Bibliographie sélective OHADA

L’objectif principal de cette étude est de révéler le dispositif légal répressif de protection du cyberconsommateur. Les résultats de cette étude montrent que le législateur malien, communautaire, sous régional et régional y compris, ont misé beaucoup sur la protection des cyberconsommateurs, en adoptant une politique qui s’articule principalement sur la confidentialité, la protection de la vie privée, la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, et le règlement des conflits par les modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits (M.A.R.C.) déclenchés entre les différentes parties de la transaction en ligne.

2008年5月1日《中华人民共和国劳动争议调解仲裁法》正式施行，结合我国目前劳动争议处理机制的特点，创设性地设立了劳动争议一裁终局制度。该制度的设立是为了缩短劳动争议处理周期，减轻劳动者诉累，更好地维护劳动者的权益，这是中国首创且独有的一种制度。该制度运行已十多年，已成为劳动争议仲裁的一项重要制度，但该制度在实践运用中，暴露出许多法理及操作上的问题，阻碍了该制度的实施以及劳动仲裁功能的发挥。 The Labor Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China was officially implemented on May 1, 2008. In light of the characteristics of China’s current labor dispute resolu-tion mechanism, the law innovatively established the final arbitration award system for labor dis-putes. Designed to shorten the processing cycle of labor disputes, reduce the burden of litigation on workers, and better protect workers’ rights and interests, this system is an original and unique in-stitution in China. Having been in operation for more than a decade, it has become an important mechanism in labor dispute arbitration. However, in practical application, the system has exposed numerous problems in both legal theory and operational practice, hindering its implementation and the full functioning of labor arbitration.

国际投资仲裁的弊端随着国际投资仲裁案件数量的攀升而逐渐暴露，诸多国家对现有国际投资仲裁机制表达了质疑与不满。本应对国际投资仲裁裁决进行纠正的纠错机制却因其局限性而无法发挥其功能，导致国际投资仲裁的问题未得到有效解决。因此，为了突破既存纠错机制的困境并解决国际投资仲裁面临的问题，上诉机制因其理论优越性而成为重点讨论议题。在支持引入上诉机制的立场上，应当将上诉机制的审查范围扩大且不应在上诉机制中设立遵循先例制度。在各国提交的关于上诉机制引入模式的不同方案中应当选择常设多边上诉机制，并借鉴《基于条约的投资者–国家间仲裁透明度公约》的经验构建常设多边上诉机制引入路径。 The drawbacks of international investment arbitration have gradually been exposed with the rising number of international investment arbitration cases, and many states have expressed doubts and dissatisfaction with the existing international investment arbitration mechanism. The error-correction mechanism, which is supposed to correct international investment arbitral awards, is unable to perform its function because of its limitations, with the result that the problems of international investment arbitration have not been effectively resolved. Therefore, in order to break through the predicament of the existing error-correction mechanism and solve the problems faced by international investment arbitration, the appellate mechanism has become a key topic of discussion because of its theoretical superiority. From the position of supporting the introduction of an appellate mechanism, the scope of review of the appellate mechanism should be expanded, and a precedent-following system should not be established within the appellate mechanism. Among the different proposals submitted by various states regarding the model for introducing an appellate mechanism, a permanent multilateral appellate mechanism should be chosen, and the path for introducing such a mechanism should be constructed by drawing on the experience of the Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration.

