Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Trusts are used for a variety of purposes, both in South Africa and abroad. Like so many other entities, trusts often do not function only in one jurisdiction and may therefore be exposed to international double taxation. South Africa, like most other states, enters into bi-lateral double taxation treaties, to limit the effects of international double taxation. Most of these treaties are based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (the OECD MTC). The South African trust is a unique creature. It is not based on the dual ownership concept on which most common law trusts are based, yet, it is not a juristic person either. The question that this research aims to address is how South Africa will interpret and apply certain provisions of the OECD MTC to trusts. Although the South African position is investigated, it is compared to the positions of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands. The dissertation starts with an analysis of the trust law in each of the relevant states, followed by an overview of the taxation regime governing trusts (and the parties thereto) in each state. The status of double taxation treaties and their interpretation are examined before certain critical provisions of the OECD MTC are analysed to determine how South Africa will apply these provisions to trusts. Hence it is explored whether a trust will be regarded as a person, whether it may be a resident and a beneficial owner for purposes of the OECD MTC. Furthermore, possible solutions for conflicts of attribution in the application of double tax conventions to trusts are investigated. The dissertation concludes that South Africa will regard a trust as a person for purposes of the OECD MTC. Moreover, some types of trusts may be viewed as residents and as beneficial owners for purposes of the OECD MTC. The solution proposed in the OECD’s Partnership Report should be applied to resolve conflicts of attribution involving trusts. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Trusts word vir ‘n groot verskeidenheid doeleindes gebruik, nie net in Suid-Afrika nie, maar ook in die buiteland. Net soos baie ander entiteite funksioneer trusts baie keer nie net in een jurisdiksie nie. Trusts word dus ook blootgestel aan internasionale dubbelbelasting. Soos die meeste ander state, sluit Suid-Afrika dubbelbelastingooreenkomste om die effek van internasionale dubbelbelasting te beperk. Die meeste van hierdie ooreenkomste is gebaseer op die OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital (die OECD MTC). Die Suid-Afrikaanse trust het ‘n unieke aard. Dit is nie gebaseer op die konsep van verdeelde eiendomsreg waarop die meeste gemeenregtelike trusts gebasseer is nie, maar tog is dit ook nie ‘n regspersoon nie. Die vraag wat hierdie navorsing probeer beantwoord is hoe Suid-Afrika sekere bepalings van die OECD MTC sal interpreteer en toepas op trusts. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse posisie ondersoek word, word dit deurgaans vergelyk met die posisie in die Verenigde Koningkryk, Kanada en Nederland. Die proefskrif begin met ‘n analise van die trustreg in elk van die betrokke state en word gevolg deur ‘n oorsig van die belastingstelsel wat trusts (en die partye daartoe) belas in elk van die state. Die status van dubbelbelastingooreenkomste en hul interpretasie word ondersoek voordat sekere kritiese bepalings van die OECD MTC geanaliseer word om vas te stel hoe Suid-Afrika hierdie bepalings sal toepas op trusts. Daar word dus ondersoek of ‘n trust beskou sal word as ‘n persoon, of dit ‘n inwoner en ‘n uiteindelik geregtigde kan wees vir doeleindes van die OECD MTC. Voorts word moontlike oplossings vir toerekeningskonflikte in die toepassing van dubbelbelastingooreenkomste op trusts, ondersoek. Die proefskrif kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat in Suid-Afrika die trust beskou sal word as ‘n persoon vir doeleindes van die OECD MTC. Verder sal sommige tipes trusts gesien word as inwoners en as uiteindelik geregtigdes vir doeleindes van die OECD MTC. Die oplossing voorgestel in die OECD se Verslag oor Vennootskappe behoort toegepas te word om toerekeningskonflikte op te los.

