Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Les modes alternatifs de règlement de conflits ont révolutionné le monde du règlement de litiges grâce à leurs nombreux avantages. Les coûts moins onéreux en dehors de l’arbitrage, la célérité des procédures, la confidentialité, le dialogue ouvert, l’émergence de solutions créatives profitant plus ou moins à chacune des parties, constituent entre autres les nombreux éléments qui les rendent plus efficaces par rapport à une procédure contentieuse devant une instance judiciaire ordinaire. Cependant, ces modes alternatifs de règlement de conflits font quand même face à bien d’écueils qui les rendent au fil du temps moins efficaces. L’imprévisibilité des situations conflictuelles apportées à la table des instances de résolution, entraîne une inadéquation des solutions envisagées. De plus, le capital humain fait aussi défaut quand on sait que le nombre de ces règlements amiables de litiges de ces dernières années accroît considérablement, acculant ainsi le personnel de gestion de ces conflits qui se retrouve à faire face aux mêmes défis que le personnel des instances judiciaires contentieuses. De plus, l’humain ne pouvant se détacher indéfiniment de ses émotions peut très rapidement tomber dans la partialité quand il s’agit de prendre des décisions. Il est dès lors capital de penser à une modernisation de ces modes alternatifs de règlement de conflits afin de les rendre plus efficaces par le biais de nouveaux moyens technologiques. Certes, la Résolution de litiges en ligne existe depuis quelques années maintenant. Cependant, il est temps d’y apporter de nouveaux ingrédients afin de rendre meilleure la recette. Alternative dispute resolution has revolutionized the world of dispute resolution thanks to its many advantages. Lower costs, faster procedures, confidentiality, open dialogue and the emergence of creative solutions that benefit both parties to a greater or lesser extent - these are just some of the factors that make alternative dispute resolution more effective than litigation in the ordinary courts. However, these alternative dispute resolution methods do face a number of pitfalls that make them less effective over time. The unpredictability of conflict situations brought to the resolution table leads to inadequate solutions. What's more, human capital is also in short supply, as the number of out-of-court settlements in recent years has risen sharply, leaving conflict management staff facing the same challenges as staff in contentious legal proceedings. What's more, since human beings are unable to detach themselves from their emotions indefinitely, they can quickly fall into the trap of bias when it comes to making decisions. It is therefore vital to consider modernizing these alternative dispute resolution methods, in order to make them more effective through new technological means. Online dispute resolution has been around for some years now. However, it's time to add new ingredients to make the recipe even better.

Le droit des investissements internationaux s'est construit sous l'impulsion des tribunaux arbitraux qui, dans leur rôle d'interprétation du droit international coutumier et des traités d'investissement, ont contribué à enrichir le droit matériel des investissements. La multiplication des sentences rendues a constitué progressivement une véritable jurisprudence, visant à équilibrer la relation entre l'investisseur étranger et l'État hôte. Cependant, l'interprétation des traités par les tribunaux arbitraux s'est souvent faite dans un objectif de protection de l'investisseur face à la puissance publique de l'État, jusqu'à inverser parfois le rapport de force entre les deux opérateurs. De plus, l'absence de principe de précédent en arbitrage d'investissement a contribué à créer un flou notionnel, du fait des interprétations changeantes des dispositions des traités protégeant l'investisseur étranger. 2Cette étude vise donc à faire état du droit positif des investissements internationaux en déterminant un courant doctrinal commun aux sentences arbitrales. Une fois ce travail de compilation réalisé, l'objectif sera alors de déterminer l'état de l'équilibre des forces entre les deux opérateurs et proposer un rééquilibrage du droit des investissements. Ce rééquilibrage passe notamment par une redéfinition des critères jurisprudentiels imprécis ou changeants et une adaptation de la protection de l'investisseur étranger aux enjeux modernes du commerce international, tout en veillant à permettre à l'Etat hôte de conserver ses prérogatives de puissance publique. International investment law has largely been shaped by arbitral tribunals, whose interpretative function with regard to customary international law and investment treaties has contributed significantly to the development of substantive investment law. The proliferation of arbitral awards has progressively given rise to a de facto jurisprudence, aimed at striking a balance between the interests of foreign investors and the sovereign rights of host States. However, treaty interpretation by arbitral tribunals has often been guided by a protective logic in favour of the investor, at times to the extent of inverting the power dynamic between the two actors. Furthermore, the absence of a binding precedent doctrine in investment arbitration has fostered conceptual uncertainty, resulting from fluctuating interpretations of the treaty provisions safeguarding foreign investors.This study seeks to provide an overview of the current state of positive international investment law by identifying a coherent doctrinal trend emerging from arbitral case law. Based on this synthesis, the aim is to evaluate the prevailing balance of power between the investor and the host State, and to propose avenues for rebalancing investment law. Such rebalancing entails, in particular, a clarification of vague or inconsistent jurisprudential standards and an adaptation of investor protection to contemporary challenges of international trade, while ensuring that host States retain their sovereign regulatory authority.

En dépit de l'importance cruciale de la justice au sein de notre société, il est manifeste que le système judiciaire béninois présente d'importants défis en matière d'accessibilité, d'efficacité et de confiance publique. Les coûts de la justice, la perte de contrôle des problèmes, les délais d’attente avant procès, la structure labyrinthique des tribunaux, l'impossibilité de se représenter seul, ainsi que le caractère inhospitalier des tribunaux constituent des indicateurs d'un système judiciaire défaillant. En effet, des limitations dans l'accès à la justice alimentent la méfiance des citoyens à l'égard du système judiciaire étatique. Dans un souci de célérité et d'efficacité de la justice, un vent de généralisation des modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits et de recours des technologies souffle sur les procédures judiciaires en général et sur les procédures civiles et commerciales en particulier. S’inscrivant dans cette logique, la loi n° 2020-08 du 23 Avril 2020 portant modernisation de la justice en République du Bénin n’a pas manqué de faire faire une place aux modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits. Elle met également un accent sur la dématérialisation progressive des procédures judiciaires concernant la saisine des juridictions, le suivi des procédures et le paiement électronique des frais afférents. Cependant, malgré ces mesures à encourager, les juridictions, au risque de rompre, ploient toujours devant les litiges fonciers et commerciaux. La présente étude a pour objet d'analyser les forces et les faiblesses du système judicaire béninois et vérifier si la modernisation des modes alternatifs de règlement des différends et l’intégration de la technologie dans les processus de résolution des différends peuvent être un vecteur de l’accès à la justice au Bénin. Despite the crucial importance of justice in our society, it is clear that the Beninese justice system presents significant challenges in terms of accessibility, efficiency and public trust. The costs of justice, the loss of control of problems, pre-trial waiting times, the labyrinthine structure of the courts, the inability to represent the costs of justice, the loss of control of problems, pre-trial waiting times, the labyrinthine structure of the courts, the inability to represent oneself, as well as the inhospitable nature of the courts are indicators of a broken justice system. Indeed, limitations in access to justice fuel citizens' mistrust of the state justice system. In the interests of speed and efficiency of justice, a wind of generalization of alternative methods of dispute resolution and recourse of technologies is blowing through judicial procedures in general and civil and commercial procedures in particular. In line with this logic, Law No. 2020-08 of 23 April 2020 on the modernization of justice in the Republic of Benin did not fail to make room for alternative methods of conflict resolution. It also emphasizes the gradual dematerialization of judicial procedures concerning the referral of cases to the courts, the monitoring of procedures and the electronic payment of related costs. However, despite these measures to be encouraged, the courts, at the risk of breaking down, are still bending before land and commercial disputes. The purpose of this study is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Beninese judicial system and to verify whether the modernization of alternative dispute resolution methods and the integration of technology into dispute resolution processes can be a vector of access to justice in Benin.

