La thèse examine le cadre juridique de la restructuration de la dette souveraine vis-à-vis des créanciers privés et le rôle joué par le droit international public. La problématique est la suivante : Quel est le rôle actuel et potentiel du droit international public dans la restructuration de dettes souveraines ? Le cadre juridique actuel est fragmenté, avec une multitude d'acteurs et de pratiques. Le contexte politique influence le processus plus que des coutumes ou des principes généraux. La jurisprudence révèle les défis pour les cours nationales et les tribunaux internationaux. L'approche contractuelle incite les créanciers à un contentieux créatif, qui perturbe les négociations. L'arbitrage relatif aux investissements s'est révélé inadéquat. Les incohérences entre les différents fora entraînent des résultats insatisfaisants pour les créanciers et les débiteurs, au détriment de la sécurité juridique. Pour les perspectives d'avenir, les concepts de dette odieuse et d'état de nécessité ne peuvent offrir que des améliorations limitées. Leur contenu apparaît trop peu défini pour protéger une restructuration. La réforme du cadre juridique de la restructuration de la dette souveraine a mis en concurrence les approches fondées sur le droit international public et sur le droit privé. Cela a été le plus évident avec le processus à l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies et la modification concomitante des clauses contractuelles. Un cadre futur pourrait inclure une réduction de l'accès au contentieux, un rôle plus important reconnu aux droits de l'homme de la population débitrice et une action de l'Union européenne à mi-chemin entre les deux approches. / This thesis considers the legal framework of sovereign debt restructuring in relation to private creditors and the relevant rules of public international law. The research question is : What is the actual and potential role of public international law in sovereign debt restructurings ? The current legal framework is fragmented, and a multitude of actors and practices coexist. Political expediency governs the process and the outcomes, with little room for customary rules or general principles of law. The case law reveals the challenges for both domestic courts and international tribunals in dealing with sovereign debt restructurings. The contractual approach provides incentives for creditors to attempt creative litigation, which disrupts negotiations. Investment arbitration has proved an inadequate response. The inconsistencies among the different fora bring about unsatisfactory results for creditors and debtors alike, let alone the implications for legal certainty. For the future prospects, the concepts of odious debt and state of necessity can provide limited improvements, at best. Their content and contours appear too ill-defined to be relied upon by States wishing to shield a restructuring. The reform of the legal framework for sovereign debt restructuring has set a competition between approaches based on public international law and on private law. This has been most evident with the process at the United Nations General Assembly and the concomitant modification of contractual clauses. A future framework could potentially feature less avenues for litigation, a focus on the human rights of the debtor population, and a middle ground shaped by the European Union.

Ce travail a tenté de dresser une cartographie de l'utilisation par le juge de l'OMC et l'arbitre de l'investissement de l'argument juridique fondé sur le droit non écrit. Le discours juridictionnel est considéré dans une perspective métathéorique et le droit non écrit a été étudié en tant que structure discursive au sens foucaldien du terme. En prenant comme point de départ la thèse de Martti Koskennicmi, il est soutenu que le discours juridictionnel fondé sur le droit non écrit est caractérisé par des oppositions binaires, propres au droit international libéral. Aussi ce discours oscille-t-il entre deux pôles : celui de l'apologie et celui de l'utopie. Ce balancement est résumé, dans ce travail, par l'emploi de deux concepts qui représentent les deux extrémités du spectre : la banalisation et la systématisation. Dans une logique de banalisation, le juge ancre son espace normatif dans le droit international général pour y ancrer sa légitimité. La banalisation de son espace normatif particulier reflète la volonté du juge de s'aligner sur les structures de pouvoir du droit international général. Il a été démontré, dans cette optique, que le juge de l'OMC, tout