L’essor théorique de l’arbitrage international observé dans les dernières décennies n’a pas toujours été accompagné par le développement d’instruments d’application de ses représentations conceptuelles. L’idée d’un ordre juridique arbitral détaché des ordres étatiques est défendue dans un souci de systématisation théorique du problème plutôt que de résolution pratique du litige entre les parties. En même temps, la justice choisit de s’intéresser plutôt à la solution de l’ordre qu’à celle de l’équité. Nous proposons alors d’examiner les principales distorsions résultant de l’intervention étatique dans l’arbitrage international à partir de cette perspective, soit-elles relatives à la convention (comme les mesures provisoires et référés étatiques ou les contestations de la clause compromissoire), soit-elles relatives à la sentence, spécialement autour de l’exequatur des sentences annulées. Nous présentons la litispendance, les anti-suit injunctions, la res judicata et les tentatives de dialogue entre les différents fors comme des instruments aptes au contrôle de ses déviances, lesquels sont encore trop limités par un raisonnement d’application généralisant, déductif et amoral, fondé sur la méthode du droit international privé, qui n’a plus sa place dans l’arbitrage international. Face à ces distorsions, nous proposons alors la doctrine de l’abus de droit pour permettre un retour vers l’intérêt des parties dans l’arbitrage international. Sans négliger l’importance du « droit », correspondant aux représentations théoriques de l’arbitrage international, cette notion peut néanmoins en saisir les « abus ». La doctrine de l’abus apporte alors une conception matérielle, flexible et finaliste aux mécanismes de contrôle de l’arbitrage international. On ne parlera alors plus de distorsions de l’ordre juridique arbitral, mais d’abus de l’ordre juridique arbitral. / The academic success of international arbitration in the last decades has not always been followed by the consequent development of concrete instrument for its practical applications. The concept of an arbitral legal order detached from national legal systems is defended by doctrine not so much as an useful instrument for practical case resolution, but firstly as a problem of raising a logic and coherent legal scheme. We propose to analyze the main distortions caused by the conflict between this theoretical perspective of an autonomous legal order and the practical matters involved in the pragmatic courts intervention in international arbitration, either relating to the arbitral convention (provisional measures, violation of the arbitration clause) or to the arbitral award, specifically regarding the problem of recognizing annulled awards. We present lis pendens, anti-suit injunctions, res judicata and the efforts of dialogue between jurisdictions judging the sentence regularity as the main instruments contributing to a dialogue, and thus, as instruments to control its possible distortions. However, those mechanisms are deployed through a reasoning that is still too generic, amoral and based in principles of private international law, in a state-centered perspective that cannot serve the international arbitration scheme today. From this finding, we suggest the abuse of rights doctrine as a group of different objectives and subjective standards allowing implementing those mechanisms to control international arbitration in a much more appropriate way, considering its autonomous and material characteristics, embodied in the doctrinal pursuit of an arbitral legal order. This doctrine brings a more flexible, material and finalistic perspective to the international arbitration instruments, approaching the parties interests and leaving a purely conflictual method which is not anymore appropriate in this field. There will be not anymore only distortions of an arbitral legal order, but abuses of that same arbitral legal order.

In the 20th century, Arbitration became one the most widely utilized form of dispute resolution in the field of international commerce. The use of Arbitration provides parties with more flexibility. This thesis examines one of the current trends in international arbitration - interim measures. Their purpose is to be able to react in situations when the proceedings are already pending or even before they actually commenced. They should significantly reduce the risk that the arbitral award may be frustrated or unenforceable. In these situations, it may be justifiable to interfere with parties' relationships. The thesis is focused particularly on the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures and on the role of national courts in this field. In the terms of competence of arbitral tribunals, the legal basis of their jurisdiction and conditions necessary to issue interim measures are highlighted. In the case of the role of national courts, the thesis examines their ancillary function (interim measures issued by national courts) as well as their supervisory function (review of the interim measures issued by arbitral tribunals). The most important aspect is then the enforcement of interim measures. The very latest trend - emergency arbitrator proceedings - is not excluded. The thesis...