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study provides exploratory insight into the social justice mandate of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”) in the context of labour relations in South Africa. As a vehicle for the advancement of social justice through the efficient resolution of labour disputes, the CCMA is a compelling actor in the pursuit of social justice in South Africa’s labour environment. Social justice as a legislative and policy imperative requires an investment in understanding its conceptual ideals and demands in order to empower those acting in its pursuit with the knowledge they need to fulfil its demands. The CCMA’s most critical functionary, its commissioner, holds the key to unlocking labour justice for many members of the public. One wonders, given the criticality of advancing social justice in labour relations, whether social justice is appropriately understood in order to enable the kind of decision-making that efficiently and consistently addresses the workings of power and inequality as they manifest in employment relationships. This study’s main provocation is to transform the pursuit of social justice (in the South African labour context, at least) from an elusive endeavour to a more tangible, realistic one. It attempts to offer a way of thinking about and applying social justice in the practice of labour dispute resolution in South Africa and the CCMA context. It critically explores the interwoven mechanisms of power, prejudice, and injustice and how these mechanisms work to sustain unequal labour relations. The commissioner’s role is thus a critical one, that involves a deliberate pursuit to recognise, understand and interrupt these movements of power and mitigate the effect of inequality. Any movement towards social justice that does not pay close attention to this matrix of power and prejudice threatens to dilute the transformative potency of social justice. This study identifies and discusses the decisions of commissioners that fall short of the kind of conscientious decision-making required by a mandate of social justice. Discussions in this study also point out significant achievements in centralising social justice principles in decision-making processes at the CCMA, where arbitrators, in reducing injustice and advancing justice in labour relations, show a conscientious consideration and appreciation of historical contexts, power, privilege and disadvantage. Living up to the constitutional imperative to transform society in the way of equality, commissioners ought to develop their agency and be empowered by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to disrupt inequality. This study contributes to the understanding and clarification of social justice and its implications for the South African labour environment. It also posits ubuntu as an important consideration in the balancing exercise required to achieve justice.

This thesis critically examines a much-debated issue in international law: the legitimacy of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS). The system was initially conceived to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for the protection and promotion of foreign investment. In time, this objective has incited a discussion on the legitimacy of the system as the developed world has started to experience the role of host states. Since then, they have taken the lead in the reform process to achieve a balance between host state's and foreign investors' rights. To this effect, both the European Union (EU) and the Third Way Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are for centralization of the system arguing its current problems emanate from its ad hoc and decentralized nature. Although both are aimed at system centralization, the paths they take to achieve it clearly differ. The EU seeks a permanent investment court by which ad hoc arbitration would give way to a more centralized framework. However, TWAIL advocates for a return to the pre-ISDS era, where national courts resolve investment disputes between foreign investors and states. The effectiveness of these two reform ideas in addressing the purported legitimacy concerns of the ISDS is critically examined in this thesis using Martti Koskenniemi's legal approach. Ultimately, it asserts that neither proposal is adequate to resolve the legitimacy issue of the system, as legitimacy can only be achieved by strengthening the principle of justice, which is feasible alone through a more decentralized structure.

Le principe de l’autonomie de la clause compromissoire est au cœur du mécanisme de l’arbitrage, tout en demeurant complexe et polyvalent. Cette étude met en lumière les différentes dimensions de ce principe, tout en identifiant ses limites face aux exigences fondamentales de justice et d’ordre public. L’autonomie de la clause compromissoire signifie d’abord que cette clause, bien qu’intégrée dans un contrat principal, existe et survit de manière indépendante. Concrètement, cela veut dire qu’une contestation ou une invalidité du contrat principal n’affecte pas automatiquement la clause compromissoire. Cette indépendance permet aux parties de préserver leur engagement à soumettre les litiges à un tribunal arbitral, offrant ainsi une sécurité juridique et une continuité au processus de résolution des conflits. L’arbitrage repose ici sur un engagement volontaire et anticipé, qui ne saurait être remis en cause par des circonstances affectant le contrat lui-même. Au-delà de cette indépendance, l’évolution du principe d’autonomie a permis d’introduire une autre dimension : la liberté de choix dans les règles qui régissent la clause compromissoire. Cela signifie que les parties ne sont pas nécessairement liées aux règles du contrat principal. Cette forme d’autonomie favorise la flexibilité, permettant aux parties de concevoir une procédure arbitrale adaptée à leurs besoins spécifiques. Cependant, cette liberté rencontre certaines limites, notamment en matière d’ordre public, qui agit comme un rempart pour protéger les valeurs fondamentales de justice et d’équité. Un autre aspect fondamental de ce principe est son interaction avec le concept de compétence-compétence, selon lequel le tribunal arbitral est habilité à statuer sur sa propre compétence. Cette relation étroite entre les deux principes peut créer une certaine confusion, car si l’autonomie de la clause concerne sa validité et son indépendance, la compétence-compétence relève plutôt du pouvoir décisionnel des arbitres. Toutefois, ces deux notions, bien que distinctes, contribuent ensemble à garantir l’efficacité de l’arbitrage en permettant de résoudre rapidement les questions liées à la compétence et à la validité de la clause. L’étude aborde également la transmissibilité de la clause compromissoire, qui pose un défi théorique à l’idée d’autonomie. En cas de cession ou de transfert du contrat principal, la clause compromissoire accompagne généralement le contrat, ce qui semble paradoxal par rapport à son indépendance. Cette apparente contradiction s’explique toutefois par la nécessité pratique d’assurer la continuité des mécanismes d’arbitrage, en particulier dans des situations complexes comme les contrats multipartites ou les groupes d’entreprises. Enfin, le principe d’autonomie, malgré sa robustesse et son importance dans l’arbitrage, demeure encadré. La protection des intérêts fondamentaux des parties les plus vulnérables et des principes essentiels de justice impose des limites nécessaires. L’ordre public joue ici un rôle clé en veillant à ce que la liberté contractuelle ne se traduise pas par une atteinte aux droits fondamentaux ou aux valeurs essentielles de la société. En conclusion, l’autonomie de la clause compromissoire est un instrument essentiel qui garantit la stabilité et l’efficacité de l’arbitrage. Elle repose sur une double dynamique : une indépendance par rapport au contrat principal et une flexibilité permettant aux parties d’organiser librement la procédure arbitrale. Toutefois, cette autonomie doit coexister avec des limites claires pour concilier la liberté contractuelle avec les exigences de justice, assurant ainsi un équilibre nécessaire entre efficacité et protection des principes fondamentaux. The principle of the autonomy of the arbitration clause is central to the arbitration mechanism, while remaining both complex and multifaceted. This study sheds light on the various dimensions of this principle and identifies its limits in the face of fundamental justice and public policy requirements. The autonomy of the arbitration clause primarily signifies that the clause, although incorporated into a principal contract, exists and survives independently. In practical terms, this means that a dispute regarding or the invalidity of the principal contract does not automatically affect the arbitration clause. This independence enables the parties to uphold their agreement to submit disputes to arbitration, thereby ensuring legal certainty and continuity in conflict resolution processes. Arbitration thus rests on a voluntary and preemptive commitment that cannot be undermined by circumstances affecting the main contract. In addition to this independence, the development of the principle of autonomy has introduced another significant aspect: the freedom of the parties to determine the rules governing the arbitration clause. This autonomy allows the parties to deviate from the rules of the principal contract, fostering flexibility and enabling the design of arbitration procedures that meet their specific needs. However, this freedom is not without limits, particularly where public policy intervenes as a safeguard to preserve fundamental principles of justice and fairness. A crucial component of this principle is its interaction with the kompetenz-kompetenz doctrine, which empowers the arbitral tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction. This close relationship between the two concepts may cause confusion: the autonomy of the arbitration clause concerns its validity and independence, whereas kompetenz-kompetenz pertains to the decision-making authority of arbitrators. Despite their distinctions, both principles collectively enhance the effectiveness of arbitration by facilitating the prompt resolution of jurisdictional and validity-related challenges. This study also explores the issue of the arbitration clause’s transmissibility, which presents a theoretical challenge to the notion of autonomy. In cases where the principal contract is assigned or transferred, the arbitration clause typically follows the contract, creating a seemingly paradoxical situation regarding its independence. This apparent contradiction can, however, be justified by the practical need to maintain the continuity of arbitration mechanisms, particularly in complex contexts such as multiparty contracts or corporate groups. Ultimately, despite its essential role and resilience, the autonomy of the arbitration clause is subject to necessary constraints. The protection of vulnerable parties and the preservation of fundamental principles of justice impose clear limitations. Public policy serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure that contractual freedom does not infringe upon fundamental rights or societal values. In conclusion, the autonomy of the arbitration clause is a cornerstone of arbitration’s stability and effectiveness. It is characterized by independence from the principal contract and the flexibility afforded to the parties in shaping their arbitration proceedings. However, this autonomy must be balanced against clear limits to harmonize contractual freedom with justice requirements, ensuring an essential equilibrium between efficiency and the protection of core principles.