comme l'arbitre d'investissement, a banalisé à dessein la nature de son espace normatif ainsi que sa fonction juridictionnelle. Un deuxième registre linguistique employé par le juge est celui de la systématisation. Dans ce contexte, le juge utilise moins le droit non écrit pour ancrer son espace normatif dans le droit international général que pour construire une certaine unité interne au régime. Le langage de systématisation a pour effet ultime de renforcer la logique néolibérale sur laquelle le régime est bâti. / The thesis has attempted to sketch a cartography of the way the WTO judge and the investment arbitrator use the judicial argument based on unwritten Law. The general approach consisted in studying the judicial discourse from a metatheoretical perspective: unwritten law is studied as a discursive structure in the Foucauldian sense of the term. Taking Martti Koskenniemi's thesis as a starting point, it is maintained that the judicial discourse based on unwritten law is grounded on binary oppositions. It oscillates between two poles : the pole of apology and the pole of utopia. This oscillation is explained using two concepts, constituting the extremities of the spectrum: banalization and systematization. In the perspective of banalization, the judge grounds its normative space in general international law. Using this approach, the WTO judge and the investment arbitrator have banalized both the nature of their normative spaces and their own judicial function. The judge also uses the linguistic register of systematization. ln this context, unwritten law is used to construct the internal unity of the regime. The effect of the language of systematization is to generate a movement between consolidation of the unity of the regime and strengthening the embedded neoliberal bias thereof.

Le droit international économique a pour fonction la réglementation des flux économiques internationaux. Ce dernier émane de la volonté déjà ancienne des nations d’instaurer, dans l’économie mondiale, un ensemble de règles à même de structurer leurs rapports. À la faveur de ces dernières les échanges marchands, les investissements, la circulation des capitaux ont donc progressivement étaient des faits, des réalités économiques saisies dans des qualifications juridiques. Or, l’une des difficultés majeures, qui alimente ces controverses, tient à la relation du droit international économique avec d’autres branches du droit, également appelées à structurer juridiquement le marché. Dans la mise en œuvre de sesnormes, le droit international économique est en effet appelé à rentrer en contact avec de nombreuses branches du droit. Il est toutefois remarquable que dans l’ensemble, celles-ci n’occupent pas un rôle comparable. Si certains ensembles de règles apparaissent primordiaux, en vue d’assurer le fonctionnement d’une économique mondialisée, d’autres entretiennent des rapports plus distendus. Pour les besoins de notre recherche, il convient donc de cerner la nature des liens qui existent entre le droit du travail et le droit international économique. Si la connexité de ces deux branches a induit le développement des clauses sociales, elle n’a pas eu pour conséquence, à l’heure actuelle, une réelle modification du droit international économique. À défaut, certaines des caractéristiques irréductibles du droit du travail continuent à limiter la fécondité de leurs rapports. Pour autant, l’existence de cette connexité permet d’envisager, pour l’avenir, un approfondissement des relations entre ces deux branches par des voies jusqu’ici inexploitées. Loin d’être chimérique, l’avènement de synergies nouvelles entre le droit international et le droit du travail apparaît envisageable à la lueur de la réception juridique qu’a connue le concept de développement durable. Une modification profonde des rapports entre ces deux branches du droit se donne déjà à voir et pourrait se poursuivre. L’explication de l’influence déterminante du concept peut être recherchées dans son positionnement au regard des activités économiques transnationales. Ce dernier se projette en effet sur les répercussions et plus uniquement le développement de l’économie. Se faisant, le développement durable se présente comme une voie alternative pour penser et évaluer la croissance. Au regard de l’apport du droit international économique à l’application du droit du travail, ce changement de perspective est déterminant. Il conduit eneffet à voir dans le premier un outil de diffusion du second. Cette relation se déduit en effet de l’interdépendance