Long ago before the creation of the state courts, men had resorted to arbitration for the resolution of diputes. Today, based on the principle of monopoly of the state to render justice, the power to judge is given only to the state. Rendering of justice is one of the areas where the state exeercises its sovereign powers. This has made us to ask the question : is arbitration a violation of the sovereignty of the state in the domain of dispute resolution ? Arbitration is not a violation of the sovereign powers of the state because, it is not all disputes that are resolved via arbitration (for example, crimnal, tax disputes etc can not be settled via arbitration) and the state courts intervene in arbitratin when ever it is necessary. The sate courts intervene in arbitration to grant exequatur, order interim mesaures etc. Nonetheless, since OHADA legislator has not given a complete list of all disputes that can not be resolve via arbitration, we recomend that OHADA should provide a list of all disputes whcih can be settle via arbitration as it is the case with the Arbitration Act of Zimbabw. This article aims at identifying those cases that can not be settled by way of arbitration and those instances in which the state courts intervene in arbitration. Avant la création des tribunaux étatiques, les hommes ont eu recours à l'arbitrage pour la résolution des litiges. Aujourd'hui, sur la base du principe du monopole de l'État à rendre la justice, le pouvoir de juger n'est conféré qu'à l'État. Le fait de rendre la justice est l'un des domaines dans lesquels l'État exerce ses pouvoirs souverains. Cela nous a amenés à poser la question : l'arbitrage constitue-t-il une violation de la souveraineté de l'État dans le domaine du règlement des différends ? L'arbitrage n'est pas une violation des pouvoirs souverains de l'État car, d'une part, tous les litiges ne sont pas résolus par voie d'arbitrage (par exemple, les litiges pénaux, fiscaux, etc. ne peuvent pas être réglés par arbitrage) et, d'autre part, les tribunaux étatiques interviennent dans l'arbitrage chaque fois que cela est nécessaire. Les tribunaux étatiques interviennent dans l'arbitrage pour accorder l'exequatur, ordonner des mesures provisoires, etc. Néanmoins, étant donné que le législateur de l'OHADA n'a pas établi une liste exhaustive de tous les litiges qui ne peuvent pas être résolus par arbitrage, nous recommandons que l'OHADA fournisse une liste de tous les litiges qui peuvent être réglés par voie d'arbitrage, comme c'est le cas dans la loi sur l'arbitrage du Zimbabwe. Cet article vise à identifier les litiges qui ne peuvent pas être réglés par voie d'arbitrage ainsi que les situations dans lesquelles les tribunaux étatiques interviennent dans l'arbitrage.

随着2025年新修订《中华人民共和国仲裁法》正式引入临时仲裁制度，我国仲裁体系迈入“机构 + 临时”双轨制发展新阶段。仲裁员选任作为临时仲裁程序的核心环节，其法律制度设计直接关系到临时仲裁的公正性、高效性与国际公信力。然而我国当前对于仲裁员的选任仍有不足，本文将对于当前的不足之处进行分析并提出完善建议，为临时仲裁制度的健康发展提供一定的思路。 With the formal introduction of the temporary arbitration system into the newly revised Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China in 2025, China’s arbitration system has entered a new stage of dual-track development featuring both institutional and temporary arbitration. As the core component of temporary arbitration procedures, the legal system design for arbitrator appointment directly impacts the fairness, efficiency, and international credibility of temporary arbitration. However, there are still deficiencies in the current appointment of arbitrators in China. This article will analyze the existing shortcomings and propose improvement suggestions, providing some ideas for the healthy development of the temporary arbitration system.

International business creates legal problems that do not fit neatly inside one country’s court system. Companies trade goods, share technology, build projects, and move money across borders, often with partners they may never meet in person. When a dispute happens, the main question is not only “Who is right?” but also “Where will the dispute be decided, and will the final decision be respected in other countries?” This research explains how Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - in particular international commercial arbitration - answers those questions. It opens with ADR as a general concept in the sphere of international law and relates it to how the United Nations (UN) approaches peaceful dispute settlement. It then explains, in detail, arbitration: how it operates, why businesses use it, and what makes it different from court litigation. After that, the research examines the most important UN-based legal framework that applies to arbitrations, especially the New York Convention of 1958 on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and the UNCITRAL Model Law that many countries employ to structure their legislation on arbitration. It also places arbitration inside the wider world of international commercial law, including how international contract rules such as the CISG reduce legal uncertainty in cross-border trade. Finally, it identifies major gaps: uneven court attitudes, misuse of the “public policy” exception, problems with non-signatories, delay and cost, unequal bargaining power, and the challenge of handling modern disputes involving multiple parties and urgent interim relief. The research ends with practical recommendations aimed at law reform, better drafting of arbitration clauses, improved court–arbitration cooperation, and stronger ethical and procedural safeguards.

