The degree to which a country’s public entities observe basic principles of good corporate governance is an increasingly important factor for attracting investment capital, maintaining economic stability and encouraging growth. Zimbabwe is faced with the challenge of restructuring for greater efficiency and creating an investment-friendly environment, therefore practicing good corporate governance in public entities is crucial for success and economic growth. As business entities, public entities need to be managed effectively by a competent board, which is able to construct and implement strategies that are in the best interests of the entity and all stakeholders. This study focuses on the corporate governance initiatives, laws and regulations aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of boards of public entities in Zimbabwe. The key question addressed is whether or not the corporate governance initiatives and legal and regulatory reforms in Zimbabwe are sufficient to enable boards of public entities to effectively discharge their duties and meet internationally accepted corporate governance standards. A comparative analysis of Zimbabwe’s public entities corporate governance framework to that of South Africa (a developing country like Zimbabwe) and Australia (a developed country with similar common law heritage) is also conducted. Recommendations are made on how best to enhance the effectiveness of boards of public entities in order to promote good corporate governance practices in Zimbabwean public entities. The research established that the existing corporate governance framework has not been effective in improving the effectiveness of Zimbabwe public entity boards due to lack of commitment and consistency, political interference, weak enforcement mechanisms, corruption and general disregard for the rule of law. The research found that South Africa and Australia have performed better than Zimbabwe in terms of creating conducive environments for boards of public entities to effectively discharge their duties. To improve the effectiveness of public entity boards, it was found that boards should be properly empowered, government intervention should be minimised, board appointment processes should be transparent and merit-based, boards should be properly composed, board remuneration should be fair and performance related, the performance of the board should be regularly evaluated and effective enforcement mechanisms should be put in place. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

Les biens publics mobiliers s’entendent comme l’ensemble des biens mobiliers placés dans une relation juridique patrimoniale avec les personnes publiques. Certes, ils se caractérisent par leur mobilité (comme les biens privés mobiliers), c’est-à-dire une aptitude à la circulation, physique et juridique, vectrice de souplesse et de fragilité, favorable à la dissociation de leurs utilités ; mais la question ici centrale est celle de savoir si la propriété publique est toujours un instrument pertinent pour appréhender cette mobilité. Il s’avère que la propriété publique, lorsqu’elle est sollicitée, exerce potentiellement une force d’attraction efficace sur tous les biens publics mobiliers ; elle permet ainsi de freiner leur circulation. En revanche, une fois le bien capté, la propriété publique ne suffit plus à maîtriser l’intégrité des biens publics mobiliers. Elle n’endigue pas leur délitement et leur évaporation naturels. Elle est même concurrencée par d’autres rapports de droit qui, par des dissociations des utilités des biens, par la déliaison entre propriété et utilisation, conduisent à interroger sa pertinence. / Movable public property shall be understood as the set of personal property placed in a patrimonial legal relationship with public entities. These goods are characterized by their mobility (such as movable private property), that is to say an ability to circulate, physically and legally, a flexibility and fragility medium, favouring the dissociation of their utilities. But the central question remains whether public ownership is still a relevant instrument for understanding this mobility. It turns out that public ownership, when called upon, potentially exerts an effective force of attraction on all movable public property; thus it allows slowing down their circulation. However, once the good’s ownership has been claimed, public property law is not sufficient to monitor the integrity of movable public property. It doesn’t stem their natural crumbling and evaporation. It is even challenged by other legal relationships which, by dissociation of goods’ utilities, and by unbinding ownership and use, lead to question its relevance.

More efficient technologies, state laws as well as environmental, social, and political pressures have all contributed to placing solar acquisition on the agenda for California’s public entities over the last half decade. But a key question for these frequently cash-strapped jurisdictions is how to utilize public dollars and lands, and how to leverage incentives to obtain solar PVs. As an alternative to outright purchase, a promising financing option made available to jurisdictions in recent years is ownership by a third party, usually the solar company, including various forms of Power Purchase Agreements (PPA’s) and leasing. Due in part to state and federal incentives available between 2007 and 2012, these third-party provider (TPP) options have been used with increasing frequency; TPP arrangements accounted for “virtually all” larger and mid-size non-residential installations in 2008 (Sherwood 2008). A number of California’s early adopters of third-party financing have installations that have now been operational for several years. Consequently, there is a new opportunity to evaluate third-party financing effectiveness. This thesis reviews solar acquisition practices in California over the last six years, comparing financing options through document analysis and feedback from jurisdiction staff. It finds that directly buying installations has provided a slight advantage in direct savings and overall satisfaction for jurisdictions on average, but success generally depends upon the jurisdiction having secured upfront capital, usually from successfully accessing very low-interest loans or large grants. TPP projects have provided a good alternative to direct purchase, resulting in significant savings and positive reviews from jurisdictions, allowing them to invest in larger installation sizes, and to meet local policy goals or mandates. Additionally, this thesis makes observations about the limitations for installation sizing, impacts of siting on savings, tips for selecting a solar installer, the benefits of cooperative procurement arrangements, and the relative importance of existing and expired monetary incentives available for solar from 2006 through 2020.