des piliers qui fondent le concept de développement durable. L’imbrication du pilier social et économique invite à n’envisager la croissance économique qu’à la condition qu’elle puisse, entre autres, satisfaire à une durabilité sociale impliquant le respect du droit du travail. L’existence de cette synergie est d’ailleurs signalée par l’adoption, au nom du développement durable, de nouvelles clauses sociales.Le développement durable augure également l’évolution vers une prise en compte accrue du droit du travail au vu d’une autre de ses particularités, son positionnement dans le champ juridique. Il ressort en effet des propositions de la doctrine autant que d’interprétations issues d’organes contentieux internationaux que le développement durable est susceptible d’assurer un rôle de matrice conceptuelle. À ce titre, il est en capacité et pourrait à l’avenir conduire à interpréter le droit international économique en prenant également en compte le respect du droit du travail précisément au regard de sa contribution à la recherche de durabilité. / The function of international economic law is to regulate international economic flows. The latter stems from the long-standing will of nations to establish, in the global economy, a set of rules capable of structuring their relations. As a result of the latter, trade, investment and capital movements were gradually becoming facts, economic realities captured in legalqualifications. However, one of the major difficulties, which fuels these controversies, lies in the relationship of international economic law with other branches of law, which are also called upon to structure the market legally. In the implementation of its norms, international economic law is indeed called upon to come into contact with many branches of law. However, it is remarkable that, overall, they do not play a comparable role. While some sets of rules appear essential to ensure the functioning of a globalised economy, others maintain more relaxed relations. For the purposes of our research, it is therefore necessary to identify the nature of the links that exist between labour law and international economic law. While the connection of these two branches has led to the development of social clauses, it has not, at present, led to any real change in international economic law. Failing this, some of the irreducible characteristics of labour law continue to limit the fertility of their relationships. For all that, the existence of this connection makes it possible to envisage, for the future, a deepening of relations between these two branches by hitherto unexploited ways. Far from being a pipe dream, the emergence of new synergies between international law and labour law seems conceivable in the light of the legal reception of the concept of sustainable development. A profound change in the relationship between these two branches of law is already apparent and could continue. The explanation of the decisive influence of the concept can be sought in its positioning with regard to transnational economic activities. The latter projects itself on the repercussions and not only on the development of the economy. In doing so, sustainable development presents itself as an alternative way to think and evaluate growth.With regard to the contribution of international economic law to the application of labour law, this change of perspective is decisive. It leads us to see the former as a tool for disseminating the latter. This relationship can be deduced from the interdependence of the pillars that underpin the concept of sustainable development. The interweaving of the social andeconomic pillar calls for economic growth to be considered only on condition that it can, among other things, satisfy social sustainability implying respect for labour law. The existence of this synergy is also indicated by the adoption, in the name of sustainable development, of new social clauses.Sustainable development also augurs well for the evolution towards greater consideration of labour law in view of another of its particularities, its position in the legal field. Indeed, it emerges from the proposals of the doctrine as much as from interpretations coming from international contentious bodies that sustainable development is likely to ensure a role ofconceptual matrix. As such, it is capable and could in the future lead to interpret international economic law by also taking into account the respect of labour law precisely with regard to it contribution to the search for sustainability.