全球经济一体化背景下，涉外争议数量激增，国际商事仲裁协议的有效性依赖于准确认定仲裁合意。在仲裁合意的形式上，《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下简称《纽约公约》)确立了仲裁协议采用书面形式的规则，但扩张了书面形式范围。但是我国现行《仲裁法》严格规定了仲裁合意需采用书面形式，我国涉外仲裁实践中还存在仲裁地与仲裁机构约定不明、准据法约定不明、合同仲裁条款的效力是否及于补充协议等问题。针对上述问题，本文以《纽约公约》为框架，结合国际商事实践与2025年新修订《仲裁法》的规定，针对仲裁合意形式存在瑕疵，构建“形式审查–实质判断–救济补正”的系统化认定路径；通过“明示合意”确定仲裁地与准据法；建立“分层默示推定”规则以及统一的仲裁协议独立协议适用标准，并结合交易的连续性行为与当事人的后续行为，认定合同仲裁条款的效力及于补充协议；从而优化“仲裁庭–法院”程序衔接，提升中国国际商事纠纷中涉外仲裁合意认定的确定性和稳定性，为新《仲裁法》的适用提供参考，进一步推动中国涉外仲裁制度与国际规则深度融合。 In the context of global economic integration, the number of cross-border disputes has surged, and the validity of international commercial arbitration agreements depends on the accurate determination of arbitration consent. Firstly, in terms of the form of arbitration consent, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the New York Convention) establishes the requirement for arbitration agreements to be in writing but has expanded the scope of written forms. However, China’s current Arbitration Law imposes strict written form requirements for arbitration consent, increasing the difficulty of determining the validity of cross-border arbitration agreements. Secondly, in China’s cross-border arbitration practice, issues such as ambiguous designation of the seat of arbitration and arbitral institutions, unclear choice of governing law, and whether the arbitration clause in the main contract extends to supplementary agreements also persist. To address these issues, this paper adopts the framework of the New York Convention, combines international commercial practices with the provisions of the newly revised Arbitration Law of 2025, and proposes a systematic approach for identifying arbitration consent with formal defects, constructing a path of “formal review - substantive judgment - remedial validation”. It aims to determine the seat of arbitration and governing law through “express consent”, establish a “layered implied presumption” rule, and develop a unified standard for the application of independent arbitration agreements. Furthermore, by considering the continuity of transactions and the subsequent conduct of the parties, it seeks to determine whether the arbitration clause in the main contract extends to supplementary agreements. This approach optimizes the procedural coordination between the “arbitral tribunal and the court”, enhances the certainty and stability of identifying cross-border arbitration consent in international commercial disputes in China, provides references for the application of the new Arbitration Law, and further promotes the deep integration of China’s cross-border arbitration system with international rules.

国际航空纠纷具有国际性并且在解决纠纷的过程中对高效有着高度追求，机构仲裁在启动和组成上的程序周期相较于临时仲裁而言，往往难以满足行业“快速止损”的需求。临时仲裁作为一种灵活的仲裁模式，为更好地解决国际航空纠纷提供了解决路径。但是我国国际航空临时仲裁程序发展仍面临诸多困难，文章意在探究我国国际航空临时仲裁程序目前存在的问题，并对促进该制度发展提出相应的建议。 International aviation disputes are international and have a high pursuit of efficiency in the process of dispute resolution, and the procedural cycle of institutional arbitration in initiation and composition often finds it difficult to meet the industry’s demand for “quick stop loss” compared with ad hoc arbitration. As a flexible arbitration model, ad hoc arbitration provides a way to better resolve international aviation disputes. However, the development of international aviation ad hoc arbitration procedures in our country still faces many difficulties, and this paper aims to explore the current problems existing in our country’s international aviation ad hoc arbitration procedures and put forward corresponding suggestions for promoting the development of the system.

ملخص: تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى إبراز فعالية التحكيم الإلكتروني في تسوية نزاعات التجارة الإلكترونية وذلك لتميزه بميزات عديدة تتمثل في: سرعة الفصل في النزاعات، السرية، توفير الجهد والوقت بالإضافة إلى تجاوزه لمشكلة تنازع القوانين، حيث تتم إجراءات هذا النوع من التحكيم عبر الوسائط الإلكترونية دون الحاجة إلى التواجد الفعلي للأطراف. الكلمات المفتاحية: التحكيم الإلكتروني؛ لوسائط الإلكترونية؛ إجراءات التحكيم الإلكتروني؛ حكم التحكيم الإلكتروني Abstract: This study aims to highlight the effectiveness of electronic arbitration in settling e-commerce disputes, as it is distinguished by several features, including: speed in resolving disputes, confidentiality, saving effort and time, in addition to overcoming the problem of conflict of laws. Procedures for this type of arbitration are conducted via electronic media without the need for the physical presence of the parties. Key words : Electronic arbitration; electronic means; Electronic arbitration procedures; Electronic arbitration ruling.

