Search results

This study presents constitutional law as an ideal framework to analyze the foreign relations of the State. Through a double standpoint, it examines these relations from the State's perspective and through the action of the empowered organs of the State. In this way, the study aims to highlight the institutional and normative specificities of State's foreign relations. When the State establishes diplomatic and military relations at the outer-limits of its borders, it assumes a singular role compared to other political non-state unities. It performs a political function (fonction-fin), as defined by Charles Eisenmann, which belongs to the field of foreign relations. This political function is hold by the State in order to fulfill one basic need of the sovereign collectivity: to establish and to maintain "good relations" outside its boundaries – irrespective of the conflictual or cooperative nature of these relations. Because law and politics are intertwined, the function of foreign relations do not pre-define the distribution of powers within the State. Nevertheless, it exerts some influence on the constituent's choices and on the practices of the empowered organs. At the interface between the State's interior and exterior, constitutional analysis enables therefore to reexamine many elements usually taken as evident. This study assesses them and observe its effects. For example, it is possible to nuance the State's monopoly on foreign relations and, through a historical perspective, to moderate the governmental concentration of the direction of foreign affairs. ; L'étude proposée soutient que le droit constitutionnel offre un cadre privilégié pour observer les relations extérieures de l'État. L'approche envisage de les appréhender à la fois au prisme de l'État lui-même, et à travers l'action des organes compétents organisés dans l'État. Cette étude entend ainsi mettre en lumière les spécificités institutionnelles et normatives des relations extérieures de l'État. Lorsque celui-ci établit des rapports à ...

This study presents constitutional law as an ideal framework to analyze the foreign relations of the State. Through a double standpoint, it examines these relations from the State's perspective and through the action of the empowered organs of the State. In this way, the study aims to highlight the institutional and normative specificities of State's foreign relations. When the State establishes diplomatic and military relations at the outer-limits of its borders, it assumes a singular role compared to other political non-state unities. It performs a political function (fonction-fin), as defined by Charles Eisenmann, which belongs to the field of foreign relations. This political function is hold by the State in order to fulfill one basic need of the sovereign collectivity: to establish and to maintain "good relations" outside its boundaries – irrespective of the conflictual or cooperative nature of these relations. Because law and politics are intertwined, the function of foreign relations do not pre-define the distribution of powers within the State. Nevertheless, it exerts some influence on the constituent's choices and on the practices of the empowered organs. At the interface between the State's interior and exterior, constitutional analysis enables therefore to reexamine many elements usually taken as evident. This study assesses them and observe its effects. For example, it is possible to nuance the State's monopoly on foreign relations and, through a historical perspective, to moderate the governmental concentration of the direction of foreign affairs. ; L'étude proposée soutient que le droit constitutionnel offre un cadre privilégié pour observer les relations extérieures de l'État. L'approche envisage de les appréhender à la fois au prisme de l'État lui-même, et à travers l'action des organes compétents organisés dans l'État. Cette étude entend ainsi mettre en lumière les spécificités institutionnelles et normatives des relations extérieures de l'État. Lorsque celui-ci établit des rapports à ...

