Bibliographie sélective OHADA

La médiation n’est pas une invention du législateur de l’OHADA. Elle est aussi vieille que le monde. Sa consécration légale à travers l’Acte uniforme relatif à la médiation met en évidence son importance dans la résolution des litiges à l’amiable dans l’ordonnancement juridique de l’OHADA. Cela s’explique car la médiation renvoie à l’idée de justice. Le sentiment de justice n’est pas lié à une époque, il est plutôt inhérent à l’existence humaine et porte en lui-même une exigence, une valeur fondamentale universellement reconnue. Il s’agit du droit à la justice dont le respect permet d’apprécier de façon efficiente les valeurs auxquelles une société est attachée. Toute société a besoin de justice, mais elle ne peut la rendre de façon satisfaisante avec le procédé traditionnel qu’est le jugement. Le juge ne peut pas tout. Le bon sens dicte de l’éviter. Selon un adage populaire, « un mauvais accord vaut mieux qu’un bon procès ». Là où il y a une société, il y a des différends. Là où il y a des différends, il y a des modes de règlement des différends parmi lesquels la médiation occupe une place de choix. Avatar médiatisé de la justice consensuelle, panacée de la déjudiciarisation et de la déjuridicisation, la médiation est parée de toutes les vertus pour éviter le procès. Elle apparaît donc comme une alternative à laquelle peuvent recourir les parties en conflit pour régler leur malentendu à l’amiable tout en préservant leurs relations d’affaires. Elle n’est pas une procédure laissée à l’appréciation du juge, mais plutôt à celle des parties en conflit qui en sont les principales actrices. Cependant elles ne peuvent parvenir à la résolution de leur litige que par l’intermédiaire d’un tiers appelée médiateur et sans lequel la procédure serait incomplète. On a donc, d’un côté, les parties à la médiation qui la considèrent comme étant leur affaire et, de l’autre, le médiateur qui est considéré comme le chef d’orchestre de la procédure. Mediation is not an invention of the OHADA legislator. It is as old as the world itself. Its legal recognition through the Uniform Act on Mediation highlights its importance in the amicable resolution of disputes within the OHADA legal system. This is because mediation refers to the idea of justice. The sense of justice is not tied to a particular era; rather, it is inherent to human existence and carries with it a requirement, a universally recognized fundamental value. It is the right to justice, respect for which allows for the efficient appreciation of the values to which a society is attached. Every society needs justice, but it cannot deliver it satisfactorily through the traditional process of judgment. Judges cannot do everything. Common sense dictates that it should be avoided. According to a popular saying, “a bad agreement is better than a good trial.” Where there is society, there are disputes. Where there are disputes, there are ways of resolving them, among which mediation occupies a prominent place. As the media-friendly face of consensual justice and the panacea for reducing court cases and legal proceedings, mediation is seen as the ideal way to avoid litigation. It therefore appears to be an alternative that parties in conflict can use to settle their differences amicably while preserving their business relationships. It is not a procedure left to the discretion of the judge, but rather to that of the parties in conflict, who are the main actors. However, they can only resolve their dispute through a third party called a mediator, without whom the procedure would be incomplete. On the one hand, therefore, we have the parties to the mediation, who consider it to be their business, and on the other, the mediator, who is considered to be the conductor of the procedure.

L’arbitrage est une réalité en Afrique depuis longtemps déjà. C’est avec l’avènement de l’Organisation pour l’Harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des Affaires que ce domaine a pu avoir un dispositif bien structuré. Etant un mode alternatif de règlement des différends, l’arbitrage a pour fondement prépondérant la volonté des parties qui y font recours. Il s’est donc posé en filigrane la question de la portée de la volonté des parties à l’arbitrage OHADA. Le constat est que tout comme en matière contractuelle, elle est un élément indispensable à l’efficacité de ce mode de résolution des litiges. C’est la raison pour laquelle sa portée est traduite par une prégnance avérée, et un recul tout de même constaté.

The significant increase in the development of world economy over the last few decades have been experienced a considerable increase in the number of commercial disputes. When there is any business and dealings with contracts the question of dispute must be happened. But all of the parties actually want to run their business well and smoothly. In recent world a massive part of global economy depends on the trans-border business. But disputes in such business dealings sometimes can be the reasons to become risk the inter-relation of those parties. Which can affect the global economy as a whole. Comparing to the disputes inside domestic entities the trans-border or international business disputes can arise as bigger problem because of different jurisdictions, diverse legal systems and tradition. International Court of Justice (ICJ) already has the jurisdiction to try all the international civil suits but Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism also considered as a viable alternative to resolve the dispute over the court. The international arbitration arises as a way of alternative dispute resolution mechanism which upraise benefits both of the parties and maintain the confidentiality. In this paper details of international arbitration and the broader impact of this mechanism in the global business economy will be focused. The legal status and the implementation process of international arbitration also be the discussing point of this paper.

