Bibliographie sélective OHADA

Il existe en droit commun et en droit de l’arbitrage deux mécanismes similaires ayant un objectif commun : rendre l’acte juridique apte à faire sentir ses effets à l’égard des tiers. Il s’agit, pour le droit commun, du principe de l’opposabilité et, pour le droit de l’arbitrage, de la règle de l’attraction des tiers à la procédure arbitrale. Ces deux techniques, qui procèdent de la même manière et partagent presque les mêmes conditions de mise en œuvre, ont en revanche une qualification distincte. En droit commun, l’opposabilité est connue pour être un principe à part entière dont la fonction principale, la fonction de sanction, est relativement offensive, puisqu’elle oblige les tiers, sujets auxquels l’opposabilité est habituellement attachée, au devoir général de respect, à l’obligation de ne pas nier l’existence des engagements d’autrui et de ne pas y porter atteinte au risque de subir les conséquences de leur immixtion. Le principe de l’opposabilité a également une fonction probatoire qui permet aux tiers d’opposer aux parties, ou aux autres tiers, l’existence d’un contrat pour apporter la preuve d’un fait. Alors qu’en droit de l’arbitrage, la règle de l’attraction permet une extension des effets de la convention d’arbitrage à l’égard des tiers qui se trouvent impliqués positivement ou négativement, directement ou indirectement à la négociation, la formation, l’exécution ou l’anéantissement du contrat dans lequel est insérée la clause d’arbitrage.Puisque les deux techniques partagent le même procédé et agissent sur les mêmes personnes, la présente thèse a pour but d’étudier la réception du principe d’opposabilité en droit de l’arbitrage. Cette réception passe par une intégration et un attachement de la règle de l’attraction au principe de l’opposabilité comme fonction nouvelle. L'objectif principal est donc de répondre à une question précise : comment faire en sorte que le principe de l'opposabilité soit accepté et transposé en matière arbitrale pour ainsi voir à l’œuvre toutes ses fonctions, y compris celle qu’il vient d’intégrer, sans que le système juridique ne subisse de profonds bouleversements.Notre analyse de la réception se déroule en deux étapes. Après avoir rappelé et établi le cadre théorique du principe de l'opposabilité, dans lequel avons-nous examiné les différentes conceptions, justifications et sujets de l’opposabilité ; cadre qui nous a offert une image plus claire et réaliste des applications de l'opposabilité en droit commun et nous a permis de voir si ces applications et fonctions étaient en mesure de justifier la règle de l'attraction. Nous avons donc conclu que l’opposabilité est parfaitement recevable en droit de l’arbitrage à condition d’y intégrer ladite règle de l’attraction comme fonction nouvelle. Convaincus de sa réception en droit de l'arbitrage, nous avons, ensuite, soumis la nouvelle fonction d’attraction à un ultime test, celui de l’efficacité. L’examen de l’efficacité aura permis de recenser les limites de la règle de l’attraction dont nous avons proposé un certain nombre de solutions de renouvellement, et ce, dans le but de mieux intégrer la fonction et pour que celle-ci puisse avoir un impact systématisé sur le droit de l’arbitrage.

