o facto de o investidor poder ter outras nacionalidades, para além da nacionalidade do Estado parte no BIT, desvalorizando igualmente o facto de essa nacionalidade não ser a nacionalidade dominante do investidor. Tudo se complica no caso de o investidor possuir igualmente a nacionalidade do Estado onde o investimento foi realizado. Nesse caso o investidor não poderá iniciar uma arbitragem com base no ICSID tendo em conta que a Convenção de Washington veda essa possibilidade. Já no caso de arbitragens ad hoc tudo dependerá da interpretação do BIT em concreto, o que tem levado a uma flutuação jurisprudencial, seja porque os BIT são diferentes, seja porque tem havido diferentes abordagens jurisprudenciais quanto à relevância da nacionalidade dominante.

An essential requirement of justice is that it should be dispensed as quickly as possible. It is a well-known adage that, « justice delayed is justice denied». Delay in litigation is caused by a number of factors. For example in litigation the parties have the right to make a counterclaim, right to make appeal etc. Arbitration has been able to overcome the factors which cause delay in litigation because in arbitration, parties are given the right to exclude the possibility to make a counterclaim, the right to make appeal has expressly been prohibited by the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Laws in Africa (OHADA)1 legislator etc. But since the OHADA legislator has not expressly prohibited counter claim in arbitration, it is recommended that counterclaim should be expressly prohibited in arbitration as it is the case with appeal. This article aims at identifying the causes of delay in the disposal of commercial disputes via litigation and how these causes of delay have been combated in arbitration.

L’arbitrage est un moyen de gestion de litige apprécié et privilégié par les acteurs du commerce international. Son bon fonctionnement dépend de la justice étatique. Ces deux appareils doivent entretenir un rapport tantôt fusionnel et tantôt concurrentiel. Le déroulement de cette relation peut réciproquement susciter des complications et de la méfiance. En France comme dans plusieurs autres États de l’Afrique subsaharienne, le juge étatique est le collaborateur de l’arbitre malgré l’envergure de leurs rapports. Ces États reconnaissent à la justice étatique son pouvoir explicite et implicite durant l’arbitrage. La présente recherche et étude aborde la mise en œuvre des compétences respectives attribuées à l’arbitre et au juge durant l’arbitrage. Afin d’accentuer et de pérenniser le bon déroulement de l’arbitrage en France et en Afrique francophone, cette étude s’est attardée sur la question de l’arbitrabilité et du développement économique. Après avoir énuméré des réalités freinant la floraison durable de l’arbitrage en Afrique, quelques solutions sont proposées pour le préserver de tout dysfonctionnement.

An effective Dispute Settlement Mechanisms (DSM) upholds a rules-based trade regime; enunciates, clarifies and develops the jurisprudence of its constituent trade agreement; and also ensures predictability in the trading regime. Article 20 of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) establishes the DSM. The AfCFTA Protocol on Dispute Settlement (“Dispute Protocol”) provides for the rules and procedures for the settlement of disputes. Unlike the majority of the African regional economic community courts that are modelled after the Court of Justice of the European Union, the AfCFTA-DSM follows a handful of other regional judicial bodies – such as the Southern African Community Development Community (SADC) and the Tripartite Free Trade Area Agreement (TFTA) – that are modelled after the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement mechanism.

The thesis's main objective is the analysis of transparency in international arbitration. To this purpose, we start from a broad conception of the notion of transparency and its relevance in the current Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and in the main international arbitration regulations: the ICSID, the ICC, UNCITRAL and its Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration, followed by a study of the most important issues of the arbitration procedure related to transparency, such as public hearings, the participation of third parties in the procedure (third-party funders and amicus curiae), the appointment of arbitrators and the conflict of interests and, finally, the analysis of transparency in the decisions (arbitral awards). The thesis proposes and bases, among other issues, the need to create an ICSID Court of Appeal and, if not, the most suitable mechanism for the implementation of an International Investment Tribunal

O acordo mediado é aquele alcançado pelas partes como resultado de um procedimento de mediação. Diversamente das sentenças arbitrais estrangeiras, as quais gozam de um instrumento global para seu reconhecimento e execução, sob os auspícios da Convenção de Nova York, os acordos mediados transnacionais não possuem um instrumento harmonizado ou uniformizado que lhes conferem a mesma segurança. A mediação é um método de resolução de conflitos cada dia mais utilizado nas relações comerciais transnacionais e o resultado alcançado pelas partes precisa ser provido de maior reconhecimento e exequibilidade transnacional. Assim, são apresentadas algumas questões conceituais sobre o reconhecimento e a execução dos acordos mediados comerciais transnacionais para, na sequência, evidenciando o fenômeno da transnormatividade e pluralidade normativa, apresentar o arcabouço jurídico existente e seus limites no âmbito europeu com a Diretiva Europeia 2008/52/CE e transnacional, com a Lei Modelo da UNCITRAL sobre Conciliação Comercial Internacional de 2002. Essas normas reforçam a importância da elaboração de instrumentos que possam melhor assegurar o reconhecimento e a execução dos acordos mediados transnacionais. São apresentados e examinados argumentos sobre a necessidade e eventuais formas para o reconhecimento e execução dos acordos mediados transnacionais, proporcionando um melhor acesso à justiça. Ao final, são evidenciadas formas para a harmonização/uniformização e contextualizada a questão no âmbito do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro.

Historiquement, l'arbitre et le juge sont un vieux couple. Cette union légale procède de l'assistance technique que ce dernier porte à l'arbitre. Les nombreux dysfonctionnements que connaissent les justices étatiques des États membres de l'OHADA poussent ces derniers à réorganiser cette institution phare des États. A l'instar des États-Unis, du Canada ou encore de la France, les États membres de l'OHADA peuvent également opter pour une déjudiciarisation qui, délesterait le juge étatique de toutes ses tâches supplémentaires, dont celles relevant de l'arbitrage, spécifiquement pour les États de cet espace juridique. Dans cette hypothèse, il s'agira de bâtir un système arbitral totalement affranchi de toute intrusion du juge étatique. Ces travaux s'inscrivent donc dans une logique de droit prospectif, l'objectif étant à terme de présenter un droit de l'arbitrage totalement émancipé de l'apport du juge et ainsi, véritablement conférer à cette justice privée son caractère indépendant tant vanté.