Magister Legum - LLM (Mercantile and Labour Law) / The decision by countries to relax the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty to accommodate Third Party Funding (TPF) in dispute resolution has sparked a worldwide debate. The controversial practice of funding disputes in exchange for a share of a successful outcome or settlement has left courts and administering institutions in a compromising position. South Africa joined the debate in 2004 after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) relaxed the application of the doctrines in favour of TPF. The SCA found that domestic courts have the necessary mechanisms to protect themselves against any repercussions of TPF without the assistance of the doctrines. The SCA limited their search to the abilities of the courts and did not consider the effect TPF could have on other dispute resolution processes such as arbitration. This study seeks to discover whether arbitration can protect itself against the repercussions of TPF. It further questions the possibility of adopting regulations to aid in the protection of arbitration should the current mechanisms be insufficient.

Le financement de l’arbitrage international par les tiers constitue aujourd’hui une solution d’accès à cette justice privée, largement plébiscitée et privilégiée par les opérateurs économiques. Ce mécanisme offre à des acteurs variés la possibilité de transférer les coûts et les risques induits par la procédure dont ils sont partis vers un tiers. En contrepartie, ce tiers perçoit un pourcentage des sommes allouées à son client par la sentence. Cette relation, guidée par une communauté d’intérêts tournée vers le succès de l’arbitrage, se concrétise par le contrat de financement. Ce dernier, d’apparence sui generis, se caractérise par un objet spécifique, le financement d’un arbitrage international et par ses effets singuliers. Il est relatif à un procès mais se trouve, de par son objet, dépourvu d’effet relatif. Ainsi, le contrat emporte des conséquences, à la fois, sur les acteurs du procès arbitral, pour lequel le financeur n’est pas partie, et sur la procédure elle-même, son déroulement et son issue. Cette étude permet d'entrevoir une frontière poreuse séparant traditionnellement les notions de partie et de tiers à un contrat et à un arbitrage, invitant alors à réfléchir sur l’opportunité d’une réglementation de la pratique / Today third-party funding in international arbitration is definitely the number one solution for economic operators to access this private justice. This process allows various players to transfer the costs and the risks incurred by the proceedings to a third party. In return, the latter is granted a percentage of the sums allocated to their client by the arbitral award. This relationship resting on a community of interests and geared towards a successful arbitration takes on a concrete form with the litigation finance agreement. This seemingly sui generis agreement is characterized by a specific object that is the financing of international arbitration, and by its specific effects. It is relative to a lawsuit and yet deprived of privity by its very object. Therefore, the contract carries consequences on both the players of the arbitration proceedings for which the financer is not a party, and on the whole of the procedure and its outcome. The present study examines how the border that traditionally separates the concepts of party and third party becomes porous thus questioning the relevance of a regulation of the practice