L’implantation dans l’ordre juridique des Etats

Loading...

Из курса от партнера University of Geneva

Introduction aux Droits de l’Homme

764 оценки

University of Geneva

Introduction aux Droits de l’Homme

764 оценки

Ce cours propose une introduction à la protection internationale des droits de l’homme. Il en présente les sources, les catégories, le contenu et les limites qui leur sont opposables, ainsi que les obligations qu’ils génèrent à la charge des Etats. Il expose aussi les principaux mécanismes de mise en œuvre prévus au niveau universel et régional pour assurer leur respect. Depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les droits de l’homme sont un domaine en plein essor. De nombreuses causes sont aujourd’hui défendues et débattues sous la bannière des droits de l’homme : la protection des minorités, la lutte contre la discrimination des femmes, des personnes lesbiennes, gaies, bisexuelles et transgenres (LGBT), la lutte contre la torture et les disparitions forcées, la lutte contre la pauvreté ou encore la protection de l’environnement et la protection des données. Partout dans le monde, ces causes mobilisent tant les acteurs politiques que la société civile et elles sont discutées dans de multiples enceintes, nationales et internationales. Le présent cours vise à offrir les bases nécessaires pour appréhender et comprendre le domaine vaste et complexe que sont devenus les droits de l’homme. Quelles sont les caractéristiques et les différentes catégorie des droits de l’homme ? Quels sont leurs fondements philosophiques et historiques ? Pourquoi ces droits sont-ils importants ? Quels instruments visent à les protéger ? Comment rendre ces droits opérationnels ? Quels mécanismes existent pour les mettre en œuvre et quels sont leurs avantages et leurs inconvénients ? En abordant ces questions, le cours s’adresse tant à des membres de la communauté universitaire qu’à des praticiens (responsables politiques, membres du corps diplomatique, fonctionnaires, journalistes, membres d’ONG, défenseurs des droits de l’homme et spécialistes de la coopération au développement, de l’aide humanitaire et des questions relatives aux réfugiés), ainsi qu’à toutes les personnes qui sont engagées dans la protection des droits de l’homme ou simplement désireuses de mieux comprendre ce phénomène. Le cours est conçu et dispensé par les Professeurs Maya Hertig Randall et Michel Hottelier, de la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève. Durant le cours, des membres d’organes et institutions voués à la protection des droits de l’homme et des spécialistes de la communauté académique seront invités à intervenir. Le cours est donné en français. Il consiste en une série de 8 sessions, comprenant chacune un certain nombre de brèves présentations vidéo (8 à 15 minutes). Chaque session s'accompagne d'un questionnaire d'évaluation. Des lectures préparatoires sont requises pour chaque session.

Из урока

Semaine 3

Le cours de cette semaine exposera les sources des droits de l'homme dans une perspective juridique. Il précisera et approfondira, dans le sillage des cours précédents, le siège normatif des droits de l'homme, l'articulation entre ces derniers et les droits fondamentaux d'origine nationale, ainsi que certains des problèmes que pose la coexistence de ces garanties. Le cours poursuivra trois objectifs : (1) familiariser les étudiants avec les sources juridiques des droits de l'homme ; (2) identifier et apprendre à résoudre les problèmes générés par la coexistence des droits fondamentaux et des droits de l'homme ; (3) exposer, puis souligner l'importance qui revient au contrôle international du respect des droits de l'homme.

Introduction2:13

Les sources nationales3:35

Les sources internationales15:51

L’articulation des sources8:06

L’implantation dans l’ordre juridique des Etats11:59

L’importance du contrôle international12:53

Entretien avec Abdoulaye Soma8:25

Познакомьтесь с преподавателями

Maya Hertig Randall
Professeure ordinaire au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Michel Hottelier
Professeur ordinaire au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Zohra Kibboua
Collaboratrice scientifique / Assistante doctorante au département de droit public
Faculté de droit
Anton Vallelian
Collaborateur scientifique / Assistant au département de droit public
Faculté de droit

Introduction to Human Rights

Week 3: The sources of Human Rights

V. Establishment in the States' legal order

Let us focus for a moment on the establishment of Human Rights

in the States' legal order.

This establishment is a phenomenon which strongly vary according to States and

to their respective constitutional traditions.

It should be remembered that States remain free to adhere to and to ratify

Human Rights treaties.

There are many reasons why a State decides to commit to an international treaty which

aims at assuring the respect of human dignity.

Most of the time, it is not just for legal considerations but

it is often for political, institutional, historical or economical considerations.

The process that leads States to implement Human Rights considerably vary according

to the following categories of States.

There are two broad categories of States:

the ones which chose a dualist structure and the ones which chose a monist structure

in the field of the respect for international law.

In the case of dualist States,

the entry into force of a treaty does not necessarily go together with its

automatic integration in national law.

According to this approach which clearly distinguishes international law and

national law, a treaty must not only be ratified on the international stage to

commit the State.