L’arbitrage international, outre le recours aux tribunaux de l’État hôte, est la méthode la plus utilisée pour régler les différends relatifs aux investissements étrangers. Plusieurs accords internationaux d’investissement incluent des dispositions ayant trait à l’arbitrage sous l’égide du Centre International pour le Règlement des Différends relatifs aux Investissements (CIRDI) mis en place par la Convention de Washington de 1966. Les tribunaux arbitraux constitués sous l’égide du Centre sont ainsi appelés à trancher des différends qui concernent la conduite d’États hôtes vis-à-vis ses investisseurs étrangers ; leurs décisions ayant de fortes conséquences sur l’intérêt public, concrètement lorsqu’il s’agit de la protection de l’environnement. L’évolution croissante du droit environnemental et son empiètement sur la protection des investissements a déclenché une série de différends qui ne se limitent plus à mettre en cause des nationalisations ou des violations de contrats - comme auparavant - mais tournent souvent autour de mesures étatiques de politique publique qui impliquent des questions sensibles telles que, inter alia, la gestion de déchets dangereux, l’accès à l’eau potable, l’étalement urbain, la protection de la biodiversité. Par conséquent, le rôle des tribunaux CIRDI et de leurs décisions devient décisif dans le développement du droit des investissements et dans le débat sur la protection des investissements face aux mesures législatives en matière environnementale. Cette étude a pour objet d’analyser la place des considérations environnementales dans les sentences arbitrales CIRDI. Spécifiquement, il s’agit d’étaler les principaux arguments retenus par les tribunaux internationaux, et de dégager les grandes tendances jurisprudentielles en matière d’arbitrage international d’investissements face aux mesures environnementales. / International arbitration is one of the most frequently used methods to resolve disputes related to foreign investment. Several international investment agreements include provisions relating to arbitration under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes established by the Washington Convention of 1966. Arbitral tribunals are called to resolve disputes concerning the conduct of host States vis-à-vis foreign investors. Their decisions have major consequences on the public interest, specifically when it comes to protecting the environment. The growing development of environmental law and its encroachment on investment protection has triggered a series of disputes that are no longer confined to questions of nationalization or breach of contracts as before, but often revolve around State public policy measures that involve sensitive issues such as, inter alia, hazardous waste management, access to clean water, urban sprawl, protection of biodiversity. The role of ICSID tribunals and their decisions is therefore critical in the development of investment law and the debate on investment protection and environmental regulation. This study aims to analyze the role of environmental considerations in ICSID arbitral awards. Specifically, it seeks to display the main arguments retained by international tribunals and to identify the major trends in international investment arbitration vis-à-vis environmental measures.

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).

Cette thèse analyse la question relative au cas où, dans l'arbitrage international en matière d'investissements, dont le but principal est l'application des normes visées à la protection des investisseurs, l’État défendeur soutient que l'investissement pour lequel la protection est demandée a été obtenu au moyen d'une forme de criminalité. Dans ce contexte, la défense de l'illégalité soulevée par les État dans les contentieux d'investissement est de plus en plus courante. Cette défense fonctionne selon le schéma suivant : un État hôte enfreint les dispositions de fond que le droit international accorde aux investissements effectués dans un pays étranger, par exemple en expropriant un investisseur étranger de son investissement sans indemnité. Dans le différend qui s'ensuit devant un tribunal arbitral d'investissement, l'État défendeur invoque l'illégalité commise par l'investisseur lors de la réalisation de l'investissement pour se défendre contre la procédure arbitrale intenté contre lui. Le but principal de cette étude est celui de démontrer que des considérations systématiques de nature strictement juridique, aussi bien que de politique juridique, exigent que la défense d'illégalité dans l'arbitrage d'investissement soit strictement restreinte et qu'un tribunal ne puisse décliner d'exercer sa compétence / juridiction que dans des cas exceptionnels. Cette étude aboutit à la conclusion d'après laquelle les tribunaux d'arbitrage devraient plutôt examiner au cas par cas au stade du fond l'ensemble des circonstances soumises devant lui et procéder à une mise en balance appropriée entre les comportements de l'investisseur et ceux de l'État hôte. / This thesis addresses the question as to how an investment Tribunal is to react if, in the context of a case brought before it for breach of standards of protection of an investment, the respondent argues that the investment for which protection is sought has been secured by resorting to some form of criminality. Against this background, a defence by the Host State that has become increasingly common is the so-called Defence of Illegality. It operates on the basis of the following scheme : a Host State breaches the substantive provision that international law accord to investments made in a foreign Country, for instance by means of expropriating without compensation the investor's investment. In the ensuing dispute before an investment Tribunal, the defendant Host State raises the illegality committed by the investor in the making of the investment as defence against the breach of the substantive provisions on the protection of the investment, of which it is accused, to avoid responsibility. This thesis intends to demonstrate that both legal and policy consideration dictate that the Defence of Illegality in investment arbitration should be strictly curtailed and that a Tribunal should only decline to exercise its jurisdiction in exceptional cases. Rather, Tribunals should look at the entire set of circumstances at the merits stage and perform a proper balancing test between the conduct of the investor and the Host State.