Selon une présentation classique, la compétence juridictionnelle n’aurait en droit international privé pour objet que de déterminer les hypothèses dans lesquelles l’Etat accepterait de mettre ses juridictions à disposition des justiciables. Cette présentation achoppe cependant sur deux évolutions du droit positif. D’une part, la réglementation de la compétence est en bonne partie internationalisée, et ne suis plus ce modèle. D’autre part, elle occulte le fort développement des juridictions non étatiques instituées pour le contentieux de droit privé et économique dont l’intervention est souvent articulée avec celle des juridictions étatiques comme la compétence le fait en droit interne.Ce double handicap descriptif s’explique par la place que l’Etat conserve au coeur de la théorie classique, une place héritée des théories publicistes du début du XXe siècle. Or, ni l’évolution de la théorie générale du droit international privé, ni surtout le droit positif ne justifie plus cette place centrale de l’Etat. Il faut donc revoir la théorie de la compétence internationale à l’aune du problème presque factuel auquel elle répond, la concurrence internationale des juridictions, et ainsi réintégrer en son sein les règles qui participent de sa résolution en organisant cette concurrence. La théorie renouvellée permet alors d’observer plus complètement l’organisation de la justice internationale de droit économique. Elle autorise en outre des propositions pour un régime plus efficace ou plus souple de la compétence internationale selon que cette concurrence internationale est ordonnée par une règlementation uniforme ou qu’il s’agit seulement de coopérer. / French private international law doctrine classicaly defines judicial jurisdiction as the branch of law that deals with describing the hypothesis under which the State makes its courts available to claimants in international matters. This presentation, though, faces two contradicting evolutions in modern-day litigation of international business matters. First, it does give no account of the increasing internationalization of this branch of law, where numerous international conventions and European regulations now regulates judicial jurisdiction between judges of different countries as they would with venue between judges of the same State. Second, this presentation ignores the development of international courts and arbitral tribunals even though these tribunals compete with or replace national courts in international business disputes.The reason for this double exclusion may actually be found in an analytical bias inherited from a century-old description of private international law as a conflict of State regulations, a bias that neither modern theory nor law itself confirms in any way. More simply described according to the problem it resolves, judicial jurisdiction may be defined as the branch of law that deals with organizing the international competition of judges. Under this functional definition, it is possible to broaden its scope and to describe the organization of international justice for business matters, both public and private, both State and International. Also, then encompassing rules of procedure, it becomes possible to offer new solutions to take into account foreign jurisdiction for a better international cooperation.

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

Depuis les années deux-mille, les Etats latino-américains ont activement participé aux arbitrages d’investissement administrés par le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI). Ainsi, la pratique arbitrale de ce Centre trouve son origine dans les très nombreuses affaires latino-américaines qui ont permis d’encadrer la procédure et d’entériner certaines pratiques liées aux questions de fond de l’arbitrage. Les affaires latino-américaines ont enrichi la procédure en consacrant notamment la participation des tiers à la procédure arbitrale par le biais de l’amicus curiae (l’ami de la Cour). Cette innovation démontre la prise en compte de l’impact des questions d’intérêt public sur les populations concernées. Les divers standards juridiques insérés dans les accords d’investissement ont également été invoqués par les investisseurs afin de voir engagée la responsabilité internationale des Etats. Ainsi, les arbitres ont pu s’exprimer sur le caractère imprécis de certains standards comme celui du traitement juste et équitable. Les tribunaux ont dégagé certains étalons de mesure qui permettent d’évaluer et de comparer les éléments de l’affaire. Deux étalons de mesure semblent être pertinents dans le cas latino-américain. Il s’agit du respect de la stabilité du cadre juridique puis de la protection des attentes légitimes de l’investisseur. C’est dans ce cadre que les Etats latino-américains ont réagi différemment face au contentieux arbitral auprès du CIRDI, ce dernier ayant fait l’objet de critiques quant à sa légitimité et quant aux différentes condamnations prononcées par les tribunaux à l’encontre des Etats. Certains Etats ont pris l’initiative de dénoncer les accords internationaux donnant compétence au CIRDI et de créer un nouveau centre d’arbitrage sur le continent, capable de connaître les différends en matière d’investissement. Ceci dit, les décisions et sentences arbitrales rendues dans le contexte latino-américain constituent une source d’inspiration précieuse pour les arbitrages internationaux en cours et futurs. / Since 2001, Latin American Countries have actively participated in investment arbitrations administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Because of that the way to arbitrate in this Centre base itself on a great number of Latin American affairs which helped to delimit the procedures and endorse some practices linked to the very founding principles of arbitration.The procedure of arbitration has been improved by Latin American affairs, by example with the help of the Amicus Curiae, which is the participation of a third party to the arbitral process. This innovation shows how much these questions of public interest are important for the populations concerned.The multiple juridical standards inserted in the investment agreements have often been brought forward by the investors in order to see the responsibility of some countries engaged in an international way. Arbitrators have been able to emphasize on the inaccuracy of some of these standards, such as the the fair and equitable treatment.Different ways to measure the elements of an affair have been brought to light by the tribunals. Two of them are present in the case of Latin American affairs: the compliance with the juridical framework stability and the protection of the investor's legitimate expectations.Latin American countries did take action differently in front of the arbitrations brought to the ICSID which was criticized for its lack of legitimacy and for its decisions in a great number of cases against these countries. Some countries renounced the international treaties giving the ICSID its arbitration rights and created a new arbitration center on the continent capable of giving a ruling in the matter of investment affairs. In spite of this the arbitral decisions and the arbitral awards in the Latin American context should be able to be inspirations for the future of arbitration.