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2006. / The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was signed into law in May 2000 by President Clinton to allow sub-Saharan countries to export designated products duty-free into the US. AGOA is a temporary measure that is non-reciprocal and not negotiated by the participating parties. The initiative was launched to liberalise the markets of developing countries on the road to become integrated in the global economy. The initial success of AGOA was limited, with only a few countries making use of AGOA to increase their exports into the US markets. Problems encountered were high levels of protectionism from the US and the existence of technical trade barriers (including sanitary measures in agriculture) and nontariff barriers (including quotas). African countries are using shipment as the main transport for exports, and the US barred transshipment due to corruption that occurred in the past. The AGOA also made provision for 'special provisions' measures to enable AGOA eligible countries to export apparel and textile to the US. The export of apparel was very successful until the Multifibre Agreement expired in 2005, leading to relocation of apparel factories to lower cost bases. The real beneficiaries from AGOA are oil-exporting countries that make up more than 90% of total AGOA benefits. South Africa is the only country who succeeded in diversified AGOA exports. AGOA has been supplemented by AGOA II (extending the product range) and AGOA III (extending the expiry date to 2015). After the EU-SA Free Trade Agreement has been concluded in 1999, the US started with FTA negotiations with the South African Customs Union (SACU) to improve the exposure of US products to the SACU market and to decrease the trade deficit. However, the agenda of the FTA negotiations included second generation issues of intellectual property rights, trade in services, investment and government procurement. The SACU negotiators learnt some lessons from the EU-SA FTA and progress was slow. The extension of AGOA to 2015 saw a decrease in the urgency of striking a SACU-US FTA. Negotiations slowed down and the decision was made in April 2006 to conduct talks on a lower level. This breathing time can be used by the SACU negotiators to develop an aggressive offensive strategy for future negotiations, and to build competency against the efficient and offensive US negotiators. The US-SACU FTA must still be pursued to ensure that the benefits of AGOA are locked in. It will be beneficial for SACU if the different needs for all the SACU countries are addressed and the negotiations are done in incremental steps .

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2007. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The SACU bloc, which accounts for one-half of the subcontinent's GDP, is the largest market for the US exports in SSA (Langton, January 2005). Wide differences exist among the economies of SACU - while SA has developed a significant manufacturing and industrial capacity, the other countries remain dependent on agriculture and mineral extraction. The grouping is dominated by SA, which accounts for 87% of the population, and 93% of the GDP of the customs area. SACU member states had a combined real GDP of $201bn in 2003. Services made up 65% of SA Trade in 2003 and had become a major player. In 2003, SACU was the 32nd largest trading partner of the US with two-way trade equivalent \ $7.3bn. Merchandise imports from SACU totaled $5.6bn in 2003, a 17.3% increase from 2002 and a 126% increase from 1996. They were composed of minerals such as platinum, diamonds, and titanium, textiles and apparel, vehicles, and automotive parts. Major US exports to the region include aircraft, vehicles, computers, and construction and agricultural equipment. Services trade between the US and SA has increased dramatically for both countries, with US exports increasing 154% and service imports from SA increasing by 383% respectively since 1992. The stock of US FDI in SA totaled $3.9bn in 2003 and was centered around manufacturing chemicals and services. The main economic objective of FTAs is to reduce trade barriers between member countries and liberalize trade and investment rules (Kanoute, November 2005). This improves market access which is the key to foreign export earnings and investment. But market access is a door that swings both ways, opening local markets to a flood of imports. This can undermine domestic production and employment, and thus exacerbate poverty. Some US civil society organizations have expressed concern that a SACU FTA could have negative consequences for poor Southern Africans, citing potential adjustment costs for import-competing farmers, poor enforcement of labour rights, privatization