Search results

To cope with the circumstances of the Second World War and to satisfy the new ideology in power, the Vichy government (1940-1944) implements a policy directing the economy which confuses the jurist. Facing the silence of the legislator and in order to determine the applicable law and the competent jurisdiction, the authors, both publicists and privatists, divide themselves as well as the judges, whether administrative or judicial, on the legal categories in which the realities of state-controlled economy should be classified. The conditions are favorable for a paradigmatic revolution in administrative law because no concept in this field seems able to withstand the shock of the events. However, the issues of qualifying the new economic realities are addressed in continuity. The hypothesis of a third (economic or professional) law appearing, with authority over