The treaty commits the State on the international stage but in order for the

State to be nationally committed, the treaty must be nationally received

by an approbation act, which is generally a law, before being implemented.

It is easy to see what it means in the field of Human Rights.

Let us take the example of the United Kingdom

which has very early ratified the European Convention on Human Rights after its

adoption in the early 1950s.

Nevertheless, because this State is characterized by a dualist tradition,

the Convention could not express direct effects as long as it was not

formally integrated into national law.

This is what happened much later, at the end of the 20th century, with the adoption

of the Human Rights Act from 1998.

It is thanks to this Act that the Convention could integrate the

legal order of this country.

Indeed, the Convention then became an ordinary law affected in the State.

The monist States have a different approach which is founded on

the osmosis between international and national laws.

For these States,

the treaty can immediately express its effects at the national level once it

enters into force at the international stage.

In this perspective,

there is no need to resort to the passing of an incorporation law

in order for the treaty to express its effects.

Let us take the example of the European Convention on Human Rights again.

Let us see this time how Switzerland uses it.

Switzerland ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1974,

almost 25 years after the adoption of this instrument by the Council of Europe.

However, since the ratification of the Convention by Switzerland,

the treaty was immediately effective under the national law.

The treaty expresses similar effects to the ones of fundamental rights which

follow from the national constitutional law.

The optimal and most beneficial effect of Human Rights is the one that happens when

these rights are integrated in the national law and when they are able

to be invoked the same way as fundamental national rights.

The two sources can then be simultaneously plead before the national authorities,

according to specific procedures' control to each States.

The same person can therefore take both advantages of the rights established

by the Constitutional law of his/her State, and of the ones guaranteed

by international law.

The person can invoke the two rights.

This is important in the theory and in contemporary practice of Human Rights.

Fundamental rights and Human Rights coexist with each other.

They have the same goal but they result from different historical normative

instruments that can however apply simultaneously in the same trial.

From a legal point of view, these cases of coexistence raise problems of

legal definition, interpretation and resolution.

This is quite complex.

We will have the opportunity to discuss the matter later.

I would like to highlight that the issue is even more complex today.

Indeed, the development of international instruments of protection on the

universal and regional stages bring us to witness today some coexistence

between Human Rights.

The same guarantee can indeed be used by different international instruments

of different origin and nature.

In order to resolve the coexistence between fundamental rights and

Human Rights, two very important principles have been initiated to legally

govern these scenarios:

the principle of subsidiarity

and the principle of the right that gives the best protection.

With subsidiarity, we find again the rule that we evoked earlier:

Human Rights have not been conceived to supplant or to substitute for fundamental

rights but to ensure a complementary protection with the one given by

national law.

I repeat,

these guarantees do not aim at replacing the protection given by

fundamental rights.

On the contrary, they aim at completing, supervising and reinforcing the national

protection when this one turns out to be inadequate

or defaulting.

In this perspective, Human Rights are not opposed to fundamental rights.

They are not the enemies of fundamental rights.

Nevertheless, their national implementations have to lead to

an evaluation that brings to choose the guarantee which grants the most

favourable protection to the beneficiary.

This is where the second principle that we mentioned comes in:

the primacy of the most favourable norm.

According to this principle,

the simultaneous application of two or more guarantees derived from

national constitutional law

and from international human rights law should lead to the identification

of the guarantee which offers the best protection, which is the most favourable

and the most beneficial for the holder.

In other words, since Human Rights have been created to ensure the respect

of human dignity, their aim is really, I repeat, to complete and to supervise

national law.

They also aim at choosing the most favourable protection for their holders.

It would be against Human Rights philosophy to use a less favourable

protection which follows from international human rights law

in order to lower the protection of fundamental rights which follows

from national constitutional law.

The primacy of the most favourable norm is inherent in history, in philosophy and

in the very notion of Human Rights.

This is so true that several international Human Rights instruments are

explicitly enshrined to this principle.

The aim is to provide a better understanding, a better implementation

and a better application of Human Rights on the national level.

We can refer to Article 5, paragraph 2 of the two UN Covenants.

They stipulate that, I quote:

"There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental

human rights [...] existing in any State Party [...] to the present Covenant

pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom

on the pretext that [the two Covenants do] not recognize such rights

or that [they recognize] them to a lesser extent."

In this perspective, Human Rights aim at ensuring a kind of safeguard,

a minimum level of protection, as I mentioned earlier.

In other words, Human Rights are capable of expressing their effects only if the

non-application or the wrong application of national fundamental rights lead to

the violation of this minimum level of protection.

There is an ambiguity.

Human Rights are ambiguous because they are directed against States which

have to implement and respect them in their national harem of protection.

I think that we clearly see the importance and the extent of the responsibility which

falls to the international bodies charged to watch over the respect of Human Rights

at supra-state level.

We are now going to talk about this subject.

Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом

Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.

Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.

© Coursera Inc., 2019 Все права защищены.

Загрузить из App Store

Загрузить в Google Play