of utilities, and increased restrictions on importing generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS (Langton, January 2005). The proposed FTA is ambitious, especially given the tight deadline and the broad range of topics on the negotiating table (Zunckel, Tralac). These include not only tariffs on goods, as is traditional in trade talks, but the wider global economic panoply of agriculture, rules of origin intellectual property, trade in services, investment, government procurement, trade remedies, labour, environmental standards and trade dispute settlement. The US gains reciprocity by gaining improved access to the SACU market than it currently enjoys under AGOA. The IP and "TRIPS plus" provisions are of particular concern to consumers (www.tralac.org.) Ongoing developments at the multilateral level bode against the advisability of entering into binding bilateral agreements with less favourable provisions on essential medicines. Foreign investment could lead to greater industrialization within SACU and competition within local industry, boosting efficiency. But safeguards and industrial policy must be utilized effectively to protect the region's developmental goals. Reliance on domestic courts as the forum of first instance (and state-to-state dispute settlements should those fail) is preferable, as it allows greater possibilities of defending the public interest of SACU citizens over investors' interests (Langton, January 2005). Reaching consensus on negotiating strategy in SACU is no easy feat. Formal negotiations began in June 2003, but talks have made little progress over the past years. The interests of the five different countries, at differing stages of development, have to be reconciled (Draper. 2004). No doubt SA, with its diverse array of interests relative to its BLNS partners in the customs union, will drive this. SACU negotiators, in common with those in many developing countries, have great difficulty in understanding, let alone mobilizing, their services sectors. Hence they have adopted a defensive posture, favouring liberalization only in those (few) sub-sectors that are well understood. SACU has formally accepted an offer made by the US to progress a so-called trade and investment cooperation agreement (TICA). Prior negotiation will be needed among SACU countries, who clearly have an interest in coordinating its negotiation with other US bilateral negotiating partners (Whalley & Leith, December 2003).

La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ne contient aucune disposition expresse concernant un quelconque pouvoir pour les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux de conclure des traités internationaux - ce pouvoir étant réservé, à l'époque de l'adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, au pouvoir impérial britannique. Aussi, une seule disposition prévoyait les modalités de mise en oeuvre des traités impériaux au sein de la fédération canadienne et cette disposition est aujourd'hui caduque. Puisque l'autonomie du Canada face à l'Empire britannique ne s'est pas accompagnée d'une refonte en profondeur du texte de la constitution canadienne, rien n'a été expressément prévu concernant le droit des traités au sein de la fédération canadienne. Le droit constitutionnel touchant les traités internationaux est donc Ie fruit de la tradition du «constitutionnalisme organique» canadien. Cette thèse examine donc ce type de constitutionnalisme à travers le cas particulier du droit constitutionnel canadien relatif aux traités internationaux. Elle examine ce sujet tout en approfondissant les conséquences juridiques du principe constitutionnel du fédéralisme reconnu par la Cour suprême du Canada dans le Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, [1998] 2 R.C.S. 217. De manière plus spécifique, cette thèse analyse en détail l’affaire Canada (P.G.) c. Ontario (P. G.), [1937] A.C. 326 (arrêt des conventions de travail) ou le Conseil prive a conclu que si l'exécutif fédéral peut signer et ratifier des traités au nom de l'État canadien, la mise en oeuvre de ces traités devra se faire - lorsqu'une modification législative est nécessaire à cet effet - par le palier législatif compétent sur la matière visée par l'obligation internationale. Le Conseil Prive ne spécifia toutefois pas dans cet arrêt qui a compétence pour conclure des traités relatifs aux matières de compétence provinciale. Cette thèse s'attaque donc à cette question. Elle défend la position selon laquelle aucun principe ou règle de droit constitutionnel canadien ou de droit international n'exige que l'exécutif fédéral ait un pouvoir plénier et exclusif sur la conclusion des traités. Elle souligne de plus que de très importants motifs de politique publique fondes notamment sur les impératifs d'expertise, de