While a universally applicable multilateral agreement on investment is not yet available, a broad network of BITs and investment chapters in FTAs has been put in place to protect foreign investors and their investments. Meanwhile, investment arbitration has become a defining feature of modern international investment law over the recent decades, enabling foreign investors to launch an investment arbitration against host states, often without the need to go through local remedies before that. With the caseload of investment arbitration increasing at a rather rapid speed, such a dispute resolution method has also attracted fierce criticism. Many commentators have alleged, among other, that the decision-making of investment arbitrators has been inconsistent and unpredictable, that investment arbitration has become a threat to public interest, that investment arbitration proceedings are not transparent enough, that the arbitrators involved are not independent nor diverse enough, that the lack of an applellate mechanism compromises the quality of decision-making, and that investment arbitration has become far too costly and time-consuming. Against such a backdrop, the global community has made joint efforts to reform the investment arbitration system, not least through various initiatives developed at ICSID and UNCITRAL. Almost at the same time, national states also seem to have started to reconsider the costs and benefits of including investment arbitration in their investment agreements as a method for the resolution of disputes with foreign investors. Although the caseload of investment arbitration continues to grow and national states keep concluding IIAs containing investment arbitration clauses, at least some countries in their more recent investment treaty making practice have demonstrated a policy trend to rein in investment arbitration and ramp up the role of domestic courts in resolving investment disputes. They often do so by exiting the ICSID system, terminating their investment agreements with economic partners, excluding investment arbitration from their investment agreements, and conditioning investment arbitration upon the prior use of litigation via domestic courts. While the state practice mentioned above surely does not suggest the global society has any intention to abandon investment arbitration any time soon, it prompts us to take a step back and reconsider the role that domestic courts may play in resolving investment disputes, instead of solely focusing on the piecemeal reform of investment arbitration. When it comes to investor-state dispute resolution, domestic courts can indeed play different roles along the process. Like investment tribunals, domestic courts can also adjudicate investment disputes between foreign investors and local authorities. Such a judicial role sometimes is also confirmed in investment agreements through, for example, the exhaustion of local remedies rule, the clause demanding pursuit of local remedies prior to investment arbitration and the fork-in-the-road provision. In the context of non-ICSID arbitration, disputing parties are often entitled to applying for the review by domestic courts loci arbitri of the rulings and awards rendered by investment tribunals. Domestic courts loci arbitri would thus assume a supervisory role with regard to arbitration proceedings and arbitral outcomes, as they may set aside arbitration awards in question according to the review grounds enumerated in local arbitration laws. Moreover, domestic courts in a broader sense may be called upon to support the conduct and / or authority of investment arbitration, by recognizing and enforcing the investment awards rendered by arbitral tribunals and issuing interim measures of a judicial nature to facilitate the arbitration process. Since litigation through domestic courts and investment arbitration are two primary remedies that foreign investors often rely on for the resolution of investment disputes, this study constructs three models of institutional design with regard to the allocation of jurisdiction over investment disputes between domestic courts and investment tribunals. While the reality may turn out to be more complicated, such three models roughly represent the institutional choices facing national states. These three models are: (i) utter reliance on domestic courts as the exclusive forum for investor-state dispute resolution, (ii) investment arbitration operating as a substitute for litigation via domestic courts, and (iii) investment arbitration working as a complement to litigation via domestic courts. In order to conduct a comparative institutional analysis of the three models to reveal their respective tradeoffs, this study employs a goal based approach which is increasingly used to analyze the effectiveness of international adjudicatory mechanisms. As a result of the employment of the goal-based approach, the goals of investor-state dispute resolution are recognized as achieving fair and efficient dispute resolution, promoting state compliance with investment treaty norms, facilitating the objectives of the investment law regime, and legitimizing the underlying investment treaty regime. While the quality of the national judiciaries of many developing countries is not the same as it was decades ago largely due to the judicial reforms launched around the world, fairness and efficiency in dispute resolution still cannot be fully guaranteed in the domestic courts of those countries without a robust legal system and a good record of the rule of law. However, there are certain institutional characteristics of court litigation that may facilitate the efficiency in the resolution of investment disputes, such as the unique advantage of domestic courts that they can work as a single forum for dispute resolution and the better knowledge of court judges of the domestic legal framework at issue. Domestic courts also hold great potential in promoting the compliance by national states with investment treaty norms not least because they have more flexibility in awarding both primary and secondary remedies, but that of course depends on whether domestic courts can adjudicate investment disputes in a fair and impartial manner. Moreover, while utter reliance on litigation via domestic courts may strengthen the domestic rule of law and improve the investment climate in the long term by pressing host states to improve their legal systems and judicial institutions, it may also invite the politicization of investment disputes and the diplomatic intervention from home states in investor-state dispute resolution. Furthermore, despite the risks created for foreign investors, reliance on domestic courts as the exclusive forum may enhance the legitimacy of the investment treaty regime by reducing the sovereignty costs incurred by national states and putting domestic investors and foreign investors on the same footing. Investment arbitration operating as a substitute for domestic courts, on the other hand, demonstrates certain advantages, which are typically affiliated with international arbitration, in achieving the fair and efficient resolution of investment disputes. Unlike domestic courts, which are an integral part of the state apparatus, investment arbitrators are often immune from the influence of domestic politics and are thus believed to be independent and impartial. Meanwhile, the specialization of arbitrators in a particular area of knowledge and the procedural flexibility of arbitration proceedings, among others, are expected to improve efficiency in the resolution of investment disputes. However, empirical evidence presented in the literature sometimes suggests that, in reality, investment arbitrators may not be that unbiased and investment arbitration proceedings often drag on with a bill of a massive amount. Besides, although investment tribunals have a broad scope of jurisdiction over the behavior of different government branches, the practical difficulties they face in awarding primary remedies may damage their ability in promoting state compliance with investment treaty norms. In addition, the introduction of investment arbitration grants to foreign investors a standing in international arbitration proceedings, to a large extent reducing the need for diplomatic protection and home state intervention. However, the positive impact of investment arbitration in facilitating the development of the domestic rule of law and the maintenance and increase of foreign capital is less certain. As for the preservation of the legitimacy of the underlying investment treaty regime, investment arbitration as an alternative to domestic courts cannot be relied on to produce much positive impact. For instance, the increasing sovereignty costs and financial burden imposed on national states would probably prompt more of them to turn against the investment treaty regime. The complement model, in which domestic courts assumes primary jurisdiction and investment tribunals secondary jurisdiction over investment disputes, stands a good chance in keeping the advantages of both court litigation and investment arbitration while avoiding their disadvantages. In the complement model, domestic courts will act as the first line of defense in adjudicating investment disputes, and the institutional advantages of court litigation will be enabled to release their potential. At the same time, even if foreign investors are not satisfied with the judicial outcome or regard the court proceedings as corrupt or unfair, they may escalate the specific disputes to investment tribunals for further consideration. Since court judges are more knowledgeable and experienced in the interpretation and application of domestic law, the legal analysis of court judges will also benefit the decision-making of investment arbitrators in the subsequent arbitration proceeding. Allowing domestic courts to have a first try at investment disputes will also increase the likelihood that primary remedies could be accorded, thus the unique advantages of primary remedies in promoting state compliance with investment treaty norms are not discarded in the complement model. Moreover, the complement model is also more promising in facilitating the achievement of the objectives of the investment treaty regime, and that is because domestic courts are not marginalized in the complement model, the antagonism between foreign investors and host states may be expected to decrease, and the depolicization of investment disputes will not be lost since investment arbitration is kept as an option. Furthermore, the complement model strikes a better balance among the interests of foreign investors, host states and other stakeholders, thus it is more likely to preserve and even enhance the legitimacy of the underlying investment treaty regime than the other two institutional choices. Although the complement model serves the goals of investor-state dispute resolution the best in theory, not any casual combination of court litigation and investment arbitration will do the job; instead, only a smart mix of the two dispute resolution methods can give full play to the advantages of the complement model. Now, we switch to the supervisory role of domestic courts in investor-state dispute resolution. While a systemic appellate mechanism has not been created for investment arbitration, disputing parties may rely on setting-aside proceedings in non-ICSID arbitration to challenge arbitration awards. In other words, domestic courts loci arbitri may conduct a judicial review of the rulings and awards made by investment tribunals. However, a theoretical analysis of the judicial review mechanism supported by empirical evidence has shown that the mechanism has several flaws, which include but are not limited to the points that follow immediately. Since there is only a casual link between the seat of arbitration and the investment dispute, it is inappropriate to subject the decision-making of arbitrators to the judges from the place where the arbitration proceedings took place. The very fact that review courts have been overwhelmingly located within the developed North could raise concern that the judicial review mechanism is inherently biased against developing countries which have already shown a somewhat negative sentiment towards investment arbitration. Given that judicial review proceedings could easily go through more than one instance of court proceedings in many jurisdictions, the dispute resolution process may consume more time and generate higher costs. From this point of view, the judicial review mechanism favors the richer party in investment arbitration and could become a weapon of dilatory tactics available for such a party. Considering the higher error costs relating to investment arbitration than that relating to commercial arbitration, limited review grounds and a copious amount of deference to arbitral tribunals may not prove to be as effective in the scrutiny of investment awards. Moreover, the idiosyncrasies as to review grounds and standards across jurisdictions indicate that inconsistency would also probably permeate the judicial review practices, which would then encourage forum shopping that leads to increased costs and decreased efficiency. In addition, as both review courts and enforcement courts may exercise control over investment awards, the setting-aside decision may be merely disregarded at the enforcement stage and the overall efficiency of investor-state dispute resolution may be reduced. In order to overcome many of the flaws mentioned above, a delocalized form of review should be introduced to take place of the current judicial review mechanism.

Les contrats administratifs, plus précisément les marchés publics, sont moyens par lesquels l’Etat assure sa mission d’intérêt général. Ainsi, il peut arriver que pendant la phase de passation ou d’exécution d’un contrat de marché public, que l’une des parties ne puisse pas accomplir les formalités, d’où la naissance d’un litige. De ce fait, pour résoudre ce litige, les parties peuvent décider d’un règlement à l’amiable du différend. L’arbitrage étant le mode par excellence de règlement à l’amiable des litiges, il est donc opportun en partant de ces spécificités, de mettre en œuvre la procédure d’arbitralité des marchés public et l’issue positive de cette procédure qu’est la sentence arbitrale.

