Les deux disciplines juridiques, l'arbitrage et la fiscalité, sont traditionnellement considérées comme distinctes, et s'excluent l'une et l'autre.D’un côté, la souveraineté fiscale est primordiale pour l’Etat. De l’autre côté, l’arbitre, étant un juge privé, a toujours été soupçonné, à tort ou à raison, de ne pas être assez sensible à l’intérêt public. Cependant, les développements observés sur les dernières décennies ont prouvé que cette incompatibilité entre les deux disciplines n’était pas ou plus le cas.En effet, avec la mondialisation économique, l’enjeu de l’Etat n’est plus comment taxer ses contribuables mais comment les conserver voire attirer ceux des autres Etats sur son territoire. Dans ce contexte, ils deviennent plus souples quant au règlement des litiges impliquant des questions fiscales. L’arbitrage de ces litiges est donc devenu une réalité en pratique. Cependant, en examinant le droit et la jurisprudence en cette matière, nous constatons que l’arbitrage n’est pas apte à résoudre tous litiges fiscaux, notamment en considérant les intérêts des contribuables. L’arbitrage des contentieux purement fiscaux en droit interne s’est avéré être un échec. Une forme dérivée de l’arbitrage, appelée l’arbitrage de la dernière offre, semble être plus appropriée pour résoudre les litiges concernant la double imposition. Toutefois, en droit de l’investissement international, où la jurisprudence arbitrale en matière fiscale s’est considérablement développée depuis une vingtaine années, nous constatant que l’arbitrage est un mode idéal pour résoudre des litiges fiscaux liés à ce domaine car les arbitres ont su trouver un équilibre entre la protection de la souveraineté fiscale de l’Etat d’accueil et la protection des contribuables –investisseurs étrangers. / The two disciplines, arbitration and taxation, are traditionally considered to be distinct, and exclude one another. On the one hand, tax sovereignty is vital for the state. On the other hand, arbitrator, being a private judge, has always been suspected, rightly or wrongly, of not being sufficiently sensitive to the public interest. However, the developments observed over the last decades have shown that this incompatibility between the two disciplines was not or is no longer the case. Indeed, with economic globalization, the challenge of the state is no longer how to tax its taxpayers but how to keep them in or even to attract those of other states to its territory. In this context, states become more flexible in resolving disputes involving tax issues. Arbitration of these disputes has thus become a reality in practice. However, in reviewing the law and the jurisprudence, we find that arbitration is not suitable for resolving all kinds of tax disputes, especially considering the interests of taxpayers. Arbitration of tax disputes in domestic law has been proved to be a failure. A form derived from arbitration, called baseball arbitration, appears to be more appropriate for resolving double taxation disputes. However, in international investment law, where the jurisprudence in tax matters has developed considerably over the past twenty years, we find that arbitration is an ideal way to resolve tax disputes related to this area, because arbitrators, in their practice, have found a balance between the protection of the host State's tax sovereignty and the protection of taxpayers-foreign investors

This paper investigates the effects of double tax treaties (DTTs) on foreign direct investment (FDI) after controlling for their relevance in the presence of treaty shopping. DTTs cannot be considered a bilateral issue, but must be viewed as a network. We define tax distance as the cost of channelling corporate income from one country to another and, by considering treaty shopping through intermediate jurisdictions, we calculate the shortest (i.e. the cheapest) distance between any two countries. We show that relevant tax treaties-which reduce the direct tax distance both over domestic law and the entire existing treaty network-will increase FDI by about 18%.

More than fifty investor-state arbitration claims have been filed by foreign investors against the Republic of Argentina due to the country's adoption of measures to mitigate the consequences of a severe financial crisis that struck the country in the early 2000s. Argentina invoked the Non-Precluded Measures (NPM) clause in the U.S.-Argentina Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) and the necessity defence in customary international law as its defense in these arbitrations. As a result of taking divergent approaches to interpreting the NPM clause in the U.S.-Argentina BIT, the tribunals reached inconsistent decisions on Argentina’s liability for damages incurred by foreign investors, which intensified the legitimacy crisis in the investment arbitration regime. Consequently, the tribunals’ approaches to interpreting the nexus requirement of the treaty NPM clause (the "necessary for" term) caused a fierce academic debate among scholars. This thesis studies the issues related to the inconsistent interpretation of treaty NPM clauses and the customary necessity defense in the investment arbitration regime. It presents a detailed examination of the necessity defense in customary international law and treaty NPM clauses through the lens of regime theory. By applying relevant concepts of regime theory, such as regime formation, regime attributes, regime consequences and regime dynamics, this work explores the origins and evolution of the necessity doctrine, and provides a comparative analysis of the attributes, structural elements and the consequences of invoking the customary necessity defense and treaty NPM clauses. This thesis analyses the interpretative issues in the Argentine cases, and based on the dynamics of developments in the practice of states, it arrives at concrete proposals that will contribute to the coherent practice of investment arbitration tribunals in interpreting treaty NPM clauses. By applying the concept of interaction of regimes, this thesis provides a comparative analysis of tests suggested by scholars for interpreting Article XI of the U.S.-Argentina BIT. It examines whether the interpretative testsmargin of appreciation, proportionality and less restrictive meansused by dispute settlement bodies in other specialized treaty regimes have the potential to serve as an optimal standard for interpreting Article XI. This work explains the contents of these tests and inquires as to the advantages and criticisms related to their application in the investment arbitration regime. This thesis further advances the argument that the interpretation of treaty NPM clauses (Article XI of the U.S.-Argentina BIT) should be performed with strict adherence to the general rules of interpretation as established under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Specifically, it argues that in cases when tribunals fail to define the meaning of a treaty provision under Article 31 (1) and (2) of VCLT, they should not look for guidance from other specialized treaty regimes, but rather, must have recourse to general international law, specifically, customary rules of international law. As a methodology for performing this interpretation, this thesis proposes to apply a systemic integration approach through operationalizing Article 31(3)(c) of VCLT. Furthermore, this thesis advances the argument that the interpretation of the only means requirement of the customary necessity defense (Article 25 of Articles on the Responsibility of States) does not accurately reflect the contemporary customary rules on necessity. Thus, by applying the concept of regime dynamics, it proposes to reconceptualise the interpretation of the only means requirement through incorporating the elements of a more progressive version, which is found in the international trade regime. Unlike the scholars who rejected the application of the customary necessity elements, and proposed the direct importation of the LRM test from the international trade regime to interpret Article XI, this thesis proposes a different approach to taking advantage of the WTO jurisprudence. Specifically, it argues that WTO jurisprudence can be incorporated into the investment regime indirectly by serving as a source from which we can identify the development of state practice in examining the "only means" nature of state measures adopted in emergency (necessity) circumstances. It is contended that such state practice represents a more progressive and practical approach to interpreting the only means requirement of customary necessity defense, and thus, should be incorporated into the interpretation practice of investment arbitral tribunals.

This investigation is concerned with the role played by the illusions of security, Bolshevism, and American innocence in the making of the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The main sources used in this thesis were the U.S. State Department publications The World War and The Paris Peace Conference and Paul Mantoux's Proceedings of the Council of Four. The drafting of the Versailles Treaty is approached chronologically with special emphasis accorded the problems emanating from the questions of Russia and the Rhine. The study concludes that the peacemakers were manipulated by the illusions of security, Bolshevism, and American innocence.

There is enough evidence on how climate change consequences will adversely affect Africa despite the fact that it is the continent that has least contributed to the problem. The international climate change regime recognises Africa's vulnerability to climate change and provides for special treatment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC). Thus, the international climate change regime presents an opportunity for African countries to adapt and mitigate the consequences of climate change through the UNFCCC mechanism. However, the international climate change legal regime has not been able to adequately assist African countries to address the consequences of climate change under the vulnerability principle. Although the current international climate change regime requires developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Africa needs to take steps itself to address the problem, because it is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. The African Union (AU) could play a great role in ensuring that the international climate change regime addresses the consequences of climate change in the region. This could be done through fostering strong African common positions during international climate change negotiations. A strong common position could strengthen African bargaining power and might result in more funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer for adaptation and mitigation programmes under the UNFCCC-Kyoto Conference of Parties. However, reaching a strong common position requires the cooperation of the AU member states. In this context, African regional integration is an opportunity for the AU to foster such cooperation among member states. The Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community (the Abuja Treaty), the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Protocol on the Relations between the AU and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) prioritise regional economic integration and call for states' cooperation, but the call has not yet been heeded. To realise deep and viable African integration, there must be a well-structured institutional and legal framework that defines the relationship between the AU, the AEC and the RECs. African regional integration is also seen as an avenue whereby the AU can create its own regional climate-change regime. In this regard, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is examined in order to assess whether it adequately integrates climate change issues. This study finds that although Africa is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is weak and inadequate to address the problem. The Framework should integrate climate change issues in order to achieve sustainable development. The AU should also ensure that member states ratify the relevant treaties and protocols (the Maputo Nature Convention and the Protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) that have not yet been ratified in order that they may become operational. The Maputo Nature Convention puts sustainable development in the forefront of attention as a reaction to the potentially conflicting environmental and developmental challenges facing the continent (such as climate change), but it is not yet in force. This work finds that human rights law can strengthen the AU's role in addressing climate change through its normative framework. The human rights approach to climate change under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Banjul Charter) is a viable avenue because human rights law forms the basis for states' responsibility based on human rights obligations and principles. The extraterritorial application of the Banjul Charter presents an avenue for AU institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and the African Human Rights Court to curb the effects of climate change through a human rights lens. The future of the AU is presented within the context of a set of recommendations that identify strong African regional integration as an avenue through which the AU can foster the cooperation of member states to address the consequences of climate change in the AU's and RECs' normative frameworks. General recommendations are made on the need for the international climate change regime to pay more attention to issues of funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer on the basis of the vulnerability principle and in relation to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Also, the AU needs to strengthen its legal and institutional structures to ensure deep African integration that is capable of addressing common challenges such as the consequences of climate change. / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

There is enough evidence on how climate change consequences will adversely affect Africa despite the fact that it is the continent that has least contributed to the problem. The international climate change regime recognises Africa's vulnerability to climate change and provides for special treatment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the UNFCCC). Thus, the international climate change regime presents an opportunity for African countries to adapt and mitigate the consequences of climate change through the UNFCCC mechanism. However, the international climate change legal regime has not been able to adequately assist African countries to address the consequences of climate change under the vulnerability principle. Although the current international climate change regime requires developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Africa needs to take steps itself to address the problem, because it is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change. The African Union (AU) could play a great role in ensuring that the international climate change regime addresses the consequences of climate change in the region. This could be done through fostering strong African common positions during international climate change negotiations. A strong common position could strengthen African bargaining power and might result in more funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer for adaptation and mitigation programmes under the UNFCCC-Kyoto Conference of Parties. However, reaching a strong common position requires the cooperation of the AU member states. In this context, African regional integration is an opportunity for the AU to foster such cooperation among member states. The Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community (the Abuja Treaty), the Constitutive Act of the AU and the Protocol on the Relations between the AU and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) prioritise regional economic integration and call for states' cooperation, but the call has not yet been heeded. To realise deep and viable African integration, there must be a well-structured institutional and legal framework that defines the relationship between the AU, the AEC and the RECs. African regional integration is also seen as an avenue whereby the AU can create its own regional climate-change regime. In this regard, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is examined in order to assess whether it adequately integrates climate change issues. This study finds that although Africa is most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change, the AU's and RECs' normative framework on climate change is weak and inadequate to address the problem. The Framework should integrate climate change issues in order to achieve sustainable development. The AU should also ensure that member states ratify the relevant treaties and protocols (the Maputo Nature Convention and the Protocol establishing the African Court of Justice and Human Rights) that have not yet been ratified in order that they may become operational. The Maputo Nature Convention puts sustainable development in the forefront of attention as a reaction to the potentially conflicting environmental and developmental challenges facing the continent (such as climate change), but it is not yet in force. This work finds that human rights law can strengthen the AU's role in addressing climate change through its normative framework. The human rights approach to climate change under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Banjul Charter) is a viable avenue because human rights law forms the basis for states' responsibility based on human rights obligations and principles. The extraterritorial application of the Banjul Charter presents an avenue for AU institutions such as the Human Rights Commission and the African Human Rights Court to curb the effects of climate change through a human rights lens. The future of the AU is presented within the context of a set of recommendations that identify strong African regional integration as an avenue through which the AU can foster the cooperation of member states to address the consequences of climate change in the AU's and RECs' normative frameworks. General recommendations are made on the need for the international climate change regime to pay more attention to issues of funding, capacity building and technology development and transfer on the basis of the vulnerability principle and in relation to the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Also, the AU needs to strengthen its legal and institutional structures to ensure deep African integration that is capable of addressing common challenges such as the consequences of climate change. / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

This thesis addresses risks of multiple recovery, prejudice to legitimate interests of third parties, and inadequate consideration of the applicable law in shareholder claims in investment treaty arbitration. It challenges the application by investment tribunals of two basic premises: i) that shareholders are entitled to claim for damages vis-à-vis measures against the company in which they hold shares and ii) that ‘contract claims’ are to be distinguished from ‘treaty claims’. The central argument is that the failure to recognize substantive overlaps between shareholder treaty claims and contract claims risks more than one recovery, potentially prejudices third parties, and can lead to an incomplete application of the applicable law. The foundations of standing and the cause of action in shareholder treaty claims involve two complementary ideas of independence, i.e., independence of shareholder treaty rights vis-à-vis the local company’s contractual/national law rights and independence of treaty claims vis-à-vis contract claims. However, the substance of shareholder treaty claims, defined as the state measure and particularly the losses involved, is often identical to or at least overlaps considerably with related contract/national law claims. Prevailing ideas on shareholder standing and the cause of action in international investment law have provided useful conceptual tools for jurisdictional determinations. Yet they have not allowed tribunals and the literature to fully consider the implications of shareholder indirect claims. The thesis argues, first, that investment tribunals should acknowledge substantive overlaps between contract and treaty claims. Second, shareholder claims may be inadmissible when such overlap exists and there is a risk of double recovery or prejudice to third parties. Third, the substantive coincidence of treaty and contract claims calls for an integrated approach to the applicable law, where proper weight is given not only to IIA provisions but also to general international law and the national law governing the investment.

This thesis aims at answering two research questions at the topic of Reshaping the Future of the European Union. The questions are: Will the future of the European Union be flexible? and if so, Which model will be the most suitable one?. To answer these questions flexibility is analyzed through the context that necessitates its usage, its earlier and recent models, its evolution at the official realm, and the institutional and country views on it chapters. At the end of this analysis, this thesis&amp / #8217 / answer to the first question is: Yes, although there is quite skepticism against the term flexibility at almost every realm of the Union / its gradual evolution at all dimensions of the Union shows that this term would continue to develop and has a chance to become the main ruling mechanism at the future. The answer of the second question is: a modified Variable Geometry in addition to the introduction of radical comprehensive structural changes would be the most sufficient future flexible model of integration at the future.

This thesis provides an analysis of recent attempts to regulate the governance of genetic resources through the initiation of new global commons regimes. These attempts have arisen out of a combination of the growing recognition of genetic resources' value and global nature; a new resurgence in support for the common property paradigm; and, during a period in which the world is becoming increasingly globalised, with many governance competencies moving to the supranational level. They can be viewed as part of a broader effort to proffer the common property approach as a legitimate alternative in the property regime debate: a debate that has increasingly become trapped in the public-private dichotomy at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the success of these attempts, and offer suggestions about how future attempts might be more successful. While there are a multitude of books, articles, opinion pieces and media reports produced that concern themselves with property theory, intellectual property theory, the efficacy or morality of applying property regimes to living materials, and the threats and promises of globalisation, all of which influence the notion of a potential global genetic commons, relatively little has been written directly on the idea of applying global common property regimes to genetic resource governance issues. The first part of this thesis constructs a theory of a global genetic commons, drawing inspiration from a variety of sources, while the second part tests this theory in order to analyse the outcomes of the recent attempts, and suggest directions for future research. The thesis finds that the conception of a global genetic commons is indeed a valid one, and that while not all attempts so far have been successful, the common property paradigm does offer valuable insights for the future governance of genetic resources at the global level.

Legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title and treaty negotiations with First Nations in British Columbia (BC) are inextricably linked. While much has been written on the impacts of a small number of such legal decisions, there has been very little research that critically examines how legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title, in general, influence the way the parties to the BC treaty process conduct treaty negotiations. In-depth interviews with ten First Nations, provincial, and federal chief negotiators/advisers, together with British Columbia Treaty Commission (BCTC) commissioners and senior-level program staff, suggest that legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title influence the conduct of treaty negotiations in an indirect and serpentine manner. Further to this, the results suggest that legal decisions on Aboriginal rights and title may act to simultaneously facilitate and constrain the conduct of negotiations.