Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This chapter deals with the principle of direct effect as applied in European Union law and explores its suitability in the enforcement of African Union (AU) legal instruments, notably those setting up the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). What motivates the issue of direct effect is the noted reticence of African countries to litigate trade matters between themselves despite the existence of provisions of regional trade treaties creating courts of justice which give standing to Member States. Therefore, it surveys the avenues through which natural and legal persons can uphold their rights stemming from AfCFTA treaties thus contributing to treaty interpretation and increasing security and predictability. Currently, the AfCFTA Dispute Settlement Protocol, modelled after the WTO, does not allow such a possibility, contrary to rights acquired by natural and legal persons before some African Regional Economic Communities (RECs) courts. Nevertheless, this chapter finds that carving out access of natural and legal persons to AfCFTA proceedings may not always work as intended since there are other ways to bypass these obstacles. These loopholes could be the gateway through which direct effect will develop and become a principle of AU law broadly speaking. These gaps further complement this chapter’s suggestions to explore amending the AfCFTA legal instruments, even though its dispute settlement system is yet to be tested, in order to match the standing that natural and legal persons have acquired under the RECs, which, in fine, are building blocs towards achieving the AfCFTA and, eventually, the African Economic Community.

Issues related to international trade and the environment undoubtedly are of significance to developing countries like Cameroon because they argue that developed countries have depleted resources and indulged in environmentally harmful practices during the past century, in order to achieve unprecedented high standards of living.² The developing countries therefore demand a general but differentiated responsibility, seeking open trade and compensation for adopting environmentally restraining policies.³ Upon further reflection on the link between economic growth activities, environmental protection and social development, the triangular debate on these topics will be highlighted briefly, by introducing the various perspectives.⁴ Trade creates the wealth, which

This is an accepted manuscript of an article authored by Michael Trebilcock, and later published in International Economic Governance and Non-Economic Concerns.

There has been a dramatic shift in the focus of trade policy concerns in recent years from the barriers that lie at the border to the barriers which exist “within the border.” The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/World Trade Organization (GATT/WTO) and other regional trading arrangements have been largely successful in reducing both the levels of tariffs worldwide and the scale of other border measures such as quotas. This has revealed a new and more subtle category of measures which restrict trade – the numerous regulations which governments enact to protect the health and safety of their citizens and the environment in which they live. Such regulations vary tremendously across borders: one nation's bunch of grapes is another nation's repository of carcinogenic pesticide residue. These efforts to protect citizens from the hazards of everyday life have become a virtual minefield for trade policy makers, in part because such differences can often be manipulated or exploited to protect domestic industry from international competition, and in part because even when there is no protectionist intent on the part of lawmakers, through a lack of coordination, mere differences in regulatory or standard-setting regimes can function to impede trade through increasing multiple compliance costs. It has thus become increasingly difficult to delineate the boundaries between a nation's sovereign right to regulate and its obligation to the international trading community not to restrict trade.