Terre attractive pour les investisseurs étrangers, le Maroc voit son économie muter au gré de l'implantation d'entreprises. Face à cette situation, l'adaptation du droit est essentielle. Il s'agit effectivement d'un instrument fondamental pouvant être mis à la disposition des entreprises pour leur offrir un cadre légal rassurant quant à la prospérité de leurs intérêts. Or la justice étatique inspire traditionnellement la crainte du fait de sa lourdeur administrative et de son incapacité à assurer des garanties procédurales suffisantes Pour résorber cela, le législateur marocain a tendu à développer les modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits, tel que l'arbitrage. C'est dans ce contexte que la loi intitulée "arbitrage et médiation conventionnelle" a été ratifiée, le 6 décembre 2007. Elle s'inspire du droit français pour modifier les articles 306 à 327 du Code de procédure civile marocain. Ce cadre procédural vise à insuffler une vigueur nouvelle aux modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits. Néanmoins, la souplesse du régime a pour corollaire des pathologies qui peuvent affecter les conventions d'arbitrage. La rédaction des clauses approximatives, et la formation insuffisante de certains arbitres se traduisent par des conventions d'arbitrage bancales, sources de nouveaux problèmes là où elles devraient faciliter la résolution des litiges. Dans ces conditions, une nouvelle réforme a donné naissance à un Code de l’arbitrage, ratifié le 24 mai 2022. Il s’agira d’étudier l’évolution de la législation marocaine de l’arbitrage, dans une dimension comparatiste avec le droit français, et à la lumière d’une recherche constante de l’efficacité de la convention d’arbitrage. [Abstract] The arbitration agreement : a comparative study of French and Moroccan law : Morocco is an attractive country for foreign investors, and its economy is changing as companies are setting up. Faced with this situation, the adaptation of the law is essential. Indeed, it is a fundamental instrument that can be made available to companies to offer them a reassuring legal framework for the prosperity of their interests. However, the state justice system traditionally inspires distrust because of its administrative cumbersomeness and its inability to ensure sufficient procedural guarantees. In order to solve this, the Moroccan legislator has tended to develop alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration. It is in this context that the law entitled "arbitration and conventional mediation" was ratified on December 6, 2007. It is inspired by French law to modify articles 306 to 327 of the Moroccan Code of Civil Procedure. This procedural framework aims at breathing new life into alternative dispute resolution. Nevertheless, the flexibility of the regime has as a corollary pathologies that can affect arbitration agreements. The drafting of unprofessional clauses and the inadequate training of arbitrators result in flawed arbitration agreements, which are a source of problems where they should facilitate the resolution of disputes. In these conditions, a new reform has led to an Arbitration Code, ratified on May 24, 2022. The aim is to study the evolution of Moroccan arbitration legislation, in a comparative dimension with French law, and in the light of a constant search for the efficiency of the arbitration agreement.

Researching the judicial applications of Arab countries to one of the issues that have occupied legal thoughts in the Western world for decades and still in one form or another, the so-called Unilateral Arbitration Clauses, we did not find a discussion of the applicability of this clause within the laws. Even though this condition takes a reasonable space of the legal arguments as previously mentioned, it has even become widely used in contracts, such as tenancy, contracting, and financial investments. The study showed that the above-mentioned clause has recently increased its use in financing contracts, especially with the increasing globalization of banking services and bank transfers. Although banks usually prefer to resort to traditional litigation, lack of similarity in the legal rules and judicial applications related to banking transactions and their difference from one country to another was a reason for the banks preference of resorting to arbitration. There is no examination of the legitimacy of an unequal or optional arbitration clause in Bahrain. Also, the Bahraini and Egyptian courts, to the best of our knowledge, did not decide whether it should be considered null or valid. The same case is applied to the French courts which have no cases that examined this type of clauses except for a case in 2006 and the other is a judgment close to the same issue on October 7, 2015, from the French Court of Cassation. The English and American courts were different; they examined this clause and had several judicial implementations due to the fact that most of the arbitration terms are either related to multinational companies operating within the framework of the Wall Street Stock Exchange in New York or those that stipulate the enforcement of British and Wales law on the provisions of the contract . However, many Arab countries, in general, as well as Bahrain and some Gulf countries, in particular, are seeking in their economic model to attract foreign investments and capital, especially those related to financial and banking industries, to diversify sources of income. The decision of investing or not investing the capital in a country is made by the judicial authority in terms of independence as well as the judicial application of legal texts as these factors are directly reflected in the desire to invest and show the possibility of protecting investors.

The need Settlement of disputes arising from bank credit between national and international rules, protecting the interests of the bank and ensuring its financial rights before the debtor. As the Bank faces different technical and legal difficulties, as well as the multiplicity of legal adaptation, we deal with the rules governing banking accreditation from the point of pleadings law, and the methods of amicable settlement of these disputes and following, and compulsory execution. International efforts are taking the lead in establishing the technical regulation of bank accreditation and setting rules "DOCDEX" in 1997, and the 2015 amendments, which still need more as they do not provide a legal way to implement them. It is necessary to find out legal regulation at the domestic and international levels, which calls for the legislator to intervene to organize its rules and procedures. We have sought in this study to weave the legal entity to seize bank credit within the legally acceptable limits based on a system of seizure of the debtor with third parties against the background of the legal system of documentary credit and the relationships arising from it, and its financial and economic effects that go beyond the parties to the beneficiaries of companies, bodies, and economic institutions, As the matter still requires the existence of special legislation regulating the seizure of bank credit, to ensure the effectiveness of the guarantees surrounding the appropriations by the national legislator and at the international level. This would expand the insurance of bank credit so that the creditors recover their full right directly or by seizing the value of the credit, which calls for organizing this seizure with rules that consider the privacy of this seizure and its rules and are consistent with the required speed in such transactions in a way that protects the creditor from abuse, in a manner that ensures the observance of confidentiality, due process, and the spirit of banking work, anticipate the possible future that will witness the decline of documentary credit and replace it with electronic transactions, the establishment of specialized banking courts that save time and effort.

In social life, there are often differences in perceptions between humans, causing problems or disputes, whether minor or serious. Likewise in the relationship of economic activities or more commonly known as business relations. Not infrequently humans experience a clash and differences of opinion that lead to disputes. Various problems will always arise in business as long as humans run their business solely for profit, so there are often differences of opinion because the parties will not be harmed which will eventually lead to disputes. In the end, dispute resolution, especially business disputes, is often resolved through a trial in court through a lawsuit by one of the parties who feel aggrieved. However, what was expected from the settlement turned out to be unsatisfactory for the parties because the settlement through litigation sometimes took a long time to obtain legal certainty so that it actually harmed business people because of the loss of time, energy and materials. As an alternative to resolving business disputes, business actors have a tendency to avoid disputes in court and choose to use mediation or through arbitration institutions. This study will briefly describe the comparison of business dispute resolution through court mediation with settlement through arbitration institutions. The research was conducted through descriptive empirical legal research.

