Abstract EN:

The object of this thesis is to study, by analyzing a certain number of sentences passed since the end of the first world war, the manner in which the international judge (permanent international court of justice and international arbitration) has found ways of resolving disputes arising from concessionary agreements which have been brought to his attention either directly, or by means of diplomatic and judicial protection, when a state has violated its contractual obligations. Based, on the one hand, on peace treaties signed on the eve of the great war, and, on the other hand, on the stabilization or inviolability clauses included in several recent international agreements, the international judge has recognized and confirmed the binding nature of agreements, and thus the principle that the state which has signed an agreement must respect the contractual rights of private foreign individuals (first and second sections). Thus, although the right of each state to nationalize all assets and economic activities within its territory is no longer contestable - taking into account the principal of each state's supreme right to its natural resources -, it is no less important, from the point of view of international economic relations, that all agreements be respected and carried out in good faith. It thus follows that any pre- mature breach of contract must be made good, and that, in particular, compensation be paid to the injured party (third section). It emerges from this study that - despite the weaknesses which could be found in the reasoning of the international judge, and apart from obvious divergences between decisions which have been made, taking into account the specificity of each case-, the judge has succeeded in unraveling the complicated disputes with which he has been faced. His competence in this area is thus beyond question.