Suchergebnisse

La plupart des juristes ont leur idée sur le sens et l'importance du principe de sécurité juridique et, surtout, leur avis sur le mal qui semble attaquer le droit de toutes parts : l'insécurité juridique. Cet ouvrage a pour ambition de démontrer que les problèmes qui parcourent la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne relative à ce principe peuvent s'expliquer par la façon dont l'histoire des idées l'a façonné. Le recensement des contradictions, imprécisions et ambiguïtés dont la jurisprudence européenne est entachée permet, dans une première partie, d'illustrer le fossé existant entre le discours limpide de la Cour sur le principe et son application, paradoxalement ambiguë, incertaine et imprévisible. 0L'analyse historique révèle ensuite que le principe de sécurité juridique est traversé par quatre logiques qui se sont construites au fil du temps, parfois depuis l'antiquité, et qui permettent de mieux comprendre la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice. Les deux premières sont liées au fondement du principe (la certitude pour la logique cartésienne et la confiance pour la logique fiduciaire) et les deux autres 0concernent ses destinataires (le pouvoir en place pour la logique politique et les sujets de droit pour la logique subjective). 0Enfin, douze suggestions sont formulées afin d'améliorer l'utilisation du principe de sécurité juridique par les juridictions de l'Union. Elles sont inspirées d'une double proposition : remplacer la logique cartésienne par la logique fiduciaire et mobiliser l'argument de sécurité juridique en priorité en faveur des individus (logique subjective) plutôt qu'en faveur des autorités (logique politique)

Arbitral and judicial decisions dealing with territorial land and maritime disputes bear the mark of compromising. They draw boundaries situated between the respective pretentions of the parties and ensure an equitable share of spaces and resources. This phenomenon of compromising symptomatically appears in the jurisprudence dealing with territorial disputes, because of their specific nature, and the geostrategic, economic and emotional factors at stake. It is also due to the remarkable flexibility of applicable norms and principles, which provides a vast power of appreciation to the judge. This study enhances how the content of the decisions is used in order to reach a balanced solution and demonstrates that the international judge focuses on peacekeeping considerations

Le revirement de jurisprudence cristallise une tension classique du droit entre la nouveauté et la sécurité. Le présent ouvrage se propose d'analyser la question du revirement de jurisprudence à travers l'étude de la pratique de plusieurs organes juridictionnels réunis autour de grands ensembles : l'arbitrage (tribunaux interétatiques, CIRDI), les juridictions interétatiques (CIJ, TIDM, ORDOMC), les juridictions des droits de l'homme (CEDH, CIDH), les juridictions d'intégration (CJUE, juridictions d'intégration africaines, juridictions d'intégration latino-américaines), les juridictions pénales internationales (CPI, tribunaux pénaux internationaux ad hoc, tribunaux pénaux internationalisés) et les juridictions administratives internationales

The prosecutor appears to be one of the key components of the judicial and institutional structure of the International Criminal Court. As such, he has broad prosecutorial discretion in the selection of situations and cases, on the one hand, and in the collection and administration of evidence, on the other. Firstly, it is at the prosecutor's discretion to select situations in which investigations will be carried out. Similarly, once a case has been referred to him or when he has initiated an investigation in a situation in which it appears that crimes within the Court's jurisdiction have been committed, it is once again within the Prosecutor's discretion to select the crimes and the individuals on which he intends to focus his investigation and prosecution. His choices in this regard are therefore liable to criticism. The prosecutor's power in the selection of situations, investigations and prosecution is not subject to sufficient scrutiny by the judges. This lack of judicial scrutiny of the prosecutor's discretion leads to some unjustifiable failures.Secondly, the ways in which evidence is collected and managed have to conform to rules that are clearly identified in the Rome Statute and which are intended to guarantee the rights of the accused and the preservation of a fair trial. The prosecutor's failures, namely when he does not investigate incriminating and exonerating circumstances equally, can irremediably hamper the establishment of the truth. These failures, which are not always the result of the prosecutor's wilful choices, can be an obstacle to the principle of equality of arms and can also compromise the accused's capacity to properly prepare his defence. Furthermore, in terms of the administration of evidence, the difficulties encountered in communicating evidence may lead to similar consequences that will, in any case, prevent a fair trial.These failures can, to some extent, be attributed to the prosecutor. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the Rome Statute and its Rules of Procedure and Evidence are equivocal on certain issues and, as such, can be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the aims and values encapsulated in the spirit of the Statute. In the same vein, the prosecutor, as an actor operating in an international context, is subject to pressures that have an impact on the efficiency of his actions. In implementing these actions, the prosecutor can also encounter some difficulties due to a variety of fa ...

This article gives attention to the question if an unconditional amnesty enacted by a State Party to the Statute of the International Criminal Court would be an obstacle for the Court to exercise its complementary competences. Two arguments are supporting a negative answer: in so far as the Statute considers crimes falling within the scope of its competences as a threat to international peace, the States could be viewed as forced to prosecute the authors of such acts by obligations erga omnes while all indications of a State not to comply would entitle the court to exercise its competences. Moreover, such laws ignore the will of the States to put an end to exemptions from punishment that are impeding the democratic order & are fostering other crimes. However, these arguments should not be regarded as decisive. Before exercising its competence the court should also consider other factors -- in particular the impact of such laws on the process of national reconciliation. Adapted from the source document.