Esta tese trata da estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral. Ao se falar da estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral, são muito comuns as afirmações de que, no processo arbitral, o tratamento é diferente, pois é mais flexível. Também, comumente se afirma que a estabilização da demanda na arbitragem se daria no momento de assinatura do termo de arbitragem. No entanto, entende-se que o tema não foi analisado de forma aprofundada, e, inclusive, com base nas pesquisas realizadas, poucas foram as obras nacionais que trataram especificamente da estabilização da demanda arbitral. Diante disso, este trabalho buscará analisar como se dá a estabilização da demanda no processo arbitral e as hipóteses de modificação da demanda no decorrer do processo. Para tanto, inicialmente serão apresentadas considerações iniciais, necessárias ao desenvolvimento do trabalho, como a natureza jurídica da arbitragem e sua inclusão na teoria geral do processo. Após, analisa-se o processo arbitral, a formação da demanda na arbitragem e como se dá a definição das regras a serem observadas no processo arbitral, e como são definidos os poderes jurisdicionais dos árbitros. Ainda, ao se falar de estabilização da demanda, necessariamente deve ser estudado o conteúdo da demanda arbitral e sua individualização, ou seja, o que constitui o objeto litigioso do processo arbitral. Em seguida, será feita a investigação de quais são os elementos da demanda arbitral, as teorias que tratam de cada um deles e qual deve ser seu conteúdo mínimo. Ultrapassada essa investigação e fixados os conceitos necessários ao desenvolvimento do tema, serão analisadas as linhas gerais da estabilização da demanda, sua natureza jurídica e os fundamentos que embasam não só a regra da estabilização da demanda, mas também sua mitigação, do que decorre da análise dos sistemas rígidos e flexíveis. Definidos os conceitos gerais acerca da estabilização da demanda arbitral, analisaremos como outros ordenamentos tratam da questão, bem como as disposições no processo estatal brasileiro, para que se possa compreender o que o sistema processual entende como estabilização da demanda e as hipóteses de mitigação. Em seguida, trataremos do momento de estabilização da demanda arbitral, possibilidade de modificação dos elementos da demanda e consequências da violação da regra da estabilização da demanda. Por fim, todo estudo teórico deve mostrar seu viés prático, de modo que as análises que foram feitas possam ser aplicadas pelas partes e pelo árbitro. Por essa razão, o último capítulo é dedicado às recomendações sobre o tratamento da estabilização da demanda na arbitragem. This thesis addresses the stabilization of demand in the arbitral procedure. When discussing the demand stabilization in the arbitration procedure, it is widely asserted that in the arbitration proceeding the treatment is different since it is more flexible. Furthermore, it is commonly stated that the stabilization of demand in arbitration would occur when the terms of reference are signed. Nevertheless, it is understood that the issue has not been analyzed comprehensively and, based on the research conducted, few Brazilian studies have specifically addressed the stabilization of the arbitral demand. Thus, this study will analyze how the stabilization of the demand occurs in the arbitration procedure and the hypotheses of modification of the claim in the course of the procedure. For this purpose, the necessary initial considerations for the development of the study will be presented, such as the legal nature of arbitration and its inclusion in the general theory of procedure. After that, we will analyze the arbitration process, the formation of the demand in arbitration, and how the rules to be observed in the arbitration process are defined, as well as the jurisdictional powers of the arbitrators. Afterward, we will then proceed to the analysis of the arbitration process, the constitution of the demand in arbitration, and how the rules to be observed in the arbitration procedure are defined, as well as how the jurisdictional powers of the arbitrators are defined. Moreover, when discussing the stabilization of the demand, one must necessarily study the content of the arbitration claim and its individualization, i.e., what constitutes the litigious object of the arbitration procedure. Following that, an investigation of the elements of the arbitration claim, the theories that deal with each of them, and what the minimum content should be, will be carried out. Once this investigation has been concluded and the concepts necessary for the development of this thesis have been established, the general lines of the stabilization of demand will be analyzed, as well as its legal nature and grounds that support, not only the rule of stabilization of demand, but also its mitigation, which follows from the analysis of rigid and flexible systems. Once the general concepts concerning the stabilization of arbitral demand are defined, we will analyze how other legal systems address the issue, as well as the provisions in the Brazilian state process, so that we can comprehend what the procedural system understands as stabilization of demand and the hypotheses of mitigation. Next, we will address the moment of stabilization of the arbitral demand, the possibility of modifying the elements of the claim and the consequences of the violation of the rule of stabilization of demand. Finally, every theoretical study must reveal its practical side, so that the analyses that have been made can be applied by the parties and the arbitrator. For this reason, the last chapter is devoted to recommendations on the treatment of demand stabilization in arbitration.

A presente tese se ocupa de analisar a possibilidade de vinculação de não signatário da convenção de arbitragem ao processo de jurisdição privada via desconsideração da personalidade jurídica no âmbito de arbitragens domésticas. Para tanto, no Capítulo 1, examinam-se premissas teóricas ligadas ao processo de aquisição da personalidade jurídica; de como ele opera limitando a responsabilidade dos integrantes do ente personalizado; e do embate entre autonomia da atividade societária e abuso de direito do qual pode resultar a desconsideração da personalidade jurídica. A teoria desconstitutiva é verificada desde sua criação até os dias atuais, enfatizando-se seu modo de funcionamento à luz dos pressupostos que autorizam sua incidência e os efeitos que se seguem desse reconhecimento segundo a concepção clássica da técnica desconstitutiva. No Capítulo 2, aborda-se o papel da autonomia da vontade para a teoria geral dos contratos e para a arbitragem, apontando-se o alcance e a classificação desta última para, a seguir, adentrar no tema da verificação do consentimento para arbitrar conflitos. Nesse contexto, são analisadas diversas teorias que fundamentam a participação de parte não signatária em arbitragens para se chegar à formulação daquilo que se denominou de consentimento suficiente para arbitrar conflitos. Ao ensejo do estudo das diversas teorias que embasam a extensão da cláusula compromissória, procura-se assinalar distinções, mas também semelhanças, que tornem viável apropriar seus argumentos, quando for o caso, para a específica hipótese de vinculação de terceiro via desconsideração da personalidade jurídica. No Capítulo 3, o epicentro da tese, são investigados os fundamentos que, segundo se defende, autorizam a hipótese. Para tanto, são levados em consideração implicações próprias da natureza jurídica da arbitragem e da regra do kompetenz-kompetenz; a equiparação entre árbitros e juízes togados no exercício de suas funções; o valor da efetividade para a jurisdição arbitral, com foco na análise econômica do direito e no impacto para os custos transacionais da arbitragem ao se rechaçar a hipótese defendida; a boa-fé objetiva como meio apto a identificar o consentimento suficiente; e, finalmente, uma análise individual de alguns trabalhos doutrinários que defendem a hipótese contrária, expondo criticamente seus motivos. Como resultado dos pontos abordados, procura-se responder se a análise da pretensão desconstitutiva por árbitros choca-se com o sistema por alargar os limites da convenção, seja em razão da matéria, seja em virtude dos sujeitos contratantes do pacto arbitral. A conclusão a que se chega é no sentido de que a conjugação desses fatores possibilita a vinculação de parte não signatária ao processo arbitral em razão da utilização abusiva da personalidade jurídica, sendo essa a solução mais consentânea com os propósitos da técnica desconstitutiva estampada no art. 50 do CC e conforme o que dispõe o sistema arbitral. This thesis is dedicated to analyzing the possibility of binding a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement to the private jurisdiction process via disregard doctrine in domestic arbitrations. To this end, Chapter 1 analyzes the theoretical premises linked to the process of acquisition of legal entity, the way it operates in limiting the liability of the members of the personalized entity, and the conflict between the autonomy of the companys activity and abuse of rights, which may result in the disregard of legal entity. The disregard doctrine is verified from its conception to the present days, emphasizing the way it works according to the requirements that allows its incidence and the effects from its recognition according to the classic doctrine of the corporate veil. Chapter 2 deals with the role of autonomy of the will in the general theory of contracts and arbitration, pointing out the reach and classification of the arbitration to then go into the theme of the verification of consent to arbitrate conflicts. In this context, the various theories that support the participation of a non-signatory party in arbitration proceedings are analyzed to formulate what is called "sufficient consent" to arbitrate disputes. In the course of analyzing the various theories on which the extension of the arbitration clause is based, an effort is made to point out distinctions as well as similarities that could make feasible to adopt their arguments, where appropriate, for the specific hypothesis of binding a third party through vail of legal entity. In Chapter 3, the epicenter of the thesis, the grounds by which, according to what has been defended, the arguments that authorizes the hypothesis are examined. To this end, the implications of the legal nature of arbitration are taken into consideration; the rule of kompetenz-kompetenz; the equivalence between arbitrators and judges in the exercise of their functions; the value of effectiveness for the arbitral jurisdiction, focused on the Economic Analysis of Law and the impact on the transactional costs of arbitration when the defended hypothesis is rejected; objective good faith as liable ground for identifying sufficient consent; and finally, individual analysis of some doctrinal works defending the contrary hypothesis, critically exposing their motives. As a result of all the points analyzed, an attempt is made to answer whether the analysis of the unconstitutional claim by arbitrators clashes with the system by extending the limits of the arbitration convention, whether due to the subject matter or to the contracting parties of the arbitration agreement. The conclusion is that the combination of these factors allows the binding of the non-signatory party to the arbitration process due to the abusive use of the legal entity, being this the most consistent solution with the purposes of the unconstitutional technique stamped in article 50 of Brazilian Civil Code and according to what the arbitration system disposes of.