fonctionnalité institutionnelle et de démocratie militent à l’encontre d'un tel pouvoir fédéral plénier et exclusif. L'agencement institutionnel des différentes communautés existentielles présentes au Canada exige une telle décentralisation. Cette thèse démontre de plus que les provinces canadiennes sont les seules à posséder un pouvoir constitutionnel de conclure des traités portant sur des domaines relevant de leurs champs de compétence - pouvoir dont elles peuvent cependant déléguer l'exercice au gouvernement fédéral. Enfin, cette thèse analyse de manière systématique et approfondie les arguments invoques au soutien d'un renversement des principes établis par l'arrêt des conventions de travail en ce qui concerne la mise en oeuvre législative des traités relatifs à des matières provinciales et elle démontre leur absence de fondement juridique. Elle démontre par ailleurs que, compte tenu de l'ensemble des règles et principes constitutionnels qui sous-tendent et complètent le sens de cette décision, renverser l’arrêt des conventions de travail aurait pour effet concret de transformer l'ensemble de la fédération canadienne en état quasi unitaire car le Parlement pourrait alors envahir de manière permanente et exclusive l'ensemble des champs de compétence provinciaux. Cette conséquence est assurément interdite par le principe du fédéralisme constitutionnellement enchâssé. / The Constitution Act, 1867 contains no express provision on federal or provincial treaty-making powers. These powers were reserved to the Imperial government at the time when the Constitution Act, 1867 was adopted by the Imperial Parliament. The Constitution Act, 1867 also contained only one provision that dealt with the implementation of Imperial treaty obligations in the Canadian federation and that provision is now obsolete. Because Canada's gradual autonomy from the British Empire was not accompanied by a thorough modification of the text of the Canadian constitution, nothing has been expressly provided in relation to treaty powers in the Canadian federation. Canadian constitutional law dealing with treaty powers is therefore a pure product of the Canadian "organic constitutionalism" tradition. This thesis examines this form of constitutionalism through the specific case of the treaty powers in Canada. In particular, this study hopes to deepen our understanding of the multiple legal consequences of the constitutionally entrenched principle of federalism recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217. More specifically, the thesis presents an in-depth analysis of Canada (A. G.) v. Ontario (A.G.), [1937] A.C. 326 (the Labour Conventions case) where the Privy Council decided that the federal executive power could sign and ratify treaties in the name of Canada but that the implementation of treaty obligations - when legislative action is required - is the responsibility of the legislature that has jurisdiction over the obligations' subject-matters. The Privy Council did not specify, however, which institution(s) has the power to conclude treaties in relation to provincial subject-matters. This thesis tackles this problem. It is demonstrated in this thesis that no rule or principle of Canadian constitutional law nor of international law grants plenary and exclusive treaty-making powers to the federal executive. It highlights some very important policy reasons based on the needs for expertise, for institutional effectiveness and for respect for democracy not to recognize such plenary and exclusive treaty-making powers to the federal executive. The institutional arrangements necessary for the survival and flourishing of the diverse existential communities require that the federal executive does not possess such powers. It is moreover demonstrated that only provinces possess the constitutional powers to conclude treaties related to their subject-matters - the exercise of which powers may however be delegated to the federal government. Finally, the thesis presents a systematic and in-depth analysis of the arguments invoked in favour of reversing the rules set out in the Labour Conventions case in relation to legislative implementation of treaty obligations related to provincial subject-matters. It demonstrates that those arguments have no legal basis. Moreover, the thesis shows that because of the many underlying and interconnected constitutional rules and principles that support and give meaning to the Labour Conventions case, reversing that decision would have the concrete effect of transforming the Canadian federation into a quasi-unitary state because Parliament would thus be allowed to oust provinces from the entirety of their legislative jurisdiction. This consequence is most certainly prohibited by the federal principle entrenched in the Constitution.

