This study examines the issue of compatibility of demo-conditionality with state sovereignty in international law.  From a practical perspective, it examines the state of the science with respect to the enforcement of demo-conditionality, in the context of the unique relationship between the European Union and the African,  Caribbean and Pacific countries. The practicality of any argument declaring certain norms to be compatible with state sovereignty rests on an assumption that it is possible to distinguish which norms are compatible from those which are not. The validity of such an assumption depends on whether a universal workable test with which to draw this distinction, and its accompanying requirements, has been or can be developed. Therefore, the starting point of this study is to investigate whether such a universal test exists, and if so, what its requirements are. The author reaches a legally appropriate conclusion as to which norms are compatible with the principle of state sovereignty and which not in the international legal system. Thereafter, an investigation is undertaken with regard to the legal premises invoked to justify the compatibility of the demo-conditionality with state sovereignty. To this end, two levels of analysis (also referred to here as two paths) are followed. The first level of investigation concerns the proposition for demo-conditionality’s being premised upon adherence to new treaty obligations governing the parties’ observance of democratic norms. In this context, the examination focuses on Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 as the relevant provision. Other single-issue human rights instruments are also examined to establish whether they compliment Article 25. The second level of investigation explores the possibility for demo-conditionality's compatibility being premised upon obligations of State parties, which arise from the various development co-operation instruments adopted over the years. Here, emphasis is placed upon the question of whether or not these instruments advocate the inclusion of demo-conditionality in development co-operation between donors and recipients of aid. This study ultimately reaches a legally appropriate conclusion, at both levels of analysis, concerning demo-conditionality's compatibility with the principle of state sovereignty. At this juncture, a recommendation is made as to which of the two paths is the legally safer one for the pursuit of the demo-conditionality in development co-operation. On the question of what constitutes a more successful international approach to the establishment of democratic governments in the South, this study has undertaken a comparative analysis, making suggestions with respect to two models: the "Enforcement Model", based upon coercive enforcement measures, and the "Managerial Model", based upon an approach of co-operative dialogue. Finally, the study examines the state of the science with respect to enforcement of demo-conditionality, with a focus on the special relationships between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. This is designed to provide a degree of insight into the practical aspects associated with the enforcement of demo-conditionality.

À coté de l’objectif immédiat d’uniformiser les législations des États membres, l’OHADA s’est fixée un objectif médiat, celui de créer un vaste marché sans frontière. Or au regard des difficultés pour les sociétés commerciales de déplacer leurs sièges sociaux d’un État membre à un autre, nous ne pouvons que constater que l’existence de ce marché intégré n’est pas encore une réalité pour elles. Il apparaît alors que la seule uniformisation du droit des sociétés commerciales par l’OHADA ne suffit pas à leur permettre de réaliser des opérations de restructuration transfrontalière. Cette thèse a ainsi montré que l’OHADA a besoin d’évoluer et de se transformer pour mettre en place un véritable droit à la mobilité pour les sociétés commerciales au sein son espace communautaire. Elle doit pour cela compléter son intégration juridique par une intégration économique consacrant un libre établissement dont les opérations de mobilité seraient des modalités d’exercice, comme l’a fait l’Union européenne. Ce droit à la mobilité ne devra toutefois pas s’exercer de manière abusive. L’OHADA devra donc trouver un équilibre entre une mobilité fluidifiée et une protection efficace des actionnaires, salariés et tiers. De même il conviendra de rechercher un équilibre dans la gestion de la coexistence des normes communautaires qui ne manquera pas de se présenter dans le régime des opérations de mobilité puisqu’il s’agit d’un problème récurrent dans l’espace OHADA. / Apart from the direct objective of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) to standardize the law, its indirect objective relates to the creation of a large common market. However, regarding the difficulties for companies to transfer their registered office from one member state to another, we can see that the existence of such market is still not a reality for them. Therefore, it appears that the only standardizing of the corporate law by OHADA is not sufficient to allow them to perform their cross-border mergers. This research shows thus that OHADA needs to change and to transform itself to put in place a real right to mobility in the community area for the companies. Like the European Union, it should complete the legal integration by an economic integration setting up a freedom of establishment, including border restructuring operations. But this right to mobility should not be abused. OHADA will have to find a balance between facilitating the mobility and protecting efficiently minority shareholders, employees and third parties rights. Similarly a balance must be struck to solve the conflict of community norms in the restructuring operations legal regime, since it is a recurrent problem for OHADA space.