The right to water in investment arbitration has been one of the most contentious issues before investment arbitration tribunals in recent decades. The privatization of public services, including water and sanitation, and assigning them to foreign investors has caused the right to water as a vital benefit being repeatedly raised in investment arbitrations. However, due to tribunals’ narrow interpretation of jurisdiction and applicable law, this fundamental human right has been considered irrelevant and ignored, and this has fueled the legitimacy crises in investment arbitration. This research seeks to indicate the potentiality of more protection of the right to water through balancing the states international obligations in the two areas of investment law and human rights law. Proposed methods for integrating human rights with investment law include the correct interpretation of jurisdictional clauses and the applicable law based on the treaties interpretation principles, systematic integration and the inclusion of new clauses in investment agreements. طرح حق بر آب در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری یکی از مناقشه‌انگیزترین مباحث پیش روی دیوان‌های داوری در چند دهه اخیر بوده است. خصوصی‌سازی خدمات عمومی از جمله آب و فاضلاب و سپردن آنها به سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی موجب شده تا حق بر آب بعنوان یک منفعت عمومی و حیاتی بارها در داوری‌های سرمایه‌گذاری مطرح شود. با تفسیر مضیق محاکم از شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم، این حق بنیادین بشری در برخی موارد نامربوط و نادیده تلقی شده و این امر به بحران مشروعیت در داوری سرمایه‌گذاری دامن زده است. این جستار می‌کوشد تا امکان حمایت بیشتر از حق بر آب را از طریق برقراری تعادل بین تعهدات بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در دو عرصه حقوق سرمایه‌گذاری و حقوق بشر نشان دهد و در پایان روش‌هایی را برای ادغام این دو از جمله تفسیر درست شروط صلاحیتی و قانون حاکم با تکیه بر اصول تفسیر معاهدات، تلفیق سیستمیک و گنجاندن بندهای جدید در موافقتنامه‌های سرمایه‌گذاری پیشنهاد کند.

En droits français et koweïtien, il existe une juridiction de référé quelque soit la matière. Cette juridiction a le pouvoir de prendre des mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires pour régler momentanément une situation urgente ou pour sauvegarder provisoirement et rapidement un droit dans l’attente qu’un jugement au fond soit rendu. Toutefois, en matière arbitrale, le juge étatique n’est pas le seul compétent pour pouvoir prendre lesdites mesures. En effet, l’arbitre désigné dans la convention d’arbitrage dispose également de cette prérogative. À ce titre, les juges étatiques ou arbitraux français et koweitiens, bénéficient de points forts mais également de faiblesses lorsqu’ils rendent ces mesures. D’une part, les juges des référés français et koweïtiens disposent de toutes les prérogatives permettant de rendre leurs décisions provisoires d’une manière efficace et rapide. Toutefois, la lourdeur des règles procédurales applicables devant les juridictions de référé peut s’avérer dissuasif. Elles peuvent ainsi préférer se tourner vers l’arbitre puisque les règles de procédure propre à l’arbitrage sont souvent perçues comme étant modernes, simples et rapides. Toutefois, les arbitres de ces deux États ne disposent pas de l’impérium, qui garante garantissant l’efficacité et l’effectivité de leurs mesures. À ce titre, la substance de cette thèse résidera dans la comparaison entre le juge des référés et les arbitres français et koweitiens concernant l’efficacité et la célérité de leurs mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires. La présente thèse s’attachera à démontrer, au travers de cette comparaison, que l’arbitrage est préférable au traitement du litige malgré l’absence de certaines prérogatives importantes qui aident les arbitres pour rendre leurs mesures provisoires et/ou conservatoires rapides et efficaces. In French and Kuwaiti national courts, the power of urgency exists regardless of the nature of the courts, civil or commercial. The power of urgency entitles to grant all provisional and precautional orders to address an emergency situation or to preserve the right of the parties without prejudice to the origin of the substantive right. However, in the case of an existence of an arbitration agreement, the judge does not have the right to grant these orders solely. In fact, the arbitrator appointed in the arbitration agreement also has the right to this privilege. In this regard, every French and Kuwaiti judge whether an arbitrator or a national judge has points of strength and weakness when granting these orders. On one hand, the French and Kuwaiti national judge has all the privileges that entitle them to grant provisional and precautional orders effectively and quickly. However, the nature of the procedures used to grant these orders can sometimes be stressful and exhausting to the parties involved in a way that affects the speed and effectiveness of these orders. On the other hand, the procedures followed before the arbitrators are easy, fast, and effective, but the arbitrators do not have the power to redress to ensure the execution of these orders, which affects the administration of justice. Therefore, the essence of this study lies in the comparison between the national judge and the arbitrator, French and Kuwaiti, in terms of the effectiveness and the speed of granting provisional and precautional orders. This study shows that arbitration is always preferred by disputants to obtain provisional and precautional orders more quickly and effectively than national courts.

