The Southern African Development Community Tribunal (the Tribunal) is the only judicial organ of the Southern African Development Community (the SADC). Its mandate includes ensuring “adherence to and the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Southern African Development Community Treaty” (the Treaty). The decisions of the Tribunal are final and binding in the territories of member states party to a dispute before it. The responsibility to ensure that the decisions of the Tribunal are enforced lies with the Southern African Development Community Summit (the Summit). The Summit is the supreme policy-making body of the SADC. It comprises the Heads of State or Government of all SADC member states. The decisions of the Summit are binding on all member states and, upon referral from the Tribunal, it has the power to take appropriate action against a member state who refuses to honour a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was established primarily to deal with disputes emanating from the SADC’s economic and political units and not with human rights. A dispute concerning allegations of human rights violations in Zimbabwe was brought before the Tribunal by farmers affected by the country’s land-reform policy. The Tribunal, through reliance on the doctrine of implied powers, and the principles and objectives of the SADC as contained in the Treaty, extended its jurisdiction. In particular, the Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear cases involving human rights violations and that there had indeed been human rights violations in the case before it. It consequently ruled against Zimbabwe. This decision has been welcomed by many within the SADC region as showing the Tribunal’s commitment to interpreting the Treaty in a way that does not run counter the rights of SADC citizens. However, the Tribunal’s decision has met with resistance from Zimbabwe and has not been implemented on the ground, inter alia, that the Tribunal acted beyond its mandate. The Tribunal has on several occasions referred cases of non-compliance to the Summit for appropriate action against Zimbabwe. The Summit, however, has done nothing concrete to ensure that the Tribunal’s decisions are enforced in Zimbabwe. Instead, in an unexpected move that sent shockwaves through the SADC region and beyond, the Summit suspended the Tribunal and resolved that it should neither receive nor adjudicate any cases. During the SADC summit in August 2014, a Protocol on the Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community was adopted and signed (the 2014 Protocol). In terms of this Protocol the iii jurisdiction of the (new) Tribunal will be limited to inter-state disputes. Unfortunately, it also does not provide any transitional measures to address issues such as the manner to deal with pending cases and the enforcement of judgments. When it comes to the execution and enforcement of judgments, it can be argued that the 2014 Protocol is largely a replica of the original 2000 Tribunal Protocol. The reason for this is that the envisaged mechanisms to enforce the decisions of the new Tribunal is to a large extent similar to the previous one. Unsatisfied over the non-compliance with the decision by Zimbabwe, the litigants approached the South African courts to enforce the Tribunal’s decision in South Africa.1 The South African courts found that South Africa is obliged under the SADC Treaty to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the decisions of the Tribunal are enforced, and ruled against Zimbabwe. However, the decision is yet to be enforced. The non-compliance with the judgments and a lack of mechanisms to enforce the decisions of the Tribunal, are crucial issues as they undermine the authority of the Tribunal. This thesis explores whether the Tribunal acted within its mandate in receiving and hearing a human rights case. It further considers whether, in the absence of a human rights mandate, the Tribunal enjoys implied powers under international law to invoke the powers necessary for the fulfilment of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It also reviews the concept of state sovereignty and the extent to which it has been affected by human rights norms post-World War II; regionalism; and globalisation. An important aspect examined, is the relationship between SADC Community law and the national law of member states. The relationship between national courts and the Tribunal also receives attention. Ultimately, the discourse addresses compliance and enforcement of the Tribunal’s decisions in the context of international law. To the extent relevant, I draw on other regional (the European Court of Justice) and sub-regional (the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, and the East African Court of Justice) courts to establish how they have dealt with human rights jurisdiction and the enforcement of their judgments. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

L’Asie est une des principales destinations, en termes de volume, des investissements mondiaux. Or, l’existence d’une sécurité tant juridique que fiscale est un paramètre majeur dans les choix des investisseurs étrangers. Quelques affaires récentes dans cette région, notamment « Lone Star Fund » en Corée du Sud et « Vodafone » en Inde, semblent remettre en question l’existence d’une telle sécurité. Les activités de nombreuses entreprises étrangères articulées autour d’opérations d’achat et de revente de parts de sociétés sont spéculatives. La Chine, la Corée du Sud et l’Inde, ayant constaté l’importance des profits générés par une telle pratique spéculative, ont choisi de les imposer, en tant qu’Etat de la source, soit avec l’adoption des règles dites « general anti-avoidance rules (GAAR) », soit avec l’interprétation extensive d’un principe découlant d’une loi fiscale, soit encore avec l’amendement des règles des revenus réputés de source. Ce faisant, elles n’ont pas tenu compte de l’existence de société-relais et n’ont pas nécessairement justifié cette imposition qui semble contrevenir à leurs conventions fiscales. La première partie de cette thèse consiste à étudier le droit interne et la pratique judiciaire de ces Etats. Dans un second temps, elle examine dans quelle mesure cette imposition s’articule avec leurs conventions fiscales. Enfin, elle cherche à comprendre pourquoi elles ont choisi une telle politique fiscale et propose quelques solutions pour rehausser le degré de prévisibilité de leur système juridique. / Asia is one of the main destinations in terms of global investment volume. But the existence of legal and fiscal certainties is an important factor for investors’ choices. Several recent cases in the region, including “Lone Star Fund” in South Korea and “Vodafone” in India, seem to question the existence of such certainties. Many foreign enterprises focus on the shares’ purchase and re-sale, which could be linked to speculation. China, South Korea and India, as source states, having identified speculative business which is making huge profits, decided to tax them, with adopting General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) or a broad interpretation of a tax law principle and also the rule amendment on income deemed to accrue. In so doing, they ignored the presence of conduit companies and did not justify this taxation which would seem to be a breach of their tax treaties.Firstly, this study examines domestic law and judicial practice of these states. In the second phase, it evaluates the extent to which this taxation relates to their tax treaties. Finally, it seeks to understand why they opt for such a tax policy and proposes some solutions to raise the level of predictability of their legal system.

Le statut juridique de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme, qui a fait l'objet de controverses lors de son adoption, a évolué depuis. Sur le plan international, la Déclaration universelle fait désormais partie du corpus juridique du droit interne de l'ONU et a été reconnue comme un instrument obligatoire par la doctrine et les organes judiciaires et quasi-judiciaires. Sur le plan national, elle a été incorporée dans de nombreux ordres internes en suivant des dynamiques propres à quatre espaces transrégionaux (Common Law, Amérique Latine, Europe et Afrique). Cette double évolution a modifié le statut intrinsèque de la DUDH, qui fait désormais partie des sources non-conventionnelles du droit obligatoire, bien que certains ordres juridiques refusent d'admettre sa force contraignante. Son applicabilité repose ainsi sur la formulation des droits qu'elle énonce. / The legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was subject to controversy at the time it was adopted, has evolved since then. At the international level, the Universal Declaration has become part of the United Nations legal corpus and has been recognized as a binding instrument by publicists and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. At the national level, it has been incorporated into many domestic legal systems following dynamics related to four trans-regional areas (Common Law, Latin America, Europe and Africa). This double evolution has changed the intrinsic status of the UDHR, which is now part of the non-conventional sources of mandatory law, though some legal systems deny its binding force. Its applicability is therefore based on the formulation of the rights it contains.