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.

The rapid expansion of digital assets and the metaverse, powered by blockchain and other advanced technologies, presents new challenges for dispute resolution and legal frameworks. This study examines the legal landscape of digital assets, highlighting complexities in contractual obligations, ownership, and governance. As blockchain enables decentralised transactions and ownership—raising issues around security, intellectual property, and jurisdiction—traditional legal systems struggle to keep pace. This research explores blockchain’s potential to enhance dispute resolution via decentralised arbitration and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, immutability, and transparency. Approaches to digital property disputes in the metaverse are evolving, and new alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, including mediation, arbitration, and online dispute resolution (ODR), are emerging. Additionally, this study investigates how technologies like virtual reality and artificial intelligence (AI) reshape regulation and enforcement in the metaverse. By analysing regulatory efforts, it identifies key areas where legal frameworks can be improved to protect digital asset owners, promote innovation, and enable fair conflict resolution in a fast-changing virtual economy. Ultimately, the findings underscore the need for adaptive, forward-looking legal responses that embrace technological progress to address the metaverse’s unique challenges.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming many professional spheres, and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is not an exemption. The paper will provide the definition of ADR origin and scope and then explain the fundamental ideas of AI and its history. Next, we proceed to analyze the application of AI tools to help ADR practitioners with mediation, arbitration, case management, and predict outcomes. Through the examination of the most recent literature, industry publications, and technology review, we show how AI can be employed to facilitate the process of document analysis, suggest negotiation tactics, conduct administrative work, and estimate the result of a case. We also examine ethical and practical issues like prejudice and transparency and give some suggestions regarding the establishment of AI as a responsible resolution of disputes. The paper concludes that AI can enhance the efficiency, accessibility, and strategic insights of the process of ADR, yet it should be under close supervision of the human judgment and ethical principles to make the process fair and trustworthy.

Investor–State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has become one of the most controversial processes of international economic law, and has straddled the nexus of foreign investment, sovereignty and development policy. Though ISDS was initially created to give its investors a sense of security and depoliticize their claims, lately it has gained critics over excess damage payments, regulatory stifling and political responsibility. The example of Pakistan, most notable in the Tethyan Copper arbitration exemplifies the disadvantages developing states suffer when signing one-sided investment treaties. The paper is a critical review of the historical developments, economic justification as well as the criticisms of ISDS using EU, U.S and Chinese experiences as a case example. It also gets involved in current reformist discussions such as the Multilateral Investment Court and the evaluations of their possible impact in terms of balancing investment protection and regulatory independence of states. The analysis outlines that it is in Pakistan interest to adopt a dual approach to the treaty modernization and institutional strengthening and also get actively involved in multilateral reform efforts in order to make ISDS consistent with the state policy of economic development and its sovereignty.

La cohabitation entre les mécanismes modernes et traditionnels de prévention et de gestion des conflits au Mali (notamment dans en milieu rural) est une réalité. Entre les mécanismes modernes et les mécanismes traditionnels, le choix des communautés porte essentiellement sur les seconds ; quoique les premiers ne sont pas non plus en abandon. Comme raisons avancées pour justifier leur choix, elles considèrent de façon générale que le recours aux mécanismes modernes ne permet pas de vider totalement leur contentieux. Les communautés trouvent que ces mécanismes modernes rendent leurs conflits plus complexes et plus difficiles à gérer. D’où la méfiance du règlement administratif ou judiciaire des conflits car trop couteux et aux procédures trop complexes. Sur la base de ces constats, il reste permis de constater la nécessité de réaliser des compromis entre mécanismes modernes et mécanismes traditionnels de gestion des conflits en revalorisant davantage les seconds. Seul à ce prix que les défis de la décentralisation (gouvernance locale) et ceux de la démocratie seront relevés. The coexistence of modern and traditional conflict prevention and management mechanisms in Mali (particularly in rural areas) is a reality. Compared to modern and traditional mechanisms, communities primarily choose the latter; although they have not abandoned the former either. As reasons given to justify their choice, they generally consider that resorting to modern mechanisms does not completely resolve their disputes. Communities find that these modern mechanisms make their conflicts more complex and more difficult to manage. Hence their distrust of administrative or judicial conflict resolution, as they are too costly and require overly complex procedures. Based on these observations, it remains clear that compromises must be made between modern and traditional conflict management mechanisms by further revaluing the latter. Only in this way will the challenges of decentralization (local governance) and democracy be met.