Au cours des dernières décennies, le régime de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (« RDIE »), par le biais de l’arbitrage ad hoc, a été l’objet d’un examen approfondi et de critiques croissantes. Au fur et à mesure que les États défendeurs de diverses régions ont perdu des affaires d’arbitrage d’investissement, ils ont été comme désenchantés par ce type de mécanisme de résolution des litiges, dans ce qui est désormais connu comme le contrecoup de l’arbitrage d’investissement. Plus récemment, ces critiques se sont intensifiées au point que l’Union Européen a remplacé le RDIE contemporain par une cour permanente d’investissement pour régler ces différends. Une approche intermédiaire de la réforme du système par l’établissement d’un organe d’appel visant à donner de la cohérence aux nombreuses sentences arbitrales ad hoc est également envisagée. Cette thèse analyse les principales critiques du système du RDIE actuel afin d’examiner sa pertinence et effectue une comparaison entre les options de réforme, la manière dont elles sont censées résoudre les défauts du système, ainsi que les implications découlant de certaines des solutions les plus débattues. L’objectif de la thèse est de faire valoir qu’une refonte radicale ou révolutionnaire du système d’arbitrage des investissements ne fera que générer des incertitudes, susciter des problèmes juridiques et pratiques très complexes, et ne n’apportera finalement pas de meilleurs résultats. L’accent devrait plutôt être mis sur une indispensable évolution ou réforme substantielle au niveau des traités, afin de tirer les leçons des cas passés et de s’assurer que la rédaction des traités répond mieux aux défis actuels. = The dispute settlement regime between investors and States through ad hoc arbitration has come under heavy scrutiny and mounting criticism in the past few decades. As respondent States in various regions have lost investment arbitration cases, those States have become disenchanted with this form of dispute resolution mechanism in what has become known as the backlash against investment arbitration. More recently, these critiques have escalated to the extent that the European Union has replaced it with a completely new scheme that includes dismantling the investment arbitration system by replacing it with a permanent investment court to settle such disputes in its trade agreement. An intermediate approach to reforming the system, the establishment of an appellate body aimed at providing consistency to the numerous ad hoc arbitration awards, is also being considered. This thesis analyses the main criticisms of the current investor-State dispute settlement (“ISDS”) system to determine its validity and carries out a comparison between the policy reform options, how they are intended to solve the system’s purported flaws, as well as the implications arising from some of the hotly debated options. The aim of the thesis is to argue that drastic overhaul or revolutionary reform to the investment arbitration system will only lead to uncertainties, more complex legal and practical problems and would not yield better results. Instead, the focus should be on the evolution of substantive reform at the treaty level, to address the lessons learned from past cases and ensure that treaty drafting responds to current day challenges.

La négociation est une institution fascinante du droit de l’investissement, polyvalente et multifonctionnelle. L’étude systématisée de la négociation dans le droit de l’investissement fait ressortir que cette institution est plus qu’un simple moyen permettant de parvenir à des accords. En réalité, la négociation est partout dans le droit de l’investissement. Il s’agit de la seule institution véritablement transversale au droit des investissements, qui intervient de nombreuses manières dans les rapports entre les investisseurs et les États d’accueil. Nous pouvons attester de l’existence des négociations avec la négociation des accords internationaux d’investissement ou de contrats d’investissement entre l’État d’accueil et l’investisseur. De surcroît, la négociation est un instrument au service de l’instance juridictionnelle qui sert aux arbitres dans l’interprétation des accords ainsi que pour la détermination de la responsabilité des parties. Si les divers rôles de la négociation dans le droit de l’investissement ont fortement contribué à l’évolution du droit international, la négociation reste une institution peu connue. Sa nature, sa portée, et son contenu juridique restent peu étudiés et non systématisés dans le droit de l’investissement. De ce fait, cette recherche offre une analyse approfondie de la négociation afin de trouver sa place dans l’ordre juridique de l’investissement (en général) et dans le règlement des litiges (en particulier). Nous examinerons dans cette recherche les nombreux apports de la négociation au droit de l’investissement permettant d’affirmer que la négociation constitue le mécanisme essentiel dans la conclusion des accords ; qu’elle impose aux parties des comportements précis ; qu’elle est un instrument qui permet aux tribunaux internationaux de déterminer la responsabilité des parties en fonction de leurs actions et inactions ; enfin, qu'elle constitue un instrument qui aide la justice arbitrale à interpréter les accords ponctuels. Ainsi, cette recherche a pour ambition de comprendre la nature, la portée et les fonctionnalités de la négociation dans le règlement des litiges transnationaux d’investissement. Negotiation is a fascinating instrument of Investment Law, versatile and rich in legal content. The systematic study of negotiation in Investment Law reveals that this institution is much more than just an instrument for reaching agreements. In fact, negotiation is everywhere. It is the only institution of Investment Law that is truly transversal, intervening in many layers of the relationship between investors and Host States. We can recognize the existence of negotiations from the very beginning of an investment process (the negotiation of a contract between the investor and the Host State), as well as negotiations over the course of the life and operation of an investment, and negotiations at the termination of a transnational investment project. Moreover, negotiation is an instrument that serves arbitral tribunal as element for the interpretation of the agreements, and the determination of the parties’ liability. The various roles of negotiation in Investment Law have certainly contributed to the evolution of international law. Nevertheless, negotiation remains an unknown institution to lawyers, regarding its nature, scope, uses and legal content. Investment law requires a thorough analysis of this institution and a structure that adapts to the transnational legal order. In this research, we will examine numerous contributions of negotiation to Investment Law: as a necessary mechanism for the conclusion of agreements that impact Investment Law; as a mandatory rule that it imposes specific behaviors on the parties in respect to the principle of good faith; as an instrument that serves international tribunals to determine the parties’ liability for their actions taken over the course of negotiations, and as an instrument to assist the justice system to construe contracts. Thus, the ambition of this research is to comprehend the nature, scope, and the features of negotiation in International Investment Law. La negociación es un instrumento fascinante de Derecho de las inversiones, a la vez versátil y rico en contenido legal. El estudio sistematizado de la negociación en el Derecho de las inversiones revela que esta institución es mucho más que un instrumento para alcanzar acuerdos. En realidad, la negociación está en todas partes en el derecho de las inversiones. Es laúnica institución verdaderamente transversal al Derecho de las inversiones, que interviene de varias formas en la relación entre inversionistas y los Estados receptores de inversión. Podemos constatar la existencia de las negociaciones desde el inicio de un proceso de inversión (en la negociación de un tratado bilateral deinversión, o de un contrato entre el inversionista y el Estado anfitrión), negociaciones durante la vida y la operación de una inversión y negociaciones encaminadas a la terminación o liquidación de la inversión transnacional. Resalta, además, que la negociación es un instrumento al servicio de la instancia jurisdiccional, que sirve a los árbitros en su tarea de interpretación de acuerdos, y a la determinación de la responsabilidad de las partes. Los diversos roles que presenta la negociación en el Derecho de las inversiones ciertamente han contribuido a la evolución del Derecho internacional. Sin embargo, la negociación sigue siendo una institución poco conocida por los juristas, especialmente en lo tocante a su naturaleza, alcance, usos y contenido legal. ElDerecho de las inversiones requiere de un análisis exhaustivo de esta institución, acompañado de una estructura que se adapte al orden legal transnacional.En esta investigación examinaremos las diversas contribuciones que hace la negociación al Derecho de las inversiones, a saber: se muestra como un mecanismoinevitable para concluir acuerdos que terminan contribuir en la evolución del Derecho de las inversiones; impone a las partes comportamientos específicos enrespeto del principio de la buena fe; es un instrumento para que los tribunales internacionales determinen la responsabilidad de las partes en razón de sus accionesdurante la fase de negociación y se constituye en un instrumento que asiste al sistema de justicia en la tarea de interpretar los acuerdos. La ambición de esta investigación no es otra cosa que comprehender la naturaleza, el alcance y la funcionalidad de la negociación en el Derecho internacional de las inversiones.