Cette réflexion se propose de contribuer au développement des modes amiables de règlement des différends dans la culture juridique béninoise afin de permettre aux justiciables, majoritairement analphabètes, d'avoir des alternatives opportunes aux voies judiciaires classiques. Tandis que la justice fait face à de nombreux défis, aussi bien en France qu'au Bénin, le développement et la promotion remarqués des modes amiables de règlement des différends connaissent un certain succès en la matière en France. Au Bénin, le législateur encourage, incite mais ne propose aucun régime particulier pour le recours effectif au règlement amiable des différends. Cette recherche tente ainsi d'examiner de façon approfondie et d'interroger les différends mécanismes législatifs existants, tant les enjeux en termes d'accès à la justice sont considérables. Les principaux enjeux de cette thèse sont donc liées aux perspectives du développement des mode amiables et à leur encadrement pour remédier aux insuffisances et contre-performances de la justice étatique béninoise.

A arbitragem é um meio de resolução de litígios, que se alicerça na autonomia privada e é reconhecida, quer internacionalmente, quer nas constituições estaduais analisadas, como um modo de exercício, alternativo aos tribunais estaduais, do direito fundamental constitucional à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. A questão que se coloca é a de saber se, em primeiro lugar, as partes podem acordar renunciar, validamente, a direitos fundamentais processuais na arbitragem e, podendo, com que requisitos e dentro de que limites, para, em segundo lugar e em particular, aplicar os requisitos e limites referidos à (in)admissibilidade da renúncia ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional. Partindo da ponderação do âmbito, conteúdo e regime dos direitos fundamentais em confronto, de um lado, à tutela jurisdicional efetiva, incluindo o direito à arbitragem e outros direitos fundamentais processuais, como o de impugnar a sentença arbitral em determinados casos e, do outro lado, à autonomia privada, que fundamenta a renúncia, e sem prejuízo de a ponderação dever ser feita em cada caso concreto, concluo que a renúncia àqueles direitos é válida, se cumprir determinados requisitos subjetivos e objetivos, que identifico, incluindo os limites e os respetivos critérios para aferir da referida (in)validade. Quanto ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional, concluo que, sem prejuízo e com base nas soluções consagradas de jure constituto, a renúncia por acordo das partes é, do ponto de vista constitucional normativo e, de jure constituendo no direito português, válida, desde que se respeitem aqueles requisitos. Em particular, tem de existir um meio de impugnar a sentença arbitral, quando esta viole, de forma grave, direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, que não estão na disponibilidade das partes, nos casos e termos necessários a garantir o conteúdo essencial do direito fundamental à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. No entanto, há margem do legislador para adotar o regime mais adequado ao propósito referido. Na arbitragem internacional, do ponto de vista normativo-constitucional, podem as partes renunciar, total e/ou parcialmente, à anulação na sede, quando há a possibilidade de controlo último, pelo menos de violações graves de direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, aquando do reconhecimento e execução da sentença arbitral, sendo esta a solução legal que, na minha opinião, melhor se coaduna com a arbitragem internacional no seu todo. Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism rooted in private autonomy and internationally recognised, as well as in the national constitutions analysed, as an alternative means to state courts for exercising the constitutional fundamental right to effective judicial protection. The primary question of this dissertation is whether the parties can validly agree to waive fundamental procedural rights in arbitration, and if so, under what conditions and within what limits. Secondly, I specifically apply these conditions and limits to the (in)admissibility of waiving the right to seek annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration. By weighing the scope, content and framework of conflicting fundamental rights – the right to effective judicial protection (encompassing the right to arbitration and other fundamental procedural rights, such as the right to challenge the arbitral award in certain cases), against private autonomy (which justifies the waiver) – and, without prejudice to the necessary case-by-case balancing, I conclude that the waiver of these rights is valid, provided that subjective and objective requirements, including the limits and criteria for assessing the (in)validity of the waiver, are met. Regarding the right to request annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration, I conclude that, without prejudice to and relying on legal solutions established de jure constituto, the waiver by agreement of the parties is valid from a normative constitutional perspective and de jure constituendo under Portuguese Law, provided such subjective and objective requirements are respected. Specifically, there must be a means to challenge the arbitral award when it seriously violates fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State, which are beyond the parties’ disposal, in certain cases and under certain terms as necessary to protect the core essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. However, the legislator retains discretion to adopt the most appropriate legal framework for this purpose. In the context of international arbitration, from a normative-constitutional perspective, the parties may waive annulment at the seat, in whole and/or in part, provided there is the possibility of ultimate oversight, particularly in cases involving serious violations of fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State at the stage of recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. In my opinion, this legal solution is the one that best aligns with the global system of international arbitration.

