Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This glossary is the first edition of legal and other terms that micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) will encounter while trading under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The aim of the glossary is to help users understand legal, commercial and customs terms found in the AfCFTA Agreement as it has been crafted with inputs and guidance from the African private sector, including MSMEs, women and youth entrepreneurs, and business support institutions striving to improve the African business environment.

Choice of law is a perplexing concept due to the importance of party autonomy, the diversity of connecting factors, and the variety of different contractual issues. The problem of choosing a governing law is complicated in consumer contracts by industrialised mechanisms depriving consumers of negotiation rights. The core mandate of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is to establish a single market for goods and services associated with the free movement of legal persons for economic integration. This objective requires a harmonised consumer protection policy to resolve the diverse consumer protection regimes applicable in state parties within AfCFTA member states. This policy should provide suitable consumer protection mechanisms generally and in the context of choice of law specifically. Implementing a draft competition policy bestows a legitimate mandate on the AfCFTA to negotiate a continental framework on consumer protection as both fields of law complement each other to safeguard consumer rights in cross-border trade. This article argues the dynamics of providing adequate choice of law rules on consumer contracts to inform suitable mechanisms on consumer interest within the AfCFTA. The article discusses the abuse of choice of law clauses in consumer contracts, affecting consumers’ rights in cross-border contracts within the AfCFTA. It suggests a harmonised consumer protection policy to regulate and mitigate these clauses. The article also examines trends in Global North jurisdictions like the European Union to inform a context-specific institutional framework for the AfCFTA’s choice of law rules.

Where the parties to an international contract fail to specify the choice of law, a forum selection agreement is one of the most, if not the most, significant factors to consider in implying the choice of law in many international, supranational, regional instruments, and national jurisdictions. However, it is an ill-defined, notoriously complex, and hotly debated issue as to the weight that should be attached to a forum selection agreement in implying the choice of law. Hence, this article is devoted to discussing this topic from a comparative perspective, in order to propose a guide to global uniform criteria. To achieve this, the article covers all relevant international, regional, and supranational instruments, and selected legal systems in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, the Middle East, and North and South America. The legal systems compared include those from the global North and global South, including common law, civil law, and mixed legal systems. The article’s core proposal is that an exclusive forum selection agreement should be a key factor in implying the choice of law. However, except in such cases as where a forum is chosen on a neutral basis, there should be a general requirement of corroboration with at least one other factor of significance. The aim of the proposal is to contribute to greater uniformity, predictability, and certainty in the global community in this field of law.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

Cet article examine l’impact des facteurs de proximité sur l’intensité commerciale intra africaine. Dans le cadre des modèles reposant sur une approche ex post, notre contribution concerne l’usage d’un modèle de gravité avec la prise en compte des distances géographiques et économiques. Nos résultats montrent que les niveaux d’intégration commerciale contrastés au sein des CER risquent d’accentuer l’asymétrie d’intégration continentale, ils révèlent que la distance économique impacte positivement et significativement l’intensité des échanges et suggèrent le renforcement de l’intégration via les chaines de valeur régionales. This article examines the impact of proximity factors on intra-African trade intensity. Our contribution consists of the use of a gravity model with the consideration of geographical and economic distances. Our results show that the contrasting levels of trade integration within the RECs are likely to accentuate the asymmetry of continental integration, they reveal that economic distance has a positive and significant impact on the intensity of trade and suggest the strengthening of integration through regional value chains.

This booklet contains the first draft of the envisaged African Principles on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts. The proposal could be used by national legislators on the continent and African economic integration organisations, particularly the African Union, in, respectively, domestic legislation and regional or supranational laws of a soft or binding nature. The existence of a reliable transnational legal infrastructure in respect of international commercial law, including commercial private international law, is a prerequisite for investor confidence, inclusive economic growth, sustainable development, and the ultimate alleviation of poverty on the African continent. The instrument may contribute to sustainable growth on a long-term basis. The regulation of private international law of contract is essential to the further development of the African Continental Free Trade Area. Jan L Neels is professor of private international law and director of the Research Centre for Private International Law in Emerging Countries at the University of Johannesburg.

The population of Africa and that of China put together amounts to a little over one-third of the world's total. The theoretical justification of the gravity model is applied to analyze the factors influencing bilateral trade between China and African countries using the panel data regression technique, covering the period between 2002 and 2021 and with special consideration for the income level of the African countries. Empirical results and estimates reveal that the economic size as well as the population of trade partners positively affect China’s trade with 45 African countries. The positive impact that distance has on trade is inconsistent with previous research. We conclude from the analysis that the factors affecting trade between China and African countries are, namely, the size of the population, the economic size represented by the GDP, and the distance between the countries. The indication of effects on the trade sector is important, and the sensitivity of the potential product to distance and countries varies considerably, giving a revealed comparative advantage. African countries should diversify their exports and improve their trade diplomacy.