What is the nature of arbitration? In which sourcerelies its binding force? How does its relation with the Judicial Power must be comprehended? Whichis  the  role  the Constitutional  Court  shall  havetowards it? What is the importance of arbitrationin relation with domestic and foreign investments?In the present article, the author provides answers to the aforementioned questions.  In  that  line, he mentions recent pronouncements of the Constitutional Court regarding the matter, and gives us his opinion about controversial issues that may arise. / ¿Cuál es la naturaleza del arbitraje? ¿En qué fuentereside su fuerza vinculante? ¿Cómo se debe comprender su relación con el Poder Judicial? ¿Cuál esel rol que debe tener el Tribunal Constitucional frente a él? ¿Cuál es su importancia frente a las inversiones nacionales y extranjeras?En el presente artículo, el autor responde a todas las interrogantes previas. Para ello, hace alusión a recientes pronunciamientos del Tribunal Constitucional respecto de la materia, y nos brinda su opinión respecto de los aspectos controvertidos que puedan surgir.

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).

International investment agreements largely cover today’s transnational investments. These agreements confer certain substantive rights to foreign investors while simultaneously obliging host-states to act in a given manner so as to not interfere with the investments. Most international investment agreements further contain an arbitration clause which provides the investor with the means to enforce the substantive rights of the agreement by directly bringing a claim against the host-state before an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, privately contracted arbitrators have the authority to scrutinize and overrule essentially any sovereign act of the host-state that may affect the investment – judicial and legislative acts included. This practice affects not only the parties of the dispute; when the arbitral award claims superiority to the state’s electoral choices, it further constrains the exercise of sovereignty by the population of the host-state. As a result, the arbitrators who manage the disputes and the investors who initiate them have become central power-holders in the context of both international and domestic law. Meanwhile, the arbitrators and investors alike seem to be unaccountable to the states and individuals who are adversely affected by their power assertions. A commonly accepted feature of democracy is that those who govern and wield power should be accountable to those who are governed and subjected to this power. This thesis relates this notion to a Foucauldian understanding of power, domination and resistance. The primary aim of the thesis is to examine the interplay between the prominent subjects involved in investor-state arbitration and to what degree these subjects hold power in the form of transformative capacity. After this investigation into the relations of power, the thesis scrutinizes the subjugated subjects’ ability to exercise effective resistance through institutionalized accountability mechanisms. The thesis detects an accountability deficit in the regime and concludes that foreign investors and arbitrators hold a dominant position within the context of investor-state arbitration, while states and individuals find themselves in a state of domination. The international investment regime, as it currently stands, is thus found to suffer from a democracy deficit, while it concurrently seems to undermine domestic democratic institutions.

