While international arbitration offers the prominent scheme for resolution of transnational disputes, the arbitration community must constantly examine areas of concern. Any system of justice, including the arbitration system, is not meant for abuse. Thus, it would be paradoxical to support a mischief that the arbitration system seeks to obviate. This could cast doubts as to the system's efficiency and induce distrust in a system formed to accommodate parties' interests and uphold their common intentions. In recent years, international arbitration has been plagued by different forms of procedural abuse. Abusive practices developed by parties may undermine the fair resolution of disputes and frustrate the administration of arbitral justice. There are pre-existing tools and legal rules at the disposal of arbitrators that can be utilised to prevent abuse and administer arbitral justice. However, these tools are inherently rigid in their application. The thesis introduces the principle of abuse of rights in international arbitration and argues for its application as a general principle of law to prevent the transmogrification of international arbitration into a process profoundly tainted with abuse. The virtue and efficacy of a single theory with a wide scope of application and an overarching premise, is that it can be used to address different abusive behaviours, and equally enjoys the flexibility of general principles of law.

La pratique des affaires révèle le succès que connait l’arbitrage comme mode de résolution des différends. Cette forme de justice, promue par d’importantes conventions internationales et régionales, est reconnue et encouragée par de nombreuses législations nationales. Les Républiques arabes syrienne et égyptienne ne sont pas en reste. Elles se sont dotées de textes importants et modernes qui visent à assurer l’efficacité du processus arbitral et à créer un terrain favorable au développement de ce type de règlement des différends. Pourtant en dépit d’un contexte législatif favorable, les opérateurs du secteur bancaire de ces républiques sont encore réticents à recourir à cette forme de justice. Or si ce constat trouve sans doute quelques justifications s’agissant du contentieux né de la mise en œuvre d’opérations purement internes, il est plus surprenant de l’observer s’agissant d’opérations qui se déploient dans l’ordre international. L’objet de l’étude est donc de souligner les perspectives offertes par les nouveaux dispositifs. En premier lieu c’est la question de « l’accès à l’arbitrage » qui se trouve explorée. Au-delà de cette problématique première, il fallait encore examiner la manière dont ces dispositifs nationaux encadrent « la justice arbitrale » au stade de l’instance comme à celui des recours ouverts à l’encontre de la sentence / The practice of business reveals the success of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes. This form of justice, promoted by important international and regional conventions, is recognized and encouraged by many national legislations. The Syrian and Egyptian Arab Republics are not so left behind this way. They have adopted important and modern texts which aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of the arbitration process and creating a favorable environment for the development of this type of dispute settlement. Yet despite a favorable legislative context, banking operators in these republics are still reluctant to resort to this form of justice. Although this resume may be justified in the case of disputes arising from the implementation of so purely internal operations, it is surprising to observe it in the case of operations which are deployed in the international order. The object of the study is therefore to highlight the prospects offered by the new legal provisions. At first, the question of "access to arbitration" is explored. Going beyond this first problem, it was still necessary to examine the way in which these national provisions frame "arbitral justice" at the stage of the proceedings as well as at the level of appeals available against the award