Il ne suffit pas d’adopter un nouvel Acte uniforme pour satisfaire à la demande ou garantir une sécurité juridique apparente du droit africain des affaires ou encore enrichir le régime uniforme du règlement des différends dans l’espace OHADA ; ou même pallier le vide législatif qui existait encore au sein de l’OHADA sur la médiation. Il ne s’agit pas d’un Acte uniforme de plus, mais d’un réel instrument juridique qui pourrait favoriser le retour des investisseurs et améliorer les conditions des affaires dans l’espace OHADA. Il faut chercher à savoir si cette nouvelle approche de la justice sera une réussite dans ledit espace.

The freedom of the parties to choose the applicable law to the merits is often presented as an important benefit of arbitrating disputes involving intellectual property (IP). Yet, the reality is more uncertain and controversial than is commonly assumed. Is party autonomy really permitted in IP arbitration? Should it be? This article answers these questions with regard to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, using recent examples drawn from arbitral practice. It first examines the situation where the parties only made a choice of contract law, and considers in this regard whether that law can and/or should be extended to infringement claims and/or the remedies to infringement, either directly or through the technique of characterization. After discussing the impact of overriding mandatory rules in contractual IP cases, the article then examines the situation where the parties chose a law to govern IP questions, including by way of a broad choice-of-law agreement covering non-contractual problems. It seeks to provide as much guidance as possible to arbitral tribunals, using mainly the distinction among infringement, ownership, and validity issues, and by distinguishing among different scenarios in which party autonomy is more or less acceptable.

Le tribunal arbitral tranche le litige conformément aux règles de droit, mais cette garantie est fragile car le législateur OHADA ajoute à moins que les parties lui aient conféré mission de statuer en amiable composition. Ces amiables compositeurs sont donc des arbitres qui peuvent ne pas appliquer la loi, qui peuvent statuer en équité, ce qui implique la reconnaissance, aux arbitres, d’un pouvoir modérateur sur les obligations contractuelles litigieuses. Mais cette autorisation de statuer en amiable composition ne leur interdit pas de statuer en droit, simplement, le tribunal arbitral amiable compositeur qui appliquerait exclusivement les règles de droit, doit s’expliquer sur la conformité de celles-ci à l’équité. L’arbitrage tend aussi à la satisfaction de l’idéal du procès équitable. C’est ainsi que l’équité est une exigence dans la constitution et lors des suites du tribunal arbitral. The arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the rules of law; but this guarantee is fragile because the OHADA legislator adds unless the parties have given him the mission to rule in amicable composition. These amicable composers are therefore arbiters who may not apply the law, who can rule in equity; which implies the recognition, to the arbitrators, of a moderating power over the disputed contractual obligations. But this authorization to rule in amicable composition does not prevent them from ruling in law. Clearly, the amicable arbitral tribunal which would exclusively apply the rules of law, must explain their compliance with fairness. Arbitration also tends to satisfy the ideal of a fair trial. This is how fairness becomes a requirement in the constitution and during the proceedings of the arbitral tribunal.

La présente contribution intitulée « Le règlement des différends en matière d’environnement au Cameroun » ; vise la mise en œuvre des règles de protection de l’environnement de par l’impact des actes mis en cause ou du préjudice causé, selon l’origine des acteurs ou selon les règles invocables. Ce faisant, elle s’intéresse aux solutions qu’apportent certaines dispositions relatives à la matière environnementale au cameroun. A l’analyse, on observe dans la première hypothèse, que les modes alternatifs de règlement non contentieux des différends se veulent plus rapide et accessibles tout en favorisant le respect des lois environnementales. Dans la seconde hypothèse, il s’agit de faire appel au juge judiciaire pour trancher les différends. De par son impact, la position du juge apparaît comme l’outil essentiel d’identification des dommages susceptibles d’être causés à l’environnement et constituant le socle sur lequel est construit le plan de gestion de l’environnement. The present contribution entiled « The settlement of environmental disputes in Cameroon » ; aims at the implementation of environmental protection rules according to the impact of the acts in question or of the damage caused, depending on the origin of the impact or according to the invocable rules. In doing so, it looks at the solutions provited by certain provisions relating to environmental matters in Cameroun. On analysis, it can be observed in the first hypothesis, the alternative methods of non-contentious settlement of disputes that are intented to be faster and more accessible while promoting compliance with environmental laws. In the second hyperthesis, it is a question of appealing to the judicial judge to settle disputes. Because of its impact, the position of the judge appears to be the essentiel tool for identifying the damage likely to be caused to the environment and constituting the basis on which the environmental management plan is built.

The Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa (MIOSA) is an industry ombud recognised under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA). The MIOSA regulates the interaction and provides for alternative dispute resolution in the automotive and related industries in South Africa. Moreover, the MIOSA is an impartial organisation that focusses on the resolution of disputes where a deadlock has been reached between the automotive and related industries and their customers, as well as relationships among participants in the automotive and related industries to the benefit of the parties. The role of the MIOSA is to make recommendations in cases referred to it where parties cannot reach common ground and are unable to arrive at mutually acceptable agreements following a dispute. This analysis explores and proffers possible solutions to address the challenges that impede the MIOSA from discharging its role and mandate under the CPA effectively in resolving consumer disputes in the South African automotive industry.

Corporations have been established and recognized in Indonesia as entities engaged in business activities since 1602. In these business activities, disputes can occur regarding the non-disbursement of Bank Guarantees through the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (BANI). Therefore, this research uses the Normative Juridical method through a literature review. The research questions considered are (1) What is the guarantee of legal certainty in the process of resolving business disputes regarding Bank Guarantee payments through the Arbitration Board? (20) What can the Supreme Court Decision provide legal certainty for resolving business disputes through arbitration in Indonesia? The process of resolving business disputes in default on Bank Guarantee payments through the Arbitration Court has fulfilled the legal certainty principle. The results showed that the rules were available through different Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Laws, as well as other laws applied consistently in the BANI Surabaya Decision Number 59/ARB/BANI-SBY/XI/2021. The Supreme Court Decision Number 918 B/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2023 tried the appeal case and rejected the application for annulment of the arbitration decision from the Applicant. In addition, legal certainty is created for corporate legal efforts to take the arbitration route.

This article explores the terms “BRI dispute” and “BRI jurisprudence”. It undertakes a practical and theoretical analysis that considers whether “BRI disputes” have distinct and visible characteristics and are capable of being identified in a legal sense. This is important since practitioners – arbitration centres and law firms – use the term broadly and without specific criteria. By exploring the customary usage and the approach of legal scholars to the term, presenting examples of “BRI disputes” and examining their unique features, and constructing a theoretical approach (utilizing the concepts of ratione materiae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione personae; and considering the jurisprudence of the ICSID), this article moves from a broad to a narrow analysis to develop both a definition and a system of registration of “BRI disputes” for use by academics, practitioners, and policymakers.

This study investigates the impact of the arbitration cases under the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) scheme on cross-border direct investment in the form of merger and acquisition deals. The initiation of ISDS claims has significant and negative effects on direct investment from the claimant home country to the developing or weak-institution responding country. Indirect expropriation claims often have stronger effects than direct expropriation claims. The investor-win arbitration cases produce a significant substantiation effect by reducing merger flows, while the state-win cases produce an acquittal effect that encourages the subsequent capital inflow to the respondent state. Both effects are more striking in weak-institution or less developed target countries. We also detect some spillover effects of ISDS arbitration.

On 23 November 2017, OHADA member states adopted the Uniform Act on Mediation. The Act lays down rules relating to mediation of disputes which, if successful, ends in a settlement agreement. Settlement agreements that are not freely respected by the parties will have no effect unless they are forcefully executed. Forceful execution is made with the help of a court or notably public who are empowered to insert an executory formula on the agreement after verification of its regularity. These local authorities involved in the enforcement process rely on domestic laws of member states which vary from state to state. This has the effect of tainting the harmonization process intended by the OHADA lawmaker and may be inimical to investors. This raises the problem of the suitability of the Act to dispute settlement as regards enforcement of settlement agreements. With the help of qualitative and comparative analysis, this article brings to limelight the intricacies of the enforcement of settlement agreements underOHADA. It concludes that enforcement of settlement agreements is rendered simple and rapid but faces serious drawbacks which could be alleviated by setting up OHADA mediation institution to oversee the entire mediation process, besides other recommendations.

L’acte uniforme originel sur les procédures collectives avait prévu une procédure préventive, le règlement préventif, au bénéfice des débiteurs qui traversent des difficultés sérieuses. La nécessité de la consécration d’une procédure à la fois amiable et préventive s’est imposée. C’est désormais chose faite depuis la révision de 2015. Le législateur a ainsi consacré les procédures de conciliation et de médiation à l’article 2-1 de l’Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif (AUPC). Si pour la mise en œuvre de la première, il faut se référer à l’AUPC, la deuxième est règlementée dans l’Acte uniforme sur la médiation (AUM). Nous proposons donc dans cette étude, à la suite de la présentation de ces procédures amiables comme modes anticipatifs et efficaces de sauvetage d’entreprises, des pistes de réflexion afin de rendre effectif le recours à cet arsenal juridique.