Depuis la création de l'Union soviétique jusqu'à sa dissolution, la mer Caspienne appartenait à l'Iran et à l'URSS, qui constituaient ses deux seuls États riverains. Ces derniers avaient convenu de gérer la Caspienne «en commun », selon un régime de condominium, dans deux accords bilatéraux signés en 1921 et 1940. Cependant, après le démembrement de l'Union soviétique en 1991, trois nouveaux États indépendants et riverains de la Caspienne (1'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan) se sont ajoutés à l'équation, et ont exigé une révision du régime juridique conventionnel en vigueur. Ainsi, des négociations multilatérales ont été entamées, lesquelles ont mis en relief plusieurs questions juridiques faisant l'objet d'interprétation divergente: Le régime juridique conventionnel de 1921 et de 1940 (établissant une gestion en commun) est-il toujours valable dans la nouvelle conjoncture? Les nouveaux États riverains successeurs de l'Union soviétique sont-ils tenus de respecter les engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran quant à la Caspienne? Quel est l'ordre juridique applicable à la mer Caspienne? Serait-ce le droit de la mer (UNCLOS) ou le droit des traités? La notion de rebus sic stantibus - soit le « changement fondamental de circonstances» - aurait-elle pour effet l'annulation des traités de 1921 et de 1940? Les divisions administratives internes effectuées en 1970 par l'URSS pour délimiter la mer sont-elles valides aujourd'hui, en tant que frontières maritimes? Dans la présente recherche, nous prendrons position en faveur de la validité du régime juridique établi par les traités de 1921 et de 1940 et nous soutiendrons la position des États qui revendiquent la transmission des engagements de l'ex-URSS envers l'Iran aux nouveaux États riverains. Pour cela nous effectuerons une étude complète de la situation juridique de la mer Caspienne en droit international et traiterons chacune des questions mentionnées ci-dessus. Le droit des traités, le droit de la succession d'États, la Convention des Nations Unies du droit de la mer de 1982, la doctrine, la jurisprudence de la C.I.J et les positions des États riverains de la Caspienne à l'ONU constituent nos sources pour l'analyse détaillée de cette situation. / From the creation of the Soviet Union to its dissolution, the Caspian Sea belonged to Iran and the USSR, which were its only two littoral States. The Caspian was, during this period, governed by two bilateral agreements signed in 1921 and 1940, in which the two States had agreed to “jointly” manage the Sea. However, after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 gave birth to three newly independent States (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan) with coast lines along the Caspian Sea, these three new actors demanded with insistence that the existing treaty-based regime be revised. During the course of the ensuing negotiations, several legal questions have been raised: Is the treaty-based legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties still valid in the new regional configuration? Are the newly independent States, successors to the USSR, obliged to respect the former Union's legal obligations towards Iran? If not, what is the appropriate legal regime applicable to the Caspian? Is it the law of the Sea (as defined mostly in the UNCLOS) or the law of treaties? Considering the new regional configuration, does the concept of rebus sic stantibus - or the fundamental change of circumstances - invalidate the 1921 and 1940 treaties? Will the internal administrative divisions established in 1970 by the former Soviet Union with regards to the Caspian become - de jure - the new international maritime frontiers? In this thesis, we argue in favour of the validity of the legal regime established by the 1921 and 1940 treaties and we support the position of those States which assert the transmissibility of the obligations of the former Union to the newly independent littoral States. In doing so, we will provide a complete analysis of the legal dilemma at hand and suggest appropriate analytical answers to the aforementioned questions. The law of treaties, the law of the succession of States, the 1982 United Nations' Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), doctrinal commentaries, case law of the I.C.J, and official U.N documents revealing the positions of each littoral States will be thoroughly conversed in this regard.

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.

Cette étude aborde la problématique de la participation des personnes morales de droit public à l’arbitrage à l’occasion des litiges relatifs aux relations qu’elles entretiennent avec les personnes privées étrangères. Par opportunisme économique, un certain nombre de pays développés et en développement se montrent tout à fait favorables à ce que l’État se soumette au contentieux arbitral. Dans d’autres pays, tels qu’en Amérique latine et dans le monde arabe, il se manifeste des tendances nettement hostiles gravitant entre l’interdiction totale et une adhésion conditionnelle de l’État à l’arbitrage. Deux écoles s’affrontent, celle des privatistes qui considèrent l’arbitre international comme le juge naturel du milieu des affaires, face à celle des étatistes qui postulent que les juridictions étatiques demeurent les seules habiles à connaitre souverainement des litiges opposants les personnes publiques à leur interlocuteur privé. Les raisons qui sous-tendent l’assouplissement de certains gouvernements vers un élan libéral de l’arbitrage en droit public, résultent du phénomène globalisant de l’économie qui tend à réduire à néant les règles internes des États dans le cadre du nouvel ordre économique mondial. Par contre, les conséquences sociales, financières et juridiques des sentences arbitrales portent certains gouvernements à adopter une position réfractaire à