L’arbitrage commercial international dans lequel une des parties est étatique est aussi actuel que décrié. Les tribunaux étatiques doivent renoncer à leur pouvoir d’appréciation de la validité légale et de l’efficacité de la convention d’arbitrage commerciale internationale, même si cette dernière n’est pas conforme à leur droit national. On comprend facilement les problèmes de légitimité que pose cette convention vis-à-vis de l’État partie. La question des intérêts étatiques dans l’arbitrage commercial international représente des enjeux non seulement juridiques mais également économiques importants pour les États. Notre première partie est dédiée à l’étude des instruments juridiques favorisant, dans l’intérêt des États, l’extension de la validité de la convention d’arbitrage à l’égard de la personne publique ; tandis que la seconde partie aborde les délicates questions, soulevées lors de différends engagés, qui tendent à remettre en cause la validité ou l’efficacité de la convention d’arbitrage,  en raison d’allégations par la personne publique, de violations de certaines normes juridiques internes ou de certains changements politiques ou économiques. Depuis quelques décennies, la jurisprudence et la doctrine françaises prônent le fait que la convention d’arbitrage insérée dans un contrat international a une efficacité et une validité propres. Nos recherches nous ont permis de trouver le corps de règles et de principes fondant le cadre juridique de la convention d’arbitrage véritablement détachée de tout lien national avec les autorités et les droits nationaux, en démontrant par ailleurs l’inefficacité récurrente de solutions recherchées sur le terrain des conflits de lois de procédure ou par le recours aux tribunaux des États. Cette théorie est particulièrement mise en exergue lorsqu’une personne publique est partie à un arbitrage commercial international. Nous analysons de manière critique pour les intérêts des États, le recours à la protection diplomatique comme voie de substitution à l’inefficacité ou l’invalidité de la convention d’arbitrage. Le recours à l’exercice de la protection diplomatique est un recours extrêmement subjectif, car dépendant à la fois du jugement arbitraire de l’état protecteur par rapport à son ressortissant et de la puissance de cet État sur la scène internationale. Les opérateurs économiques ne sont pas en situation d’égalité lorsqu’il s’agit de juger de la bonne ou mauvaise exécution des obligations contractuelles relevant d’un contrat international, puisqu’il n’est plus question d’un recours objectif grâce au droit, mais une question de puissance entre États. D’autant plus que l’exercice de la protection diplomatique a souvent amené des conflits interétatiques.  Notre thèse défend la légitimité, la pertinence et les avantages de la convention d’arbitrage à travers le kaléidoscope de nombreuses sources juridiques internationales et au regard de la prévalence des intérêts étatiques. Même si cela peut paraître a priori paradoxal, il n’y a aucun paradoxe pour les États à s’engager de manière conventionnelle à renoncer aux pouvoirs discrétionnaires des juridictions nationales, au contraire les relations économiques internationales sont basées sur la confiance, la moralité et la loyauté, et l’arbitrage commercial international atteint cet objectif en offrant une voie de recours internationale judiciaire objective pour les deux parties. / The international commercial arbitration in which one party is a State party is as current as criticized. The State courts may have to give up exercising their discretion of the legal validity and the efficacy of the international commercial arbitration agreement, even if the latter does not conform to their national law. It is easy to understand the problem of legitimacy posed by this agreement opposite to the State party. The question of State interest in international commercial arbitration represents not only important legal issues but also economic issues for the State. The first part is dedicated to the study of the legal instruments favoring, in the interest of the State, the extension of the validity of the arbitration agreement towards the State; whereas the second part deals with the delicate questions raised during disputes which call into question the validity or the efficacy of the arbitration agreement, due to the allegations made by the public entity based on violations of certain national legal provisions or changes in economic or political circumstances. For a few decades, the jurisprudence and the French doctrine advocate that the arbitration agreement in an international contract has its own efficacy and validity. Our legal research has revealed the body of rules and principles basing the legal framework of the arbitration agreement detached of some link with authorities and with the national law. At the same time, we demonstrate the repeating ineffectiveness of the remedies sought on the ground of the conflicts of procedural legislations or by recourse to State court. This theory is particularly underlined when a public entity is a party to an international commercial arbitration. We critically analyze for the State interest, the exercise of diplomatic protection as a substitute remedy against the inefficiency or invalidity of the arbitration agreement. The exercise of diplomatic protection is highly subjective, because it depends simultaneously on the arbitrary judgment of the protective State with respect to its national and to the power of this State on the international scene. The economic operators are not on an equal footing while it is a question to rule the proper or improper performance of contractual obligations based on an international contract, because it is no longer a matter of an objective remedy through the right, but a matter of power between the States. This is all the more the case as the exercise of diplomatic protection has often leaded to inter-state conflicts. Our thesis defends the legitimacy, pertinence and advantages of the arbitration agreement through the kaleidoscope of many international legal sources and with regard to the prevalence of State interest. However paradoxical that might seem a priori, there is no paradox for the State to engage itself in a conventional manner to waive its discretionary power of domestic jurisdiction. On the contrary, the international economic relations are based on trust, morality and loyalty, and international commercial arbitration achieved that goal by providing an effective international judicial remedy for both parties.