The surge in online interactions has led to a parallel rise in civil and commercial disputes that transcend geographical boundaries. As traditional dispute resolution mechanisms face challenges adapting to this evolving paradigm, conflicts increasingly migrate to online platforms. Within this proliferating landscape, it is crucial to recognize the scarcity of research devoted to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) providers and the myriad types of services they currently offer to users worldwide. Despite the ongoing geographical expansion of ODR, the inquiry into how procedural justice principles manifest in these digital dispute resolution systems remains notably under-explored. A growing body of literature underscores that procedural justice is critical for building users’ trust, enhancing the legitimacy of organizations among communities, and fostering compliance with outcomes. The ability of ODR providers to meet users' expectations in terms of procedural justice can significantly shape users' perception of ODR institutions as trustworthy and dependable. This bears paramount implications for the ongoing development of ODR, whose acceptance varies widely across jurisdictions. This doctoral thesis delves into the intricate intersections of procedural justice within the realm of international civil and commercial ODR, examining the nuanced dynamics that emerge in virtual spaces. Ultimately, it seeks to understand how procedural justice principles, rooted in the notion of fairness, manifest and evolve in the context of ODR, exploring the impact of digital interventions on the perceived fairness of dispute resolution processes. Understanding procedural justice in ODR is not merely an academic pursuit; it holds profound implications for legal practitioners, policymakers, and society at large. This research aims to contribute valuable insights that can inform the design of fairer and more effective ODR systems.

Türk hukukunda, özellikle iş uyuşmazlıkları bakımından arabuluculuğun dava şartı olarak kabul edildiği tarihten bu yana, arabuluculuk kurumundan beklenen faydanın elde edilip edilmediği bir yana bırakılırsa öğreti ve uygulamada halen tartışıla gelen birçok konu bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan biri, çalışma konumuzu oluşturan bireysel iş uyuşmazlıkları bakımından dava şartı arabuluculukta işçi ve işveren tarafların doğru ve tam olarak teşkilinin sağlanmasıdır. Alternatif çözüm yollarından biri olan arabuluculuğun dava şartı olarak düzenlenmesi, arabuluculuk faaliyetini yargılamanın ön şartı ve ayrılmaz bir parçası haline getirmiştir. Bu bakımdan arabuluculuk sürecinin doğru işçi veya işveren tarafla yürütülmemesi yargılamayı doğrudan etkileyecektir. İş uyuşmazlıkları bakımından işçi sıfatının belirlenmesi özellikle işçi olup olmadığı konusunda tereddüt yaşanan çalışanlar açısından önemlidir. İşveren tarafının doğru belirlenmesi ise, arabuluculuk faaliyetinin yanlış veya eksik işverenle yürütülmesinin ardından, yargılama sürecinde bu durumun tespit edilmesi halinde işveren tarafında değişiklik yapılamaması bakımından önem arz etmektedir. Arabuluculuk dava şartı olarak düzenlendiğinden, yargılama sırasında tamamlanabilmesi olanaklı değildir. Sürecin bu şekilde işlemesi ise mahkemeye erişim hakkının önünde engel teşkil edebileceği gibi, gerek iş güvencesi gerekse işçinin alacağına kavuşma noktasında hak kaybına ve mağduriyetine yol açabilecektir. In Turkish law, especially since the adoption of mediation as a condition for litigation in terms of labour disputes, there are still many issues that are still debated in the doctrine and practice, let alone whether the expected benefit of the mediation institution has been achieved. One of these issues is to ensure that the employee and employer parties are accurately and fully constituted in the mediation as a condition for litigation in terms of individual labour disputes, which is the subject of our study. The regulation of mediation as a condition of litigation, which is one of the alternative remedies, has made the mediation activity a prerequisite and an integral part of the proceedings. In this respect, failure to conduct the mediation process with the right employee or employer party will directly affect the proceedings. In terms of labour disputes, the determination of the employee party is especially important for employees who are in doubt as to whether they are employees or not. The correct determination of the employer party is important in terms of not being able to make changes on the employer side if this situation is detected during the proceedings after the mediation is carried out with the wrong or incomplete employer. Since mediation is regulated as a condition of litigation, it is not possible to complete it during the proceedings. This process may constitute an obstacle to the right of access to the court, and may lead to loss of rights and victimisation in terms of both job security and the employee's receivables.

Arabuluculuk kurumundan beklenen avantajların ortaya çıkabilmesi arabuluculuk faaliyeti sonunda anlaşmaya varılması ile mümkündür. Mevzuatta sürekli değişiklikler meydana gelmekte ve kurumun kapsamına aldığı uyuşmazlıklar hızla genişletmektedir. Uygulamanın yerleşmesi ve zaman zaman doktrinde görüş ayrılıkları yaşanması kaçınılmazdır. Mevzuatta daha detaylı ya da değiştirilerek düzenlenmesine ihtiyaç duyulan alanlar bulunmaktadır. Tez, mevzuatta yapılan son düzenlemeleri de kapsayarak anlaşmayı tüm yönleriyle ele almayı ve kurumun daha iyi anlaşılmasına hizmet etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Yapılan bu çalışmanın ilk bölümde arabuluculuğun kurumsal çerçevesi ortaya konulmuştur. Bu bölümde amaç arabuluculuk kurumunu ve arabuluculuk faaliyetinin işleyişini anlatabilmektir. Bu amaçla arabuluculuğun kapsamı, türleri, arabuluculuğun karşılaştırmalı hukukta ve Türk hukukunda gelişimi, yargı ve tahkimden farkı, med-arb uygulaması anlatılmıştır. İkinci bölümde sona erme halleri tek tek ele alınmış, sona erme hallerinin mevzuatta dağınık halde düzenlendiği hususuna dikkat çekilmiş ve başkaca sona erme halleri de dikkate alınarak tek bir madde halinde düzenlenebilmesi hususu önerilmiştir. Arabulucunun, faaliyeti sona erdirme yönünde inisiyatif almasının sona erme hali olarak düzenlenmesi yönünde de öneri getirilmiştir. Üçüncü bölümde anlaşmanın terminoloji sorununa ve benzer kavramlardan farkına değinilmiştir. Arabuluculuk faaliyeti sonunda varılan anlaşmanın esaslı unsurları tespit edilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, sözleşme serbestisi, şarta bağlı edim düzenlenip düzenlenemeyeceği gibi önemli hususlara yer verilmiştir. Anlaşmanın nasıl düzenleneceğine ilişkin öneride bulunulmuştur. Anlaşmanın hukuki niteliği, anlaşılan hususlara karşı dava açılamayacağı, anlaşmanın hukuka uygun düzenlenmediği takdirde karşılaşılabilecek sonuçlar anlatılmış ve anlaşmanın arabuluculuğa elverişli olmamasına rağmen düzenlenmesi, dava şartı kapsamına girmeyen bir hususta faaliyetin yürütülmesi ve anlaşmaya varılması, yanlış dava türünden yapılan başvuru sonucu anlaşmaya varılması, arabulucunun uzmanlık alanına girmeyen bir konuyla ilgili anlaşma sürecini tamamlaması, hukuka uygun arabuluculuk faaliyeti yürütülmemesi sonucunda anlaşmaya varılması, arabulucunun arabuluculuktan çekilmesi gerekirken yine de anlaşma yapması gibi anlaşmadan kaynaklı sorunlara yer verilmiştir. Dördüncü bölümde anlaşmanın yerine getirilmemesi durumunda icra edilebilirlik şerhi alınması hususu, mahkemeye başvuru, yargılama usulü, mahkemenin incelemesi, şarta bağlı olarak yapılan anlaşmaya şerh verilmesi, icra edilebilirlik şerhi alınan anlaşmanın icrası, anlaşmayla ilamlı ve ilamsız takip yapılması gibi önemli hususlar ele alınmıştır. Son olarak, arabuluculuk sonucunda elde edilen uluslararası ticari anlaşmaların icra edilmesini kolaylaştırması amacıyla hukukumuzda da kabul edilen Singapur Konvansiyonu incelenmiştir. The expected advantages of the mediation institution can be realized through reaching an agreement at the end of the mediation process. There are continuous changes in the legislation, rapidly expanding the scope of disputes covered by the institution. The thesis aims to comprehensively examine the agreement reached at the end of the mediation process, including recent legislative amendments, to better understand the institution and its operations. The first part of this study outlines the institutional framework of mediation, explaining its scope, types, development in comparative law and Turkish law, differences from judiciary and arbitration, and the practice of med-arb. The second part discusses the various termination conditions, highlighting the scattered nature of these conditions in legislation and proposing their consolidation into a single provision. It also suggests granting mediators the initiative to terminate the process as a termination condition. In the third part, attention is given to the terminology issues and distinctions from similar concepts regarding the agreement reached through mediation. The essential elements of such agreements are identified, covering issues like contractual freedom and the regulation of conditional obligations. Recommendations are made on how agreements should be drafted. The legal nature of the agreement, restrictions on litigation concerning agreed-upon matters, consequences of improperly drafted agreements, and issues arising from inappropriate mediation activities are discussed. The fourth part addresses the issue of obtaining enforceability endorsements for agreements not fulfilled, court applications, trial procedures, court reviews, endorsement of conditional agreements, enforcement of endorsed agreements, and procedures for enforcement with and without judgments. Finally, the study explores the Singapore Convention, adopted in our legal system to facilitate the enforcement of international commercial agreements resulting from mediation.