Despite being part of Australian law for more than 30 years, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (‘CISG’) has not secured the internationally minded interpretation that CISG art 7(1) requires. Australia’s international commercial arbitration (‘ICA’) laws, however, are routinely approached by Australian courts with an internationalist perspective, as their own interpretative rules require. It is tempting to conclude that Australia’s approach to interpreting its ICA laws is transferable to the CISG context. In this article I address a previously unexplored nuance affecting that conclusion. Australian courts routinely accept Singaporean, Hong Kong and New Zealand interpretative influence concerning ICA laws. In the CISG context, however, significantly less influence from those jurisdictions exists. That being so, I explore how Australia’s courts might better apply the CISG in an internationalist manner. First, I recommend that Australia’s courts emphasise to practitioners the need to consider the CISG’s application and its internationalist interpretation requirements. Second, I recommend that Australian courts use the amicus curiae procedure to solicit third party submissions addressing the CISG’s interpretation. Both techniques are applied by foreign courts in the ICA context and would assist Australian courts in discharging their CISG art 7(1) obligations.

In the face of the judiciary's inability to keep pace with the electronic revolution and to provide swift means for resolving e-commerce disputes, the need has become urgent to search for more successful ways to resolve disputes and disagreements between contracting parties while simultaneously adhering to the requirements of e-commerce, which are based on speed. As a result of these efforts, electronic arbitration has emerged. Arbitration stands as an exceptional pathway for dispute resolution, stemming from mutual agreement and diverging from conventional litigation methods. Its purpose lies in resolving disputes by reaching a verdict issued by an arbitration panel, which holds comparable validity to a court ruling امام عجز القضاء عن اللحاق بالطفرة الإلكترونية وتوفير وسائل سريعة لفض منازعات التجارة الالكترونية، أصبحت الحاجة ملحة للبحث عن سبل أكثر نجاحا لفض منازعات والخلافات بين المتعاقدين مع الحفاظ في ذات الوقت على متطلبات التجارة الالكترونية القائمة على السرعة بين أطرافها، كانت نتيجة جهودها التحكيم الالكتروني. يعتبر التحكيم طريق استثنائي لفض الخصومات، مصدره الاتفاق وقوامه الخروج على طرق التقاضي العادية، من أجل فض المنازعات للوصل إلى حكم يصدر عن هيئة التحكيم، يتمتع بحجية الأمر المقضي به شأنه شأن حكم الصادر عن القضاء.

随着我国电子商务的快速发展，消费纠纷的高频化、小额化与跨地域性特征对传统争议解决机制提出挑战。当今社会各方面发展都强调数字化转型，数字赋能正如火如荼为电子商务行业源源不断地注入能量。从技术层面来说，电商消费纠纷仲裁可以通过在线流程、区块链存证等技术手段实现，从而显著降低纠纷解决成本并提升效率。但在数据尚未正式在法律层面确权或者明确为某种权益的背景下，加之消费纠纷对立双方在信息、地位、经济上天然的不对等性，设计何种仲裁规则才能实质上促使纠纷双方形成平等的法律地位，从而公正地保护双方合法权益，有效化解纠纷是一个值得研究的问题。本文在传统商事仲裁、消费仲裁在域外实践以及国内最新试验实践的基础上，研究在我国电子商务场域建立消费仲裁制度的必要性、可能性与可行性，设置“消费者友好型”的仲裁规则，以期为消费仲裁制度制定者与电商平台治理者提供参考。 With the rapid development of e-commerce in China, the high-frequency, small amount and cross-regional nature of consumer disputes have challenged the traditional dispute resolution mechanism. All aspects of development in today’s society emphasize digital transformation, and digital empowerment is in full swing to inject energy into the e-commerce industry. From the technical level, e-commerce consumer dispute arbitration can be realized through online processes, blockchain deposits and other technological means, thus significantly reducing the cost of dispute resolution and improving efficiency. However, against the backdrop of data not yet being formally recognized or defined as a specific right at the legal level, and considering the inherent inequality between the opposing parties in consumer disputes in terms of information, status, and economic power, designing arbitration rules that can effectively promote equality in legal status between the disputing parties, thereby fairly protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both sides and effectively resolving disputes, is a question worthy of in-depth study. On the basis of traditional commercial arbitration, consumer arbitration in overseas practice and the latest domestic experimental practice, this paper studies the necessity, possibility and feasibility of establishing consumer arbitration system in China’s e-commerce field, and sets up “consumer-friendly” arbitration rules, with a view to providing references for the makers of consumer arbitration system and e-commerce platforms’ governors.

