Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

In an era where technology is rapidly transforming the legal landscape, Transforming Arbitration explores how innovations like AI, blockchain, the Metaverse, and Web3 are reshaping arbitration as a key form of dispute resolution. The book features insights from leading academics, practitioners, and policymakers, offering a comprehensive look at how these advancements are influencing our conceptual, substantive and procedural understandings of many parts of this field. Each chapter examines the challenges and opportunities presented by these technologies, raising important questions about the compatibility of traditional arbitration processes with digital innovations. As the legal field adapts to developments like cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and 'virtual' disputes, this book provides valuable guidance on the future implications for arbitration. By questioning established norms and advocating for fresh approaches, Transforming Arbitration is a vital resource for legal professionals and scholars committed to evolving with the times. Combining theoretical exploration with practical recommendations, this collaborative volume equips the legal community with the tools to navigate the complexities of our digital age with confidence and foresight.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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