Çalışma 06.12.2018 tarihinde 7155 sayılı Kanun ile Türk Ticaret Kanunu'na eklenen TTK m. 5A hükmüyle getirilmiş zorunlu arabuluculuğun, sermaye şirketleri çerçevesinde incelenmesini konu almaktadır. TTK m. 5A hükmüyle önce, ticari davalardan, konusu bir miktar paranın ödenmesi olan, alacak ve tazminat davalarının zorunlu arabuluculuğa tabi olduğu düzenlenmiştir. Daha sonra, 28.02.2023 tarihli ve 7445 sayılı Kanun ile yine ticari dava olmaları kaydıyla, menfi tespit, itirazın iptâlî ve istirdat davalarını da zorunlu arabuluculuk kapsamına almıştır. TTK lafzıyla dava şartı arabuluculuk olarak da nitelendirilen zorunlu arabuluculuk kavramı, Türk hukuku bakımından yeni bir kavram sayılabilir. İlk olarak 2017 yılında 7036 sayılı Kanun ile iş uyuşmazlıkları için düzenlenen zorunlu arabuluculuk kavramı, daha sonra ticari uyuşmazlıklar ve tüketici uyuşmazlıkları için de düzenlenmiştir ve Türk hukukunda zorunlu arabuluculuğun uygulama alanı git gide genişleme eğilimi göstermektedir. Bu sebeple, doktrinde pek çok eleştiriye de uğrayan zorunlu arabuluculuk kavramının, özellikle sermaye şirketleri bağlamında incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Her ne kadar Türk hukukunda yeni bir kavram olsa da, karşılaştırmalı hukukta zorunlu arabuluculuk uzun zamandan beri uygulanan ve tartışilânbir konu olagelmiştir. Karşılaştırmalı hukuk bağlamında bir inceleme yapıldığında öncelikle, özellikle zorunlu arabuluculuğun menşei sayılabilecek Amerikan hukukunda, konu özellikle doktrinde farklı açılardan ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın birinci bölümünde bu çerçevede bir inceleme yapılmış, zorunlu arabuluculuğun tabi olması gereken kıstaslar ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu kıstaslar, çalışmanın ilerleyen bölümlerinde yapılacak değerlendirmeler için de önem taşımaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra zorunlu arabuluculuğun türleri ve zorunlu arabuluculuğa aykırı davranışlara bağlanan yaptırımlar üzerinde de durulmuştur. Zorunlu arabuluculuğun ve benzeri uygulamaların farklı hukuk sistemlerinde ne şekilde yer aldığı değerlendirilmiştir. Bu değerlendirmeler kapsamında Alman hukuku bakımından ZPO §278 ile EGZPO §15a incelenmiştir. İsviçre hukuku bakımından ise ZPO §197 vd. hükümleri incelenmiştir. Her iki hukuk sistemi de zorunlu arabuluculuğu düzenlememiş, bunun yerine medeni usûl kanunlarında davanın görüleceği mahkemeler nezdinde uyuşmazlık çözüm sürecini düzenlemiştir. İtalya ve Fransa'da ise zorunlu arabuluculuk uygulamaları mevcut ise de bu, Türk hukukunun aksine, son derece sınırlı bir şekilde gerçekleşmiştir. Zorunlu arabuluculuğun kaynağı olan Amerikan hukukunda ise arabuluculuk, zorunlu tutulan tek uyuşmazlık çözüm yöntemi olmamıştır. Ayrıca zorunluluk hususu kanunla değil, genellikle her bir dava için mahkemenin yönlendirmesiyle sağlanmaktadır. Tüm bu ülkelerin ortak özelliği ise ticari uyuşmazlıkları zorunlu arabuluculuğa ya hiç tabi tutmamaları ya da çok dar bir kapsamda tabi tutmalarıdır. Arabuluculuk her ne kadar bir yargılama faaliyeti olmasa da zorunlu arabuluculuk dava öncesinde yer alan bir aşama olduğundan, kanaatimizce medeni usûl hukukuna hâkim olan ilkeler bakımından da incelenmelidir. Bu kapsamda zorunlu arabuluculuğun öncelikle adil yargılanma ilkesi ve mahkemeye erişim hakkı kapsamında tartışmalara sebep olduğu görülmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra usûl ekonomisi ilkesi, aleniyet ilkesi, tasarruf ilkesi ve dürüst davranma yükümlülüğü bakımından da değerlendirmelere yer verilmiştir. Aleniyet ilkesi bağlamında arabuluculuğa hâkim olan ilkelerden gizlilik ilkesinin ticari uyuşmazlıklar bakımından bir avantaj oluşturduğu söylenebilir. Tasarruf ilkesinde yapılandeğerlendirme maddî hukuk ve usûl hukuku çerçevelerinde yapılmıştır. Ayrıca zorunlu arabuluculuğun menşei Amerikan hukukunda hâkimin ve avukatların rolleri de dikkate alınarak, zorunlu arabuluculuğun Türk hukukundaki hâkimin yargılamayı sevk ve idaresi ilkesiyle tamamen bağdaşmadığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Dürüstlük ilkesi bakımından yine maddî hukukla da bağlantı kurularak bir değerlendirme yapılmış, zorunlu arabuluculuk süreci sonunda varılacak anlaşmanın dürüstlük kuralına uygun yapılması için yeterli mekanizmaların bulunmadığı kanaatine varılmıştır. Bunun dışında HUAK m. 18A/11 hükmü uyarınca zorunlu arabuluculuk sürecinin ilk toplantısına mazeretsiz katılmayan tarafın her durumda yargılama giderlerinin tümünden sorumlu olması ve lehine vekalet ücretine hükmedilememesinin orantısız bir yaptırım olduğu, ayrıca bu sebeple hiçbir durumda yargılama giderlerinden sorumlu olmayacağını bilen tarafın, açılacak dava sürecinde davayı uzatacak veya yanlış yönlendirecek ve dürüstlük kuralına uymayacak her tür davranışı yapabileceği kanaatine varılmıştır. Çalışmanın ikinci bölümü TTK m. 5A hükmünün uygulama koşullarına yoğunlaşmaktadır. Bu kapsamda, ticari davalar bakımından karşılaştırmalı bir değerlendirme yapılmak istenmiştir. Türk hukukunda TTK m. 4 hükmüyle ayrıca düzenlenen ticari davalar, diğer hukuk sistemlerinde ticaret mahkemeleriyle ilişkili olarak düzenlenmiştir. Bu değerlendirmede dikkat çeken husus, davaların ucuz, hızlı ve etkin bir şekilde sonuçlandırılmasının amaçlandığı diğer hukuk sistemlerinde hukukçu olmayan hâkimlerin de görev yaptığıdır. Türk doktrininde ise böyle bir uygulamanın uygun olmayacağı haklı olarak belirtilmiş, bu bağlamda zorunlu arabuluculuk uygulamasının daha uygun olduğu kanaatine varılmıştır. Ticari davalarda dava şartını düzenleyen TTK m. 5A hem medeni usûl hukuku hem de ticaret hukuku bakımından incelenmiştir. Medeni usûl hukukun bakımından yapılanincelemede dava şartı kavramı ve hükmün dava türlerine göre gösterdiği özellikler incelenmiştir. Ticaret hukuku bakımından ise, arabuluculuk süreci sonucunda varılacak anlaşmanın bir maddî hukuk sözleşmesi oluşundan da yola çıkarak basiretli tacir kavramı incelenmiştir. Ayrıca zorunlu arabuluculuğun HUAK m. 5 hükmü ve gizlilik ilkesi nedeniyle göstereceği özellikler nedeniyle, ticari sırların korunması bağlamında da bir değerlendirme yapılmıştır. Çalışmanın üçüncü ve son kısmı sermaye şirketlerinde zorunlu arabuluculuğun incelenmesine ayrılmıştır. Bunun için öncelikle Alman hukukunda pay sahipleri davaları olarak adlandırilândavalar hakkında değerlendirme yapılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu değerlendirmeyle adi şirketlerden farklı olarak pay sahipleri davalarının genel olarak ortağa değil şirket tüzel kişiliğine yöneltilmesi gerektiği, bunun yanı sıra pay sahiplerinin şirketin menfaatleri için dava haklarını kullanabildiği görülmüştür. Bu değerlendirmenin, sermaye şirketleri uyuşmazlıklarında zorunlu arabuluculuk sürecinde başvuru yapacak taraflar ve anlaşmanın etkileyeceği kişilerin tespitinde yararlı olduğu kanaatindeyiz. Bu değerlendirmenin ardından TTK m. 5A kapsamına girebilecek sermaye şirketi uyuşmazlıkları tespit edilerek, her biri için zorunlu arabuluculuğun göstereceği özelliklerin belirlenmesine çalışılmıştır. Bu belirleme yapılırken her bir uyuşmazlık konusu hakkında genel bir çerçeve sunulmuş, açılabilecek davalar hakkında bilgi verilmiş ve bu bilgiler ışığında zorunlu arabuluculuğun uygulama koşulları ile doğurabileceği sakıncalar üzerinde durulmuştur. Son olarak, yapılantüm değerlendirmeler ışığında sermaye şirketlerinde zorunlu arabuluculukla ilgili de lege ferenda görüşümüze yer verilmiştir. Bu kapsamda sermaye şirketleri uyuşmazlıklarının, dava konularının şirketler hukuku kısıtlarına ve emredici kurallara tabi olması sebebiyle, zorunlu arabuluculuğa her zaman uyumlu olmayabileceği sonucuna varılmıştır. Üstelik, bazı arabuluculuk türlerinde yapılması elzem hukuki denetimin ve arabulucunun bu denetimi yapamayacak olmasının yaratacağı sakıncalara da değinilmiştir. Bunun sonucunda İsviçre ve Almanya örneklerinde olduğu gibi mahkeme bağlantılı uyuşmazlık çözümlerinin düzenlenmesinin daha uygun olduğu kanaatine varılmıştır. İflas bakımından bir değerlendirme yapıldığında ise, İİK m. 226 hükmü nedeniyle doğabilecek sorunlara dikkat çekilmiş, bu bağlamda zorunlu arabuluculuğa başvuru kapsamında düzenleme yapılması önerilmiştir. Son olarak zorunlu arabuluculuk ile varılmak istenen amaçlar da dikkate alındığında, bu amaçlara ulaşmak için taraflara arabuluculuk dışında uyuşmazlık çözüm yollarına başvurabilmelerine imkân verilmesi gerektiği kanaatine varılmıştır. Bu şekilde hem çabuk ve ucuz bir şekilde uyuşmazlıkların çözümü amacına ulaşabilecek, hem de tarafların ihtiyaçlarına daha uygun bir yöntem seçmelerine imkân tanınacaktır. […] This study focuses on application of Turkish Commercial Code Art. 5A, which is amended with Code Nr. 7155 in 2018, to equity companies. TCC Art. 5A regulated mandatory mediation for commercial cases with monetary claims at the beginning. However, through amendment with Code Nr. 7445 in 2023, negative declaratory actions, actions for annulment of objections and actions for restitution were taken into scope of this regulation. Mandatory mediation, which can also be named mediation as cause of action according to TCC m. 5A, can be deemed as a new context in Turkish law. Regulated for the first time for some labour law conflicts with Code Nr. 7036 in 2017, mandatory mediation is regulated also for commercial conflicts as well as consumer law conflicts. Thus, it can be observed that scope of mandatory mediation in Turkish law has a tendency to spread within time. Therefore, as a concept subject to various critics, mandatory mediation is to be evaluated in context of equity companies within this study. Although mandatory mediation is considered to be a relatively new concept in Turkish law, in frame of comparative law, it has a long history of application and has been subject to critics for a long time. It is observed that in comparative law, especially in American law, which can be considered as the source, mandatory mediation has been taken into consideration with many aspects. The first chapter of this study conducts an evaluation within this frame and aims to set the criterias for a better application of mandatory mediation. These criterias are important for evaluation in following chapters of this study. In addition, the variations of mandatory mediations and sanctions applied to the acts contrary to mandatory mediations are observed. Mandatory mediation and similar applications in different law systems are also examined. Within light of this examination, ZPO §278 and EGZPO §15a in German law is taken into consideration, as well as ZPO §197 ff. in Swiss law. Both systems do not regulate mandatory mediation and instead, regulated dispute resolution process within their Civil Procedure Codes. Although mandatory mediation is regulated in Itâlîan and French law systems, these regulations have strictly limited scope. American law, the origin of mandatory mediation, applies other means of dispute resolution as well. Moreover, mandatory mediation in American law is not regulated by a code; it is court oriented in general. The common point of these countries is that none of them applies mandatory mediation within a wide scope on commercial disputes. Although mediation cannot be considered as an act of judication, since mandatory mediation is a step before courts, it should be evaluated with regard of principals of civil procedure law. In this context, it is observed that mandatory mediation gave reason to many arguments related to fair trial and access to court. In addition, evaluations on principals pf procedural economy, publicity, power of disposition and honesty are conducted. With regard of principal of publicity, it can be considered that principal of confidentiality of mediation is an advantage. The evaluations on principal of power of disposition are made in frame of substantial and procedural law. Furthermore, taking the features of American civil procedure law, it is concluded that mandatory mediation is not compatible with the role of judge in Turkish law. With regard of principal of honesty, an evaluation in the light of substantial law is also made and it is concluded that rules to maintain honesty in mandatory mediation are not sufficient in Turkish law. As an addition, it is also stated that sanction in Code of Mediation Art. 18A/11 is unproportionate in context of principal of honesty before courts. The second chapter of this study focuses on conditions of TCC Art. 5A. With this regard, a comparative evaluation on commercial actions is made. Commercial actions, regulated with TCC Art. 4 in Turkish law, are regulated in relation with commercial courts in other law systems. With this evaluation, it is noted that in commercial courts, which aims to solve disputes in a cheap, quick and effective manner, gives place to judges who have not a judicial notion in other law systems. In Turkish literature, it is rightly emphasized that such an application is not appropriate for Turkish law. TCC Art. 5A is also examined within frame of civil procedure and commercial law. Within civil procedure law frame, the concept of cause of action is examined, as well as features of TCC Art 5A in relation to claim in actions. Within commercial law frame, since the agreement concluded within mediation is a contract in context of substantial law, the notion of prudent merchant is evaluated. Furtermore, for mandatory mediation demonstrates features within light of Code of Mediation Art. 5 and principal of confidentiality, an evaluation of trade secrets are also conducted. The third and last chapter concentrates on examination of mediation as a cause of action in equity company disputes. Thus, an action named shareholders' action in German law, which is clarified using notion of actio pro socio, is evaluated. According to this evaluation it is concluded that, unlike simple partnerships, shareholders shall submit their claims against legal entity of equity companies and not against other shareholders. Neverthless, it is also observed that in some cases shareholders are entitled to submit the tools of defence of equity companies for interests of company. This evaluation is essential in order to determine the parties of dispute and the persons effected from the agreement reached at the end of mandatory mediation process. Following this evaluation, the kinds of disputes in equity companies, which fall into scope of TCC Art. 5A, are determined and the features demonstrated by them in context of mediation as a cause of action are defined. In order to comply with this evaluation, information on each subject of action is given, features of the relevant actions are explained and in the light of all evaluations, conditions of application of mediation as a cause of action are explained. Finally, in light of evaluations made within this study, our de lege ferenda opinions on mandatory mediation in equity companies are set. Within this frame, since dispute in equity companies are subject to limitations on equity company law and compulsory legal rules, it is stated that they might not always compatible with mediation as a cause of action. In addition, possible problems arisen from lack of legal supervision in mediation process are also mentioned. As a result, it is concluded that, it would be more convenient to regulate court annexed dispute resolution tools, similar with examples of Germany and Switzerland. With regard to bankruptcy proceedings, it is concluded that possible problems in relation to Turkish Code of Bankruptcy and Enforcement Art. 226 are highlighted and it is suggested that, in order to eliminate such problems, necesarry regulations by legislator should be made. Lastly, taking the goals of mediation into consideration, in order to reach these goals effectively, the importance of giving parties the opportunity to be able to choose other means of dispute resolution apart from mandatory mediation, is found to be essential. Thus, dispute resolution process will take place in a quick and cheap manner and parties will have the chance to be able to choose a dispute resolution method that suits their needs and interests.

