Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis critically examines a much-debated issue in international law: the legitimacy of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system (ISDS). The system was initially conceived to provide an alternate dispute resolution mechanism for the protection and promotion of foreign investment. In time, this objective has incited a discussion on the legitimacy of the system as the developed world has started to experience the role of host states. Since then, they have taken the lead in the reform process to achieve a balance between host state's and foreign investors' rights. To this effect, both the European Union (EU) and the Third Way Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) are for centralization of the system arguing its current problems emanate from its ad hoc and decentralized nature. Although both are aimed at system centralization, the paths they take to achieve it clearly differ. The EU seeks a permanent investment court by which ad hoc arbitration would give way to a more centralized framework. However, TWAIL advocates for a return to the pre-ISDS era, where national courts resolve investment disputes between foreign investors and states. The effectiveness of these two reform ideas in addressing the purported legitimacy concerns of the ISDS is critically examined in this thesis using Martti Koskenniemi's legal approach. Ultimately, it asserts that neither proposal is adequate to resolve the legitimacy issue of the system, as legitimacy can only be achieved by strengthening the principle of justice, which is feasible alone through a more decentralized structure.