Bibliographie sélective OHADA

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.

This paper comprehensively analyses the potential of blockchain technology and smart contracts to revolutionise dispute resolution. As dispute resolution methods evolve, blockchain and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, transparency, and fairness, are becoming more critical. That is especially the case in mediation and construction adjudication, which are less traditionally formal and tend to be carried through much more quickly than other forms of dispute resolution. The opportunity of blockchain comes from its ability to demonstrate a tamper-proof, clear record, reducing risks of misunderstanding and bias. This facilitates the transfer and verification of evidence both in the carrying out of projects and during dispute resolution processes. Smart–digital contracts with terms coded indirectly- allow for automated contract enforcement. They execute automatically upon meeting specific conditions. This automation brings a new efficiency level, cutting the time and costs of conventional dispute resolution. Nonetheless, integrating blockchain and smart contracts in dispute resolution faces several challenges. The current limited understanding and acceptance of these technologies in the legal sector is an imminent issue. Legislative changes are necessary to provide a solid legal framework for these technologies in legal processes and to address potential inconsistencies of approach. Such reform requires strong cooperation among lawmakers, technologists, and legal experts to ensure implementation that adheres to legal and ethical norms and ensures that the technologies can be applied with confidence by the stakeholders within the process. This collective effort is crucial for seamlessly integrating blockchain and smart contracts into legal frameworks.

The transformation of international trade from conventional to digital impacts several things, including resolving international trade disputes. In order to realize an efficient and effective dispute resolution process, many countries have implemented ODR to settle international trade disputes. This study aims to analyze the implementation of ODR in various countries and examine issues with unclear guidelines based on international law. This research observes the development of ODR in Indonesia and the urgency for its implementation in Indonesia. The research is normative juridical, with a statutory and comparative approach. The results obtained in this study are model law arrangements relating to the standardization of ODR Providers aimed to protect the personal data of the parties, unification of ODR dispute resolution clauses, and formulation of national legal instruments to create legal certainty regarding ODR, including ODR proceedings, permits, and monitoring,  as well as recognition and execution process of electronic ODR decisions.

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

This paper examined international arbitration as a tool for resolving investment disputes in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, a critical industry that contributes significantly to Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange earnings and government revenues. This sector is marked by high-risk investments and complexity and often faces disputes arising from regulatory changes, fluctuating global prices, environmental concerns and contractual breaches. Arbitration, particularly in cross-border investments, provides a neutral, efficient and flexible mechanism for resolving such disputes. Using a doctrinal research methodology, the study analysed statutes, case law, international treaties, and academic sources. Findings revealed that while arbitration offers benefits such as neutrality and enforceability, there are still some challenges that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Issues include resistance to enforcement of arbitral awards by Nigerian courts on grounds of national interest, high arbitration costs and biases favouring foreign investors. Nigeria’s legal framework, including the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, supports arbitration but lacks procedural clarity, leading to delays and inefficiencies. The paper concluded that legal reforms are essential to strengthen arbitration processes, enhance enforcement mechanisms and align Nigeria’s framework with international standards. Such reforms would foster investment stability and improve Nigeria’s attractiveness as an investment destination by reducing legal uncertainties. The paper recommended legislative and judicial improvements in order to achieve these goals.

It seems like a long time ago that there were only a handful of climate lawsuits. Since the first climate lawsuits were filed in the United States in 1990,² a myriad of litigation has emerged at the national, regional and global levels. According to the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, as of May 2021 the databases on climate litigation around the world contained 1,841 cases that were either in progress or had already been decided.³ This shows the exponential development of the phenomenon through which civil society organizations, public law legal entities and private individuals are