A questão fundamental que está por detrás da investigação feita para elaboração deste estudo consiste em saber se a arbitragem é jurisdição. A pesquisa foi conduzida de forma analítica de molde a que conclusões fossem alcançadas no sentido de se saber até que ponto a arbitragem é mesmo jurisdição. É claro que, para que isso fosse feito, isto é, para que esse caminho fosse percorrido, o primeiro tema a ser tratado deveria ser, necessariamente, a própria jurisdição. Trata-se de um conceito construído pela cultura humana cujo conteúdo, exatamente por isso, variou ao longo da história. Seguiu-se a mesma abordagem no que diz respeito à arbitragem. Assim, o primeiro objetivo desta tese foi o de acompanhar a evolução do conceito de jurisdição, ao longo do tempo, como forma de composição de conflitos, desde o direito romano, até a atualidade. Foi explorado o caminho pelo qual passou a jurisdição, com o fim de se investigar por qual motivo, em determinado momento, se começou a afirmar, de modo peremptório, que a jurisdição seria uma atividade realizada exclusivamente pelo Estado. O segundo objetivo consistiu em analisar a arbitragem, pondo-a lado a lado com a jurisdição estatal, explorando-se os pontos que ambos os fenômenos apresentam em comum, assim como os que diferenciam essas duas formas de exercício do poder-dever de julgar. Por isso, foi objeto de investigação e reflexão uma outra função da jurisdição estatal, recentemente assumida de forma clara pela jurisdição estatal, que é a de contribuir para a criação do direito. Procurou-se identificar em que contexto e extensão isso pode acontecer, tanto na jurisdição do Estado, quanto na jurisdição contratada pelas partes. Em um terceiro momento deste estudo, colocamos luzes sobre determinados institutos do processo civil, desenvolvendo-os, também, no terreno do procedimento arbitral. Num quarto e último momento, nossas reflexões se voltaram para o problema de se saber até que ponto a arbitragem seria mesmo jurisdição, equivalente à jurisdição estatal, em todos os seus aspectos, em toda a sua extensão, seus limites e suas funções. The fundamental question behind the research done to prepare this paper is whether arbitration is jurisdiction. The research has been conducted in an analytical manner so that conclusions could be reached in order to know to what extent arbitration is even jurisdiction. For this to be done, the first topic to be addressed should necessarily be jurisdiction itself. This is a concept constructed by human culture whose content, precisely for this reason, has varied throughout history. The same approach has been followed about arbitration. Thus, the first aim of this thesis was to follow the evolution of the concept of jurisdiction, over time, as a form of dispute resolution, since Roman law, until today. Jurisdiction has been explored, to investigate why, at a certain point, it began to affirm, peremptorily, that jurisdiction would be an activity performed exclusively by the State. The second aim was to analyze arbitration, placing it side by side with State jurisdiction, exploring points that both: state and arbitral jurisdiction have in common, as well as those that differentiate these two forms of judging. Therefore, another function, recently clearly assumed by the state jurisdiction, which is to contribute to the creation of law, has been object of investigation and reflection. It was sought to identify in what context and extent this can happen, both in the State and arbitral jurisdiction. In a third moment of this study, we shed light on certain institutes of civil procedure, developing them, also, in the field of arbitration procedure. In a fourth and last moment, our reflections turned to the problem of knowing to what extent arbitration would even be jurisdiction, equivalent to the State jurisdiction, considering all its aspects, its extent, limits and functions.

La première version de cet article (datant de 2010), traitait largement de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine, parfois confidentielle, et le droit de l’arbitrage du commerce international (au moins dans sa conception et sa présentation françaises) était chaque jour davantage affiné , il complétait des formations internationales, les sources s’éclaircissaient, les commentaires foisonnaient et, aujourd’hui, nous vivons sans doute l’âge d’or de l’arbitrage commercial international[1]. Surtout, la première édition n’avait pu rendre compte de la réforme opérée peu après par ‘‘‘décret du 13 janvier 2011’‘‘. Un décret du Premier ministre français, autant dire tout de suite que le champ de l’étude présentée ici est à dominante principale franco-française, et que la principale préoccupation ici relèvera du ‘‘droit de l’arbitrage’’ dans une conception comparée, mais à partir du modèle français. Ainsi des réflexions seront menées dans le cadre du droit comparé et conventionnel international de ce type de résolution extra-judiciaire qu’est l’arbitrage commercial international, avec la présence à Paris de la Chambre de commerce internationale (CCI) et de sa Cour internationale d’arbitrage (CIA/CCI ci-après). La France est à l’avant-garde du sujet. Compte tenu de l’application de la loi dans le temps et pour une meilleure intelligibilité de la réforme, une réforme voulue par les acteurs et les juristes, ‘‘lato sensu’’, le droit antérieur à la réforme de 2011 est rappelé plus ou moins cursivement, qui montrera utilement les nombreux « progrès » de la discipline.