S’interroger sur la distinction entre le recours en annulation et exequatur, c'est poser la question du régime juridique applicable à chacun de ces mécanismes de contrôle de la sentence arbitrale. Ces derniers paraissent, par hypothèse, différenciés puisqu’ils relèvent de deux catégories de procédures que le droit français ne confond pas : les voies de recours et l’exequatur. L’application des règles du droit processuel français commande donc en principe de ne pas confondre le recours en annulation, qui est une voie de recours, avec l’exequatur. Or, s’il est bien une notion qui innerve tous les pans du droit français de l’arbitrage international, c’est celle d’« autonomie ». Il en résulte que malgré la référence expresse à des notions bien connues du droit commun - i.e 1’exequatur et la voie de recours pour le recours en annulation -, celles-ci paraissent recevoir une acception spéciale en droit français de l’arbitrage international. Gommant les différences qui séparent traditionnellement les voies de recours de l’exequatur, le droit français de l’arbitrage international semble à bien des égards confondre le recours en annulation et l’exequatur. Émerge ainsi l’idée que les sentences arbitrales font l’objet d’une procédure de contrôle unique. Une confusion certaine entre le recours en annulation et l’exequatur existe en droit français de l'arbitrage international, elle est à l’origine de nombreuses incertitudes. Pour remédier à ce constat, l’étude propose l’application aux sentences arbitrales des règles du droit commun, relatives aux voies de recours et à l’exequatur.