Fruit de la globalisation économique et financière, la rencontre entre l’arbitrage international et la finance était inéluctable. Plusieurs facteurs expliquent ce phénomène : l’accroissement des échanges commerciaux et des investissements transnationaux, le choix des opérateurs du commerce international pour l’arbitrage lorsqu’il s’agit de régler leurs différends malgré le coût élevé des procédures d’arbitrage, enfin les nouvelles approches adoptées par les entreprises transnationales en matière de gouvernance et de gestion du risque. Le financement de procès par un tiers dans l’arbitrage international est protéiforme. Il implique différents acteurs comme les avocats, les assureurs mais ce sont les tiers-financeurs avec le concept du « Third-Party Funding », qui cristallisent notre attention pour cette étude. Le Third-Party Funding offre plusieurs options avec un schéma classique : le financement d’un procès mais aujourd’hui, nous assistons à un schéma beaucoup plus élaboré avec le financement de portefeuilles d’arbitrages « Portfolio Funding » qui a la préférence des tiers-financeurs. Aussi, dans un premier temps, il semblait essentiel d’analyser le financement de procès par un tiers dont le Third-Party Funding pour en comprendre les fondements, les mécanismes. Si le financement Third-Party Funding présente des atouts indéniables pour comme l’accès à la justice, il soulève aussi des problématiques en raison de la spécificité de l’arbitrage. Le tiers-financeur n’étant pas partie à l’arbitrage, sa participation a un réel impact sur la procédure et soulève des questions dont les principales touchent à la constitution du tribunal arbitral et au déroulement de la procédure arbitrale. Dès lors, il s’agit de savoir comment maîtriser cet impact sur la procédure d’arbitrage, comment la sécuriser, la pratique du Third-Party Funding n’étant pas réglementée. Les règles étatiques apportant des réponses laconiques, les règles informelles plus flexibles, sont plus à même à offrir un encadrement adapté à une activité résolument transnationale et globale. Certes, il existe bien une autorégulation des tiers-financeurs avec des codes de conduite mais insuffisante pour répondre aux spécificités de l’arbitrage. Les acteurs de l’arbitrage ont donc un rôle à jouer dans la proposition d’une réglementation tout comme les arbitres qui ont ainsi favorisé le développement d’une jurisprudence arbitrale principalement CIRDI. Les institutions arbitrales devraient s’inspirer des principes de base comme l’éthique et la transparence pour mettre en place de nouvelles règles intégrant le financement Third-Party Funding dans leurs Règlements d’arbitrage (comme l’ont fait le SIAC à Singapour, le Centre d’arbitrage et de médiation de la Chambre de commerce Brésil-Canada (CAM-CCB). Enfin, les règles de compliance viendraient compléter cette réglementation appropriée avec les Autorités de régulation financière. La réglementation est de toute évidence l’enjeu majeur dans les années à venir pour voir un financement Third-Party Funding éthique, transparent, efficient et concourant pleinement à l’efficacité de l’arbitrage international. / Being the result of economic and financial globalization, the meeting between international arbitration and finance was inevitable. Several factors explain this phenomenon: the increase of transnational trade and investment, the choice of international trade operators in favor of arbitration, despite the high cost of arbitration procedures, when they must solve disputes and new approaches adopted by transnational corporations in governance and risk management. Third-party funding in international arbitration proceedings is multifaceted. It involves different stakeholders such as lawyers, insurers but it is the third-party funders, with the concept of “Third-Party Funding”, which will be the focus of our attention for this study. It offers several options with a classic scheme, which is the financing of a trial but nowadays we witness a much more elaborate scheme with the financing of portfolios of arbitration i.e. “Portfolio funding”, which is favored by funders. Therefore, it seemed essential to analyze the funding of trials including the Third-Party Funding to understand the foundations, the mechanisms. While Third-Party Funding has undeniable strengths such as access to justice, it also raises problems because of the specificity of arbitration. Since the third party is not a party to the arbitration, its participation has a real impact on the procedure and raises questions, the main ones being the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.It is therefore a question of knowing how to control this impact on the arbitration proceedings, how to secure it, since the Third-Party Funding practice is not regulated. State rules providing laconic answers, so more flexible informal rules are better able to offer a framework adapted to a resolutely transnational and global activity. There is, of course, a self-regulation of third-party funders with codes of conduct but insufficient to meet the specificities of arbitration. The actors of the arbitral community therefore have a role to play in the proposal of a regulation just like the arbitrators, who have thus favored the development of an arbitration jurisprudence mainly ICSID. Arbitral institutions should use basic principles such as ethics and transparency to implement new rules integrating Third-Party Funding into their Arbitration Rules (as did the SIAC in Singapore, the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada, CAM/CCBC. Finally, the compliance rules would complement this appropriate regulation with the financial regulatory authorities. Regulation is clearly the major issue in the coming years to see ethical, transparent, efficient Third-Party Funding that fully contributes to the effectiveness of international arbitration.