Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2023 - 19

NUMÉRO SPÉCIAL AFRIQUE
of African countries, comprising mostly of former French colonies, embarked
on an ambitious project to harmonise their business laws. The result was the
formation of the Organisation pour l'harmonisation en Afrique du Droit des
Affaires (OHADA) 40
The
UAA is the arbitration law of the 17 OHADA member countries. Before OHADA,
some former French colonies that did not have arbitration provisions in their
civil codes, adopted new provisions at independence. 42
For the other African
countries, during the rest of the twentieth century, they maintained legislation
that they had adopted soon after independence - not always having a dedicated
arbitration law - or having adopted arbitration laws that were influenced by the
UNCITRAL Model Law. 43
African states continued to use international arbitration to resolve disputes
between themselves. Two illustrative examples involve disputes related to
Guinea-Bissau's maritime boundaries. The first is a dispute between GuineaBissau
and its southern neighbour - Guinea. 44
The parties referred the dispute
to arbitration pursuant to a compromis they signed on 18 February 1985. The
arbitral tribunal 45
was asked to decide three issues: (i) whether the Agreement
between France and Portugal signed on 12 May 1886 decided the maritime
boundary between their respective possessions in West Africa; (ii) the value of the
protocols and documents annexed to the convention (travaux préparatoires) for
interpreting the convention; and (iii) depending on the answers to these questions,
determination of the maritime boundary between Guinea and Guinea Bissau. The
Tribunal decided that the 1886 agreement had not determined the boundary, that
the protocols and documents annexed to the convention had a significant role
in the legal interpretation of the convention, and then proceeded to delimit the
boundary between the two states. 46
The second example is a dispute between Guinea-Bissau and its northern
neighbour - Senegal. This time, through a compromis dated 12 March 1985,
the arbitral tribunal 47
was asked to decide whether an exchange of letters
dated 26 April 1960 about the maritime boundary between the two states was
binding. If the answer was negative, the tribunal had to determine the maritime
boundary between the two states. 48
The majority of the tribunal found that the
40. OHADA, Treaty of 17 October 1993.
41. Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), (www.ohada.org).
42. Ordinance of 28 July 1967.
43. See for example, Zanzibar (Arbitration Cap 25 Laws of Zanzibar (1928), Arbitration Clauses
(Protocol) Cap 26 Laws of Zanzibar (1926), Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Cap 27 Laws of Zanzibar
(1931)), Botswana (1959), Namibia (1965), Malawi (1967), Seychelles (1977), Lesotho (1980), and
Mozambique (1999).
44. Case concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Guinea and GuineaBissau,
Award of 14 February 1985, UNRIAA, Volume XIX.
45. Kéba Mbaye (Guinea), Mohamed Bedjaoui (Guinea-Bissau), Manfred Lachs (joint
appointment).
46. Para 130 of the award.
47. Andre Gros (Senegal), Mohamed Bedjaoui (Guinea-Bissau), Julio A. Barberis (joint
appointment).
48. Article 2 of the compromis (12 March 1985).
Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage 2023‑2
293
- the Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law
in Africa in English. One of the laws introduced by OHADA was the Uniform
Arbitration Act (UAA), first adopted in 1996 and revised in 1999 and 2017. 41
http://www.ohada.org
Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2023

Table des matières de la publication Revue - Les Cahiers de l'Arbitrage N°2 - 2023