l’arbitrage mettant en cause les entités publiques. Ils brandissent le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples pour éviter le bradage de leurs ressources au détriment des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels de leurs populations, et ce, en dépit du fait que l’investissement direct étranger joue un rôle considérable dans le développement des pays en émergence. Notre défi ultime dans ce travail est d’explorer les diverses avenues permettant d’atteindre un juste équilibre entre les intérêts publics et la protection des investissements privés. Ceci exige un changement de paradigme qui prendra en compte les dimensions plurielles que constitue le contentieux investisseurs-États. / This study investigates the difficulties that arise when legal disputes between public bodies and foreign private entities are resolved through arbitration. For economic expediency, some Western states and developing countries are quite open to the idea of resolving legal disputes by submitting to arbitration proceedings. Other countries, such as Latin America and the Arab world, have a clearly hostile approach to state participation in arbitration proceedings, ranging from total prohibition to conditional submission. There is a clash between two schools of thought: the privatist approach that considers international arbitration to be the business community’s natural forum, as opposed to the statist approach according to which only state courts are qualified to consider legal disputes between public bodies and private entities. The underlying reasons for the increased flexibility of certain governments in favor of a liberal move towards public law arbitration are a result of the globalizing effect of the economy, which tends to decimate domestic state laws within the framework of the new global economic order. On the other hand, the social, financial and legal consequences of arbitration awards render some governments resistant to arbitration involving public entities. They brandish the right to self-determination of peoples to guard against the depletion of their resources to the detriment of the economic, social and cultural rights of their populations. This is despite the fact that foreign direct investment plays a considerable role in the development of emerging countries. The ultimate aim of this study is to explore different avenues for striking a fair balance between public interests and the protection of private investments. This requires a paradigmatic change so as to take into account the multiple dimensions of legal disputes between the state and investors.

Plusieurs problèmes d’environnement se posent aujourd’hui à l’humanité : pollutions diverses, réchauffement climatique, désertification, inondations, accumulation de déchets, pénurie d’eau, extinction progressive des espèces animales et végétales etc. Pour traiter ces problèmes, diverses activités et initiatives sont menées, aux plans local, national, sous-régional, régional et international. Parmi celles-ci figure la négociation des conventions internationales dans le domaine de l’environnement. La présente étude procède en deux temps : en premier lieu, elle analyse les justifications de la négociation telle qu’elle repose sur des déterminants non juridiques et juridiques. En second lieu, elle procède à l’évaluation de l’issue des négociations telle que celles-ci se jouent entre conflits d’intérêt et recherche de consensus. La thèse identifie les éléments, les facteurs et les principaux acteurs qui influent sur les décisions et les positions adoptées dans le cadre des négociations internationales. Ainsi, les négociations des traités environnementaux sont-elles à la fois l’expression d’une pratique classique en matière d’adoption des engagements internationaux et d’un contexte particulier propre à la thématique environnementale, au carrefour précisément du juridique, de l’économique, du politique et du social. A cet égard, on peut observer qu’il y est recherché plus le consensus plus que la confrontation, des principes généraux plus que des obligations plus strictes.Le bilan est que la négociation des traités environnementaux reste une oeuvre non seulement utile mais nécessaire car elle vise à répondre aux problèmes évoqués ci-dessus, au fur et à mesure où ils se posent, par la recherche de cadres juridiques contraignants appropriés. / Humankind is facing many environmental problems nowadays: diverse forms of pollution, climate warming, desertification, floods, waste accumulation, water scarcity, progressive extinction of animal and plant species etc. To deal with these problems, diverse activities and initiatives are carried out, at local, national, sub-regional, regional and international levels. Among these, is the negotiation of international conventions in the area of environment. The current thesis sets about two folds: firstly, it analyses the justifications of the negotiation as it lays on non-legal and legal determinants. Secondly, it assesses the negotiations issue as these are played between conflicts of interest and seeking of consensus. The thesis identifies elements, factors and key stakeholders that have effect on decisions and positions taken in the sphere of international negotiations. Thus, the negotiations of environmental treaties are both the expression of a classical practice for adopting international commitments and of a particular context for environmental thematic, at the crossroads, precisely of law, economy, politics and social. Then, it can be said that consensus more than confrontation, general principles more than strict obligations, are sought. The assessment to be made is that the negotiation of environmental treaties remains an activity which is not only useful but also necessary as it seeks to respond to the problems considered above, as they occur, looking for appropriate and strict legal frameworks.