El presente ensayo surge de la experiencia del ejercicio profesional de la abogacía en la que en el ámbito judicial, extrajudicial, donde se ha observado diferentes vicisitudes en el desarrollo y ejecución de procesos judiciales, generando de esta forma ineficiencia en la administración de justicia; para lo cual como alternativa viable surgen los métodos alternativos de solución de conflictos con la promulgación de la Ley de Arbitraje y Mediación surgen en septiembre de 1997 como una opción ante la deficiente administración de Justicia.Sin embargo, esta ineficiencia procesal representa a su vez un obstáculo real para su ejercicio efectivo de derechos, especialmente obtener “justicia” para los ciudadanos que enfrentan demoras prolongadas y procedimientos burocráticos que terminan por vulnerar sus derechos. Uno de los objetivos del artículo es la de establecer las medidas efectivas que se pueden adoptar en instancia extrajudicial y elementos necesarios alcanzar la tan preciada “Justicia” siendo esta “la constante y perpetua voluntad de dar a cada quien lo que le corresponde” (Ulpiano, 2015).

有效的仲裁协议是仲裁的前提，仲裁协议的相对性限制承受实体权利义务的非仲裁协议签字方成为仲裁程序中的适格主体，但是仲裁协议效力扩张理论和合并仲裁理论为第三人参与仲裁程序提供了理论依据。为便于纠纷化解，涉及利益的当事人权益得以维护，仲裁第三人程序的构建能帮助解决当前复杂的纠纷。本文以仲裁协议为标准，结合仲裁理论将仲裁第三人分为基于同一仲裁协议的第三人和基于不同仲裁协议的第三人，并指出仲裁第三人制度要解决的核心问题是真正的纠纷当事人进入仲裁程序的问题。然后对相关案例和现有法律进行分析；对仲裁第三人程序准入路径分析，提出仲裁第三人程序准入模型，明确了第三人进入仲裁程序后可以成为当事人。最后对我国构建仲裁第三人制度的构建提出转变仲裁理念，立法改革 An effective arbitration agreement is the prerequisite for arbitration. The relativity of the arbitration agreement restricts non-signatories who bear substantive rights and obligations from becoming qualified parties in the arbitration process. However, theories on the expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and consolidated arbitration provide theoretical grounds for third-party participation in arbitration proceedings. To facilitate dispute resolution and protect the interests of parties involved, the establishment of an arbitration third-party procedure can help address current complex disputes. This paper uses the arbitration agreement as a standard and combines arbitration theory to categorize arbitration third parties into those based on the same arbitration agreement and those based on different arbitration agreements. It points out that the core issue that the arbitration third-party system aims to solve is the entry of genuine dispute parties into the arbitration process. Then, it analyzes relevant cases and existing laws; examines the pathways for access to the arbitration third-party procedure and proposes an access model for the arbitration third-party procedure, clarifying that third parties can become parties after entering the arbitration process. Finally, it suggests transforming arbitration concepts and legislative reforms to establish an arbitration third-party system in China.

El arbitraje internacional ha emergido como una herramienta clave para la resolución de controversias en el comercio sostenible, ofreciendo un marco eficiente y flexible. Este estudio analiza el uso del arbitraje en casos relacionados con comercio y sostenibilidad, evaluando su efectividad en la promoción de prácticas comerciales responsables.