Suchergebnisse

After the failure of Copenhagen in 2009, doctrine has talked about a multilateralism in crisis. This multilateralism characterized by state equality, reciprocity and continuity has appeared utterly incapable of bringing good cooperation between States so as to reach the adoption of a binding agreement to organize the fight against climate warming. This multilateralism is usually opposed to alliances occasionally formed and characterised by a geopolitical logic of power, of selectivity. The Copenhagen failure has brought forward this tough geopolitical logic (hard gaps were created between developed and developing States, emerging economies) revealing a very weak climate governance that was striving to cope with an already very complex and multiscale issue. As numerous political scientists have proposed other suggestions, many States have preferred the very limited structure of clubs. The COP 21 and the Paris agreement have put back on track the UN process that was gridlocked even if the oppositions of viewpoints have not vanished and the coalitions of interests are remaining. The solution of multilateralism that enables a balance and flexible solution between unilateralism and the partly binding character of the agreement explains this success as well as the increase involvement of civil society. ; Après l'échec de Copenhague en 2009, la doctrine a pu parler d'un multilatéralisme onusien en crise. Ce multilatéralisme caractérisé par l'égalité entre États, la réciprocité et la continuité semblait totalement incapable de permettre l'entente entre États en aboutissant à la conclusion d'un accord contraignant pour organiser la lutte contre le réchauffement climatique. On oppose ce multilatéralisme à des alliances ponctuellement formées caractérisées par une logique géopolitique de puissance, de sélectivité. L'échec du multilatéralisme onusien à Copenhague a fait ressortir cette logique géopolitique dure (des lignes de fracture très fortes se sont dressées entre États développés, en développement, économies ...

International audience ; Under the aegis of classical international law, the intervention by a foreign power to help people oppressed by a brutal leader was authorized. It was even strongly supported by doctrine. Positive international law does not allow the intervention of third states to help opponents fighting against the violence of the governing authorities directed against a section of population. The principle of non-intervention can nonetheless be overridden when violent repression is made in an excessive form such as genocide. The exercise of responsibility to protect therefore enables States in the international community to intervene on UN authorization to provide help to a section of a Nation oppressed by the tyrant. This collective intervention even went so far as to overthrow the current government. The recourse to chemical arms by the brutal authorities, whilst lacking solidity and rather corresponding to legitimacy, has even been invoked as an autonomous ground justifying armed intervention, States asserting that the targeted strikes against the dictator are aimed to uphold the rules forbidding their use. In that extent, positive international law could reconnect with the classical one. ; En droit international classique, l'intervention d'une puissance étrangère pour aider un peuple opprimé par un dirigeant brutal était autorisée. Elle était même largement encouragée par la doctrine. Le droit international positif n'autorise pas l'intervention d'Etats tiers pour aider des opposants luttant contre la violence des autorités au pouvoir dirigée contre une partie de la population. Cependant, ce principe de non intervention peut être renversé lorsque la répression dans la violence revêt une forme excessive comme un génocide. L'exercice de la responsabilité de protéger permet ainsi aux Etats de la communauté internationale d'intervenir sur autorisation onusienne pour sauver une partie de la population opprimée par le tyran, l'intervention collective dans sa forme excessive étant même allée jusqu'à ...

International audience ; Under the aegis of classical international law, the intervention by a foreign power to help people oppressed by a brutal leader was authorized. It was even strongly supported by doctrine. Positive international law does not allow the intervention of third states to help opponents fighting against the violence of the governing authorities directed against a section of population. The principle of non-intervention can nonetheless be overridden when violent repression is made in an excessive form such as genocide. The exercise of responsibility to protect therefore enables States in the international community to intervene on UN authorization to provide help to a section of a Nation oppressed by the tyrant. This collective intervention even went so far as to overthrow the current government. The recourse to chemical arms by the brutal authorities, whilst lacking solidity and rather corresponding to legitimacy, has even been invoked as an autonomous ground justifying armed intervention, States asserting that the targeted strikes against the dictator are aimed to uphold the rules forbidding their use. In that extent, positive international law could reconnect with the classical one. ; En droit international classique, l'intervention d'une puissance étrangère pour aider un peuple opprimé par un dirigeant brutal était autorisée. Elle était même largement encouragée par la doctrine. Le droit international positif n'autorise pas l'intervention d'Etats tiers pour aider des opposants luttant contre la violence des autorités au pouvoir dirigée contre une partie de la population. Cependant, ce principe de non intervention peut être renversé lorsque la répression dans la violence revêt une forme excessive comme un génocide. L'exercice de la responsabilité de protéger permet ainsi aux Etats de la communauté internationale d'intervenir sur autorisation onusienne pour sauver une partie de la population opprimée par le tyran, l'intervention collective dans sa forme excessive étant même allée jusqu'à ...

Ruling on four preliminary objections brought by russia against Georgia, the court ended a dispute opposing the two states since August 2008. Finding it did not have jurisdiction, the court considered that Georgia failed to satisfy the procedural conditions laid down by the arbitration clause in the 1965 convention on racial discrimination on the basis of which Georgia had chosen to bring the case. in a particularly restrictive reading of the clause, coupled with excessive formalism, the court opted to deny Georgia access to the forum. In a classical solution, it declined to direct justice towards people by taking account of the specific features of the convention.