Darwin disait que « les espèces qui survivent ne sont pas les espèces les plus fortes ou les plus intelligentes, mais celles qui s’adaptent le mieux aux changements ». La justice n’échappe pas à cette règle. Sans cesse confrontée à de nouveaux défis, tels que l’encombrement judiciaire ou la pacification des relations entre les parties, cette dernière va devoir trouver les moyens qui lui permettront de fonctionner en accord avec les besoins de son temps. Les modes amiables de résolution des conflits pourraient bien en faire partie. Implantés de longue date et particulièrement appréciés aux États-Unis et au Canada, ces derniers semblent pour l’heure boudés par les praticiens et les justiciables en France. Le législateur montre néanmoins un intérêt de plus en plus important pour ces méthodes et pour cause : elles ont fait leurs preuves Outre-Atlantique. Dès lors, comment parvenir à les développer au sein de notre système ? C’est la question à laquelle nous essayerons de répondre dans cette thèse.

Courts and arbitration tribunals aim to resolve disputes and make enforceable decisions in their distinctive way. However, unlike courts, tribunals lack state enforcement power to function independently. Consequently, arbitrating parties have had to approach the courts for various supports. However, while supporting arbitration, the Nigerian courts have been criticised for overwhelmingly undermining party autonomy. Thus, the determination of the extent to which Nigerian courts should participate in arbitration remains topical. This research reviewed the current regime governing the scope and limits to the court's roles in arbitration in Nigeria, aiming to find out the problematic areas where the court's roles have been a leeway to undermine party autonomy. The research found that the current practice in Nigeria generally observes party autonomy as an affirmative stance by the Nigerian courts and laws. It further found the areas where the Nigerian system has, nevertheless, created some leeway for the courts to undermine party autonomy. These include (i) the narrow phrasing and interpretation of Section 34 of the Act and some specific provisions, and their failure to set out a definite limit to courts' roles in arbitration, (ii) the application of the concept of constitutional supremacy which has been interpreted to allow Nigerian courts to participate in all cases including arbitration and override parties' agreement, (iii) absence of Institutionalised tracking and periodic recalibration of the relationship between the courts and arbitration, and (iv) judicialisation of administrative roles of the courts in arbitration. To this end, a legal and analytical review of these problematic issues was conducted, particularly using some elements of the legal comparative approach to analyse the problems in the light of the related practices in some similar or advanced jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Ghana and Malaysia. Lessons were drawn from the analysis. Short- and long-term recommendations were, therefore, made for law reforms in Nigeria, particularly towards recalibrating the court's roles in arbitration such as to wedge the loopholes in the system without which recalcitrant parties and jurists could take advantage to undermine party autonomy.