Sometimes foreign investors after the dispute have arisen or when it is predictable and with the intention of bringing the dispute to arbitration, change their nationality or acquire new nationality. The phenomenon called Nationality Planning eases foreign investors’ access to a desirable treaty and increases the chance of bringing disputes against host states.So host states try to avoid these disputes by raising objections to Ratione Temporis or claiming abuse of rights. Arbitration tribunals’ approach towards their Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights is material in host states’ success in limiting Nationality Planning. So the question to be answered is that what requirements are considered by arbitrations in determining Ratione Temporis and abuse of rights and how these two are different. Arbitral precedent shows that these tribunals make distinction between cases of nationality planning contrary to their Ratione Temporis and cases that are considered as abuse of rights. However, in practice their strict approach results in limited acceptation of objections to Ratione Temporis or abuse of rights claims. گاه سرمایه‌گذار خارجی پس از بروز اختلاف یا زمانی که اختلاف قابل پیش‌بینی است و به قصد طرح دعوی در مرجع داوری، اقدام به تغییر تابعیت یا کسب تابعیت جدید می‌نماید. این اقدام که برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت نام دارد، دسترسی سرمایه‌گذار خارجی به یک معاهده سرمایه‌گذاری مطلوب را تسهیل کرده و احتمال طرح دعوی علیه دولت میزبان را افزایش می‌دهد. از این‌رو دولت‌های میزبان تلاش می‌کنند با طرح ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا سوء استفاده از حق، مانع پذیرش چنین دعوایی شوند. رویکرد مراجع داوری در احراز صلاحیت زمانی خود و تشخیص موارد سوء استفاده از حق، در موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت دولت میزبان در مقابله با برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت تعیین‌کننده است. بنابراین باید به این پرسش پرداخته شود که مراجع داوری چه شرایطی را برای احراز صلاحیت زمانی و سوء استفاده از حق در نظر می‌گیرند و چگونه میان این دو تمایز قائل می‌شوند. رویه مراجع داوری حاکی از آن است که این مراجع میان مواردی از برنامه‌ریزی تابعیت که مانع صلاحیت زمانی آن‌هاست و مواردی که سوء استفاده از حق تلقی می‌گردد، تمایز قائل می‌شوند. هرچند رویکرد سخت‌گیرانه آنها در عمل موجب می‌شود تنها در موارد محدودی ایراد به صلاحیت زمانی یا ادعای سوء استفاده از حق مورد پذیرش واقع شود.

Qu’est-ce qu’une sentence arbitrale ? La sentence arbitrale est le résultat attendu par les parties qui se soumettent à une procédure arbitrale. Elle constitue le seul outil juridictionnel mis à la disposition de l’arbitre au cours d’un arbitrage. La sentence se voit revêtue d’un régime particulier, qui n’est pas ouvert aux autres types d’actes délivrés par l’arbitre, qui sont les ordonnances de procédures. La qualification en tant que sentence arbitrale d’une décision est donc une question primordiale, lorsqu’il est question d’arbitrage. La notion de sentence arbitrale n’est pas identique d’un droit à un autre et la définition française de la sentence arbitrale issue de l’arrêt Sardisud de la cour d’appel de Paris apporte son lot d’incertitudes en termes de qualification. En effet, la confrontation de cette définition à un certain nombre de cas d’objet d’étude suscite des interrogations. Ces interrogations poussent à l’analyse de chacun des critères permettant sa qualification, questionnant leur interprétation, mais aussi parfois leur nécessité. Certaines « zones grises » font naître des doutes de qualification de certaines décisions délivrées par l’arbitre en tant que sentence arbitrale : c’est le cas de la mesure provisoire, mais aussi de la sentence d’accord-parties. D’autres cas de figure posent des difficultés de qualification en deux temps, avec tout d’abord la question de la qualification de la procédure en tant qu’arbitrage et ensuite celle de la décision qui en découle en tant que sentence arbitrale. En effet, ces deux qualifications sont étroitement liées, d’une part puisque la sentence arbitrale ne peut exister sans arbitrage et d’autre part, car il existe une porosité des critères utilisés dans les définitions de l’arbitrage et de la sentence arbitrale. Ces difficultés de qualification en deux temps existent dans le cadre de la procédure d’arbitrage à deux degrés, la procédure devant un Dispute Adjudication Board en matière de construction, lors des procédures pré-arbitrales d’urgence, mais aussi lors d’une demande d’adaptation de contrat à un arbitre. L’étude de l’ensemble de ces cas de figure offre la possibilité de mettre à l’épreuve la définition actuelle de la sentence arbitrale, de souligner ses déficiences et de proposer une nouvelle approche de la notion de sentence arbitrale qui se décompose en deux propositions : d’une part, une interprétation plus élargie de certains critères utilisés dans la définition de la sentence arbitrale et d’autre part la disparition de certains critères qui apparaissent injustifiés.

OHADA is amongst an international organization consists of arbitral tribunal within regions in Africa to deal with international disputes on investment and commercial related. Henceforth, the purpose of the study examines the effectivity of arbitral awards enforcement under the perspectives of OHADA arbitration rules. The study axed through qualitative approach by interpreting legal rules, analyzing cases and commenting the weakness of the charter in terms of enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards. The decision of OHADA arbitral tribunal shall contain intrinsically legal effect to country members, however it leads problematics as the enforcement and recognition rules may be different in every country involved. Hence, the study interpreted the legal rules concerning enforcement and recognition of arbitral awards, effectiveness of the rules. In addition it exerted also the challenges and significant recommendation for improving the arbitration rules on enforcement of arbitral awards. It is found the weakness of the arbitral awards locates on refusal of concerned State to enforce the awards under the domestic law for undefinable conflict of interest

La thèse porte sur « L’exécution des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA ». Elle a pour but de démontrer comment mettre en œuvre ces sentences sans se heurter à l’immunité d’exécution des personnes qui en bénéficient. En effet, en l’absence d’une exception arbitrale, l’interdiction de l’exécution forcée et des mesures conservatoires à l’encontre de ces personnes semble s’étendre à l’exécution forcée des sentences arbitrales contre les personnes publiques de l’OHADA. Or, comme ces dernières, l’immunité d’exécution a également un fondement contractuel ; c’est une règle d’ordre public de protection à laquelle le bénéficiaire peut renoncer. Donc, son application ne serait requise que si son bénéficiaire n’y a pas renoncé. Mais, pour être valable, la renonciation à l’immunité d’exécution doit être expresse, au sens du droit international coutumier, dont fait partie la Convention des Nations Unies sur l’immunité juridictionnelle des Etats et de leurs biens du 2 décembre 2004, applicable en droit OHADA, pour raison de droit. Cette condition de validité de la renonciation pose le problème de l’efficacité des contrats soumis aux règles impératives du droit public ou des conventions et règlements d’arbitrage. Alors, faudrait-il envisager la réécriture des modèles habituels de conventions et règlements d’arbitrage pour y intégrer cette condition ? Cette approche garantirait l’effectivité des sentences arbitrales administratives, sur le fondement de la force obligatoire des contrats (Pacta sunt servenda) et de leur exécution de bonne foi. Aussi, pourrait-on renforcer cette renonciation par la mention de biens affectés à l’activité en cause ou à l’exécution de la sentence qui s’ensuivra sans lien avec l’activité qui y a donné lieu. En tout état de cause, l’immunité d’exécution ne s’oppose ni à l’identification des débiteurs des condamnations pécuniaires des personnes publiques, ni à l’exequatur des sentences arbitrales adm inistratives, ni même à l’exécution volontaire ou spontanée desdites sentences. Ainsi, en dépit de sa conception absolue ou stricte, l’immunité d’exécution de l’OHADA a des limites à l’égard des sentences arbitrales administratives.