Diploma thesis "Tax Havens in Europe- Case Study" analyses offshore business in Europe at the turn of years 2017 and 2018 from legal and economic perspective. The first chapter is an introduction to tax havens. The second chapter clarifies legal regulations of offshore business in Europe. The third chapter applies theoretical knowledge from previous chapters in a case study.

Les Etats membres de l'Union européenne, sont soumis à un certain nombre d'obligations résultant de leur adhésion à l'Union européenne. Ils sont notamment obligés de se conformer au droit de l'Union européenne. Dans le même temps, ces Etats ont conclus un certain nombre de conventions internationales dans différents domaines avec d'autres Etats, notamment des conventions fiscales, dans le cadre de l'élimination des doubles impositions et de la lutte contre l'évasion et la fraude fiscale internationale. L'application de ces conventions fiscales par les Etats membres de l'Union européenne, de manière simultanée avec leurs obligations au regard du droit de l'Union européenne vont engendrer des conflits de normes. Ces conflits de normes surviendront notamment du fait, de certaines incompatibilités des conventions fiscales au regard du droit de l'Union européenne. Par conséquent, les Etats membres de l'Union européenne seront dans l'incapacité de pouvoir honorer simultanément leurs obligations à l'égard de ces deux normes, car du fait de ces incompatibilités, il est impossible de les appliquer simultanément. L'Etat membre ne pourra appliquer qu'une seule de ces normes, ce qui entraînera de ce fait, une violation de l'autre norme, et potentiellement engagera la responsabilité de l'Etat membre. Il s'agit par conséquent de déterminer quels sont ces conflits de normes entre conventions fiscales et Traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne et comment ils peuvent être résolus. L'étude du droit de l'Union européenne au travers du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne, montre que son apport à la résolution des conflits de normes est très limité. En outre, l'étude du droit international notamment au travers de la Convention de Vienne de 1969 sur le droit des traités, nous montre que son apport à la résolution des conflits de normes est assez inefficace.Ainsi, les solutions traditionnellement présentées dans le cadre de la résolution des conflits de normes apparaissent fort désuètes au regard de la complexité et de l'évolution des conflits de normes contemporains.Par conséquent, on essaie d'apporter à travers cette étude un certains nombres de solutions innovantes pouvant résoudre ces conflits de normes, d'une part dans un cadre général et d'autre part dans des cadres spécifiques. / Members States of the European Union are subject to a number of obligations arising from their accession to the European Union. They are especially obliged to comply with the law of the European Union. At the same time, these States have concluded a number of international conventions in different fields with other states, including tax treaties, through the elimination of double taxation and the fight against tax avoidance and international tax evasion. The application of these treaties by members States of the European Union, simultaneously with their obligations under the law of the European Union will lead to conflicts of norms. These conflicts of norms occur especially because of some incompatibilities tax treaties under the law of the European Union. Therefore, members States of the European Union will not be able to be able to meet their obligations with respect to these two norms as a result of these inconsistencies simultaneously, it is impossible to apply simultaneously. The Member State may apply one of these norms, resulting thus a violation of other norms, and potentially be the responsibility of the Member State. It is therefore to determine what these normative conflicts between tax treaties and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and how they can be solved are. The study of the law of the European Union through the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shows that its contribution to conflict resolution of norms is very limited. In addition, the study of international law, particularly through the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, shows that its contribution to conflict resolution of norms is quite inefficient.Thus, the solutions traditionally presented in the context of conflict resolution of norms appear very outdated in terms of the complexity and evolution of conflicts of contemporary norms.Therefore, we try to bring through this study a certain number of innovative solutions to solve these conflicting norms, first in a general framework and the other in specific settings.