This Dissertation is focused on issues concerning the position of an expert in international arbitration proceedings and in international investment disputes. Unlike proceedings conducted before general courts of law, arbitration proceedings have a number of advantages, and therefore they are used very often to resolve disputes in this area, and arbitration proceedings are used almost exclusively with regard to resolution of disputes relating to international investments. The aim of the Dissertation was an analysis of dispute resolution in arbitration proceedings from the expert's point of view and the expert's position in this procedure. It is without any doubt that experts can help arbitrators to reach a qualified resolution of disputes in a significant way. At first, the Dissertation deals with general and historical issues, such as comparison of methods of dispute solution where an international element appears, in both arbitration and judicial proceedings, and it lists the advantages of arbitration proceedings as well. After specification of the term "expert", the Dissertation provides a view into the expert's profession history in the territory of our country and into its legal regulation. With regard to our membership in the European Union it is, of course, necessary for the Dissertation to...

O presente trabalho tem por objeto o fenômeno dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, uma realidade decorrente do aumento dos fluxos econômicos e relações comerciais entre empresas originárias de diferentes países ou entre empresas e entes estatais originários de diferentes países. Essa multiplicidade de procedimentos se traduz na existência de duas arbitragens entre as mesmas partes, sobre a mesma relação jurídica e decorrente da mesma cláusula compromissória; de duas ou mais arbitragens relativas a um grupo de contratos, com diferentes cláusulas compromissórias, envolvendo as mesmas partes; ou ainda uma arbitragem e uma ação judiciais simultâneas relativas à mesma relação jurídica, entre as mesmas partes, decorrente de cláusula compromissória e cláusula de eleição de foro respectivamente. A arbitragem de investimento, sobretudo, é campo fértil para essa proliferação de procedimentos paralelos oriundos do mesmo investimento, envolvendo investidores diretos ou seus acionistas, com base em tratados bilaterais de investimento (TBIs) ou em contratos. Entretanto, sendo a arbitragem o mecanismo de solução de controvérsias comumente utilizado em contratos internacionais, surgem questões complexas para a regulação dessa problemática. A fim de sistematizar o estudo e responder às indagações sobre a maneira de solucionar e regular os efeitos negativos dos procedimentos paralelos (por exemplo, o risco de decisões contraditórias, a multiplicidade de procedimentos contra o mesmo réu e o excessivo custo despendido nesses procedimentos), dividimos o trabalho da seguinte maneira. Preliminarmente, o tema é introduzido pela conceituação dos procedimentos paralelos e de seus tipos, conflitantes e não-conflitantes. Posteriormente, divide-se o trabalho em duas partes. Na Primeira Parte, são examinados os clássicos princípios da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) como medidas para evitar o risco de procedimentos paralelos entre as mesmas partes, mesma causa de pedir e mesmo pedido adotados em países de Civil Law e suas variáveis em países de Common Law, tais como forum non conveniens para a hipótese de litispendência e pleas of estoppel para os efeitos da coisa julgada. Na Segunda Parte, é analisada a possibilidade ou não da transposição da litispendência (Capítulo I) e da coisa julgada (Capítulo II) à arbitragem internacional, além de outros mecanismos mitigadores dos efeitos decorrentes dos procedimentos paralelos em arbitragem internacional, como a conexão de procedimentos e o joinder de uma nova parte; e, em arbitragem de investimento, waiver, fork in the road clause e parallel treaty arbitrations (Capítulo III). / This thesis aims to analyze the phenomenon of parallel proceedings in international arbitration, a reality that emerges from the increase in economic activity and business transactions among companies from different countries or among companies and State entities whose business places are located in different countries. This multiplicity of proceedings