La famille se fonde sur des liens qui ne sont pas nécessairement rompus par l'existence d'un conflit. De ce fait, la résolution des conflits familiaux nécessite l'usage de méthodes favorisant la restauration des relations familiale ou un vivre ensemble harmonieux entre les membres de la famille. Dans cette perspective, en droit français et ivoirien, les systèmes traditionnels de résolution des conflits familiaux étaient partagés entre la méthode amiable et la méthode judiciaire. En droit français, ce partage s'observe durant la période de l'Ancien régime et la période révolutionnaire. En droit ivoirien, cela s'observe durant la période coloniale. Cependant, dans ces deux ordres juridiques, dans le cadre légal, la méthode amiable a été reléguée au second plan au profit de la méthode judiciaire. Toutefois, ces dernières années, face au besoin de réduire la charge de travail du juge, d'apporter des solutions aux conflits dans des délais raisonnables et d'adapter la résolution des conflits à la conception sociale de la justice, se développent les modes alternatifs. Ceux-ci regroupent un ensemble de mécanismes ayant pour objet la résolution amiable des conflits. Le développement de ces modes varie d'un pays à l'autre. En France, ils font l'objet d'un développement accru. En Côte d'Ivoire leur développement est timide. Néanmoins, des méthodes similaires aux modes alternatifs sont utilisées par le justiciable ivoirien pour la résolution des conflits familiaux, mais dans un cadre informel. Eu égard à l'attachement du justiciable ivoirien à la justice informelle, aussi qualifiée de justice traditionnelle, se manifeste un besoin de sa reconnaissance légale. La justice traditionnelle ivoirienne étant par principe amiable tout comme les modes alternatifs, le développement de ces modes dans la législation familiale ivoirienne pourrait se faire dans le cadre d'une conciliation des règles les régissant avec celles régissant la justice traditionnelle ivoirienne. Mais cette conciliation devrait être faite en tenant compte des limites des modes alternatifs observées grâce à l'expérience française de ces mécanismes et des réalités sociales ivoiriennes.

A Lei n° 9.307, de 1996, a Lei de Arbitragem, com a redação que lhe foi dada pela Lei n° 13.129, de 2015, passou a prever expressamente que a Administração Pública direta e indireta poderá utilizar-se da arbitragem para dirimir conflitos relativos a direitos patrimoniais disponíveis. Ultrapassadas as discussões em torno da arbitrabilidade subjetiva, a arbitrabilidade objetiva das disputas envolvendo a administração pública ganha papel de destaque. Divergências a respeito do que seriam os direitos patrimoniais disponíveis da administração pública faz com que a questão seja frequentemente levada ao poder judiciário, em atentado a valores informadores da arbitragem, como a segurança jurídica e a celeridade. Daí a necessidade de se buscar solução para a questão, o que pode ser feito a partir do direito administrativo contemporâneo, que valoriza cada vez mais a atuação consensuada em detrimento da atuação unilateral e impositiva da administração pública.

L’unification des pratiques de médiation et de conciliation s’inscrit dans une démarche centrée sur l’activité du médiateur ou du conciliateur et présente un intérêt double. D’une part, elle forge l’action du médiateur ou du conciliateur en répertoriant les critères afin d’instituer un référentiel qualité. Ce dernier servira à évaluer ses bonnes pratiques du médiateur ou du conciliateur. L’unification desdites pratiques n’entend pas instituer une bonne pratique de la médiation ou de la conciliation. Elle prône pour une identification desdites pratiques afin de constituer un socle commun à l’action et aux prestations de tous les médiateurs des pays membres de l’OHADA. D’autre part, elle est garante du droit à un médiateur compétent et de l’accès à un processus de résolution des conflits de qualité pour une médiation efficace. Le droit à un médiateur compétent et l’accès à un processus de résolution des conflits de qualité sont les deux composantes essentielles du recours effectif à la justice amiable en droit OHADA. Ce recours découle d’un droit de la médiation et de la conciliation qui est en codification dans les pays membres de l’OHADA. Ladite codification est un préalable à cette démarche d’unification. Ainsi, la construction du droit de la médiation et la conciliation doit être accompagnée d’une réelle politique d’unification des pratiques de médiation et de conciliation afin d’inscrire le recours à l’amiable dans l’habitude des justiciables.

Les conflits entre État hôtes et investisseurs étrangers occupent, depuis une dizaine d’année le devant de la scène géopolitique. Le questionnement se porte aujourd’hui de façon globale sur l’articulation des méthodes de règlement de conflits particulièrement complexes en raison de leurs implications institutionnelles, juridiques et économiques. Cette thèse se consacre à appréhender le cadre de règlement des conflits d’investissements selon le modèle du système afin de déterminer les conditions nécessaires à la transformation profonde du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs.L’analyse du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs suppose d’abord d’en restituer le contexte historique et d’examiner les bases institutionnelles posées par le système CIRDI, celui-ci étant le fruit d’une idée, la substitution du droit à la force pour la résolution des différends d’investissement : « le paradigme juridictionnel ». Or, si des bases institutionnelles avaient été posées, celles relationnelles ne l’étaient pas. Il s’en suit un usage des mécanismes du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs dans une logique défensive et adversariale. Cependant, la complexification croissante du monde et incidemment du système des investissements, conduit les acteurs de l’investissement à passer d’une logique adversariale à une logique de collaboration et de co-construction pour résoudre les inévitables problématiques auxquelles ils font face : « le paradigme consensuel ».Nous nous interrogeons alors sur les conditions nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de ce nouveau paradigme comme fondement du Système afin d’en provoquer la transformation profonde. L’application de concepts issus du champ d’étude de la complexité et des systèmes adaptatifs complexes permet de conclure que le consensualisme est tout à la fois le résultat et le moyen à mettre en œuvre pour faciliter cette transformation. Seule une démarche holistique, incluant l’ensemble des acteurs dans leur diversité, peut permettre de faire émerger des solutions innovantes à la hauteur des enjeux. Notre proposition est d’utiliser les outils et méthodes du Design Thinking appliqués au droit – le Legal Design- dont la démarche place les parties prenantes, et donc les éléments de culture et de contexte, au cœur du processus de conception de solutions, et susceptible de provoquer un changement dans la dynamique relationnelle des acteurs vers une logique de collaboration. Cette conclusion s’applique aux deux échelles retenues : celle de la transformation globale du Système de résolution des différends entre États-hôtes et investisseurs, et celle des projets d’investissement, dont une gouvernance participative doit être encouragée afin d’en permettre le succès et de permettre de réaliser une des vocations premières du système des investissements qu’est le développement des États d’accueil au bénéfice de leurs communautés.

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.