This study presents constitutional law as an ideal framework to analyze the foreign relations of the State. Through a double standpoint, it examines these relations from the State's perspective and through the action of the empowered organs of the State. In this way, the study aims to highlight the institutional and normative specificities of State's foreign relations. When the State establishes diplomatic and military relations at the outer-limits of its borders, it assumes a singular role compared to other political non-state unities. It performs a political function (fonction-fin), as defined by Charles Eisenmann, which belongs to the field of foreign relations. This political function is hold by the State in order to fulfill one basic need of the sovereign collectivity: to establish and to maintain "good relations" outside its boundaries – irrespective of the conflictual or cooperative nature of these relations. Because law and politics are intertwined, the function of foreign relations do not pre-define the distribution of powers within the State. Nevertheless, it exerts some influence on the constituent's choices and on the practices of the empowered organs. At the interface between the State's interior and exterior, constitutional analysis enables therefore to reexamine many elements usually taken as evident. This study assesses them and observe its effects. For example, it is possible to nuance the State's monopoly on foreign relations and, through a historical perspective, to moderate the governmental concentration of the direction of foreign affairs. ; L'étude proposée soutient que le droit constitutionnel offre un cadre privilégié pour observer les relations extérieures de l'État. L'approche envisage de les appréhender à la fois au prisme de l'État lui-même, et à travers l'action des organes compétents organisés dans l'État. Cette étude entend ainsi mettre en lumière les spécificités institutionnelles et normatives des relations extérieures de l'État. Lorsque celui-ci établit des rapports à l'extérieur de ses frontières au moyen de ses outils diplomatique et militaire, il assume un rôle singulier en comparaison des autres unités politiques non étatiques. En effet, il remplit une fonction-fin, au sens de Charles Eisenmann, propre à la matière des relations extérieures. Cette fonction politique est assurée par l'État afin de répondre à un besoin de la collectivité souveraine, à savoir nouer de « bons rapports » au-dehors de son territoire – sans préjuger si la relation en cause est conflictuelle ou coopérative. En raison de l'imbrication du droit et du politique, la fonction des relations extérieures de l'État, si elle ne préjuge pas de la répartition des compétences au sein de celui-ci, n'est pas sans influencer les choix du constituant et la pratique des organes habilités. Placée à l'interface entre le dedans et le dehors de l'État, l'analyse constitutionnelle permet de réinterroger plusieurs éléments souvent présentés comme relevant de l'évidence. L'étude conduit autant à les examiner qu'à en observer les effets. Ainsi est-il possible, par exemple, de relativiser le monopole étatique des relations extérieures ou encore de tempérer, au regard de l'histoire, la concentration gouvernementale de la direction des affaires extérieures.

Task force report: Introduction -- Recommendations: Making North America safer ; Creating a North American economic space ; From vision to action: institutions to guide trinational relations ; Conclusion -- Additional and dissenting views -- Task Force members -- Task Force observers

This contribution intends to discuss this Maussian parentage, which Lévi-Strauss claims to be from a particular field: relations between primitive tribes. The underlying problem is nothing more than "basic" foreign relations (I). Based on an empirical material derived from its field surveys, Lévi-Strauss designs inter-tribal relationships on the mode of exchange. The essence of the primitive society is therefore not war but the fight against it. It thus seems to be in line with Mauss' thoughts. However, there is a deviation from that originally developed by Mauss in the design of the exchange, in particular its relation to the symbol. This is despite the fact that his posture reveals a criticism of naturalism that prolongs the reflection of Durkheim nephew (II). Beyond the problem of intellectual heritage, this understanding of foreign relations by Lévi-Strauss raises the question of the anthropology of the war itself. Is the exchange paradigm relevant to thinking about this topic? (III) ; La présente contribution entend discuter cette filiation maussienne dont se réclame Lévi-Strauss à partir d'un champ particulier : celui des relations entre tribus primitives. Le problème sous-jacent n'est rien d'autre que celui des relations étrangères " élémentaires " (I). Sur la base d'un matériau empirique qu'il puise dans ses enquêtes de terrain, Lévi-Strauss conçoit des relations intertribales sur le mode de l'échange. L'essence de la société primitive ne serait donc pas la guerre mais la lutte contre celleci. Il semble ainsi en accord avec les réflexions formulées par Mauss. Cependant, la conception de l'échange qu'il livre présente une déviation par rapport à celle élaborée initialement par Mauss, notamment son rapport au symbole. Et ce, bien que sa posture révèle une critique du naturalisme qui prolonge la réflexion du neveu de Durkheim (II). Au-delà du problème de l'héritage intellectuel, cette appréhension des relations étrangères par Lévi-Strauss pose la question de l'anthropologie de la guerre elle-même. Le ...