can be manifested in a number of scenarios: the existence of two arbitrations between the same parties concerning the same legal relationship and arising out of the same arbitration agreement; two or more arbitrations related to a group of contracts, providing for different arbitration agreements, involving the same parties; or even an arbitration and a court action based on an arbitration agreement and a choice of fórum clause, respectively, simultaneously pending related to the same legal relationship, between the same parties. Investment arbitration, especially, is a breeding ground for the proliferation of parallel proceedings arising out of the same investment, involving direct investors or their shareholders, based on bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or on contracts. However, the regulation of such problematic scenarios raises complex questions, since arbitration is the mechanism for settlement of disputes commonly used in international contracts. In order to systematize this study and to answer questions of how to overcome and regulate the negative effects of parallel proceedings (such as the risk of contradictory decisions, the multiplicity of proceedings against the same respondent and the high costs incurred in these proceedings), this thesis is divided as follows: Preliminarily, the subject matter is introduced by the definition of parallel proceedings and its different types, such as conflicting and non-conflicting parallel proceedings. Subsequently, this thesis is divided into two parts. In the First Part, the classical principles of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) will be examined as measures to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings between the same parties, the same cause of action and the same object as adopted in the Civil Law countries and its variations in Common Law countries, such as forum non conveniens to the hypothesis of lis pendens and pleas of estoppel to the res judicata effects. The Second Part presents an analysis of the possibility of the transposition of lis pendens (Chapter I) and res judicata (Chapter II) to the field of international arbitration, as well as other mechanisms to mitigate the effects related to parallel proceedings in international arbitration for instance, the consolidation of two arbitrations and joinder of a new party to the arbitration and, in investment arbitration, waiver, fork in the road clause and parallel treaty arbitrations (Chapter III).

Pendant longtemps, le droit international des investissements et le droit de l'Union européenne se sont ignorés. Leur rencontre en matière d'investissement a eu lieu dans le cadre des rapports entre les États membres de l'Union européenne, d'une part, et entre les États membres et les États tiers, d'autre part. Cette rencontre a donné lieu à de riches discussions sur l'interaction entre le droit de l'Union européenne et le droit international des investissements. Depuis l'entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, l'Union européenne dispose d'une compétence exclusive dans le domaine de la politique commerciale commune incluant les investissements directs étrangers en application de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, point e), du TFUE. L'étude analytique des aspects procéduraux de l'Union Européenne dans l'arbitrage international des investissements démontre la transition de son statut bien établi de I'«amicus curiae» vers le statut de « partie défenderesse» dans le contentieux international des investissements. / For a long time, international investment law and EU legislation were developing independently from each other. ln the field of international investment, both met as the EU countries interacted, either with each other or with non-member governments. This led to broad-ranging discussions on how the EU legislation should interact with international investment law. As per the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is the exclusive authority for the common trade policy, including direct foreign investments under Article 3, subsection le) of the TFEU. The system analysis of the European Union procedural aspects relating to investment international arbitration demonstrates the transition from the well-established "amicus curiae" status to the status of "defendant".

Le contexte culturel particulier à la Chine influe sur le choix du mode de résolution des différends commerciaux comportant un lien d'extranéité. Plusieurs mécanismes de préventions des litiges sont utilisés en Chine. La conciliation et médiation sont issues d'une tradition plus que millénaire en Chine, elles occupent donc un rôle important dans la résolution des différends commerciaux. La conciliation est ainsi presque toujours mise en branle antérieurement à un règlement des différends comportant des solutions contraignantes pour les parties soit un jugement ou une sentence arbitrale. L'analyse de la structure juridique chinoise nous permet de soulever les lacunes relatives à l'utilisation de ce véhicule dans la résolution d'un litige. Effectivement, l'indépendance judiciaire est défaillante ce qui a pour conséquences de préférer l'arbitrage aux tribunaux judiciaires. Malgré cette défaillance, certains investisseurs étrangers pourraient y recourir ce qui nécessite alors une connaissance minimale de ce système juridique. Le règlement des différends, en Chine, relatif à un élément d'extranéité s'effectue principalement par voie arbitrale. De ce fait, deux catégories d'arbitrage doivent alors être présentées ce qui permet d'écarter en Chine l'arbitrage ad hoc qui n'est pas expressément interdit, ni permis. Cette situation a permis à l'arbitrage institutionnel de se développer de façon considérable particulièrement par le biais de la CIETAC qui constitue ainsi l'institution de choix. Mais parallèlement à elle, il ne faut pas négliger les institutions arbitrales étrangères ayant sis sur le territoire chinois qui, de plus en plus, attirent les investisseurs étrangers, et leurs partenaires. / China's particular cultural background influences the mode of resolution that is chosen to resolve foreign-related commercial conflicts. A lot of prevention mechanisms are used in China. Conciliation and mediation come from a millenary tradition and thus have a very important place in resolving commercial conflicts. Conciliation is almost always used before any other kind of conflict resolution solution, such as legal action, is taken into consideration by both parties. By analyzing Chinese judicial structure it is possible to find some omissions in this mode of resolution. Indeed, the judicial independence is in such default that both parties will almost always prefer arbitration rather than a judgment by the court. This being said, some foreign investors can chose to go through with the judicial process but then a basic knowledge of the local judicial system becomes necessary. Therefore foreign-related conflict resolution in China is usually done by arbitration. There are two categories of arbitration that must be known. One of them is the ad hoc arbitration who is not expressly permitted or prohibited in China. This situation has been a benefit to the development of the institutional arbitration which has been developed a lot by the most important arbitration institution that is the CIETAC in China. In other hand, we cannot forget the foreign arbitration institutions in China that attract more and more foreign investors and their Chinese partners.

Benché ampiamente studiata con riferimento al contenzioso interno, la res judicata ha ricevuto minore attenzione nella sua “dimensione internazionale”. Il presente lavoro si propone di esplorare i profili incerti degli effetti di giudicato delle “decisioni non domestiche”, intese come decisioni non provenienti dalle corti del foro, e in particolare delle sentenze straniere e dei lodi arbitrali internazionali. Nel tentativo di superare almeno parte delle incertezze e dei problemi della prassi attuale, in relazione alle sentenze straniere si sostiene che i relativi effetti di giudicato vengano determinati sulla base della teoria dell’estensione assoluta degli effetti, la quale assicura certezza giuridica transnazionale ed è consona alla moderna evoluzione liberale delle norme sul riconoscimento. Quanto ai lodi arbitrali, si propone che le istituzioni arbitrali adottino, nei propri regolamenti, ampie regole preclusive che riflettano la natura e gli obiettivi del procedimento arbitrale. Le soluzioni proposte condividono l’idea che gli effetti di giudicato di una “decisione non domestica” dovrebbero essere determinati in linea di principio dal “sistema” a cui la decisione appartiene, sebbene l’adozione di un approccio unitario risulti problematica quando questioni di giudicato sorgono tra corti statali e tribunali arbitrali in maniera da compromettere l’autonomia dell’arbitrato internazionale. / Although extensively studied in domestic litigation, res judicata has received less attention in its “international dimension”. This work seeks to navigate the uncharted waters of the res judicata effects of “non-domestic decisions”, understood as decisions that are not rendered by the courts of the forum, and in particular of foreign judgments and international arbitral awards. In an attempt to overcome at least part of the uncertainties and problems of the current practice, as regards foreign judgments it is proposed that their res judicata effects be determined based on the theory of the absolute extension of effects, which ensures cross-border legal certainty and accords with the modern liberal evolution of recognition rules. As regards arbitral awards, it is suggested that arbitral institutions adopt, in their regulations, broad preclusive rules that reflect the nature and objectives of the arbitral process. The proposed solutions share the idea that the res judicata effects of a “non-domestic decision” should be in principle determined according to the “system” to which the decision belongs, although the adoption of a unitary approach is challenged when res judicata issues arise between state courts and arbitral tribunals so to jeopardize the autonomy of international arbitration.