Quo vadis, OHADA Private International Law?

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
Justin Monsenepwo
{"title":"Quo vadis, OHADA Private International Law?","authors":"Justin Monsenepwo","doi":"10.1093/ulr/unab020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Twenty-eight years after the creation of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA), private international law remains a “Cinderella subject” in western and central Africa. Indeed, there are no coherent sets of rules regarding the law applicable to contractual obligations, international jurisdiction, as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under OHADA law. This article contends that the main reason behind the lesser importance given to private international law in the OHADA region can be found in OHADA’s unification technique itself: OHADA unifies (and does not merely harmonize) business law. Its Uniform Acts are directly applicable and overriding in all the Member States; therefore, one could (erroneously) think that courts would never have to grapple with difficult questions as to which Member State’s law would apply to a dispute falling within the scope of a Uniform Act, as the laws of all the Member States would yield the same results. This article demonstrates that the Uniform Acts are incomplete either because they contain gaps or because they sometimes refer to the national legislations of the Member States. Thus, the unification of the substantive rules does not eliminate the need for the existence and the unification of conflict-of-laws rules. Moreover, this article provides a tour d’horizon of the existing seldom private international law rules under OHADA law. Additionally, it suggests new avenues for the development of a future OHADA legislation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, international jurisdiction, as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.","PeriodicalId":42756,"journal":{"name":"Uniform Law Review","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Uniform Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unab020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Twenty-eight years after the creation of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa (OHADA), private international law remains a “Cinderella subject” in western and central Africa. Indeed, there are no coherent sets of rules regarding the law applicable to contractual obligations, international jurisdiction, as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under OHADA law. This article contends that the main reason behind the lesser importance given to private international law in the OHADA region can be found in OHADA’s unification technique itself: OHADA unifies (and does not merely harmonize) business law. Its Uniform Acts are directly applicable and overriding in all the Member States; therefore, one could (erroneously) think that courts would never have to grapple with difficult questions as to which Member State’s law would apply to a dispute falling within the scope of a Uniform Act, as the laws of all the Member States would yield the same results. This article demonstrates that the Uniform Acts are incomplete either because they contain gaps or because they sometimes refer to the national legislations of the Member States. Thus, the unification of the substantive rules does not eliminate the need for the existence and the unification of conflict-of-laws rules. Moreover, this article provides a tour d’horizon of the existing seldom private international law rules under OHADA law. Additionally, it suggests new avenues for the development of a future OHADA legislation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, international jurisdiction, as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
国际私法?
在非洲商法协调组织(OHADA)成立28年后,国际私法仍然是西非和中非的“灰姑娘主题”。事实上,在适用于合同义务的法律、国际管辖权以及承认和执行外国判决方面,并没有一套连贯的规则。本文认为,在OHADA地区,国际私法不那么重要的主要原因在于OHADA的统一技术本身:OHADA统一(而不仅仅是协调)商法。其《统一法案》在所有成员国直接适用并具有压倒性;因此,人们可以(错误地)认为法院永远不必纠结于哪些会员国的法律适用于属于《统一法》范围内的争端的难题,因为所有会员国的法律都会产生同样的结果。本文表明,《统一法》是不完整的,要么是因为它们有空白,要么是因为它们有时提到会员国的国家立法。因此,实体法规则的统一并不排除冲突法规则存在和统一的必要性。此外,本文还对OHADA法框架下现存的少数国际私法规则进行了梳理。此外,它还提出了今后制订关于合同义务、国际管辖权以及承认和执行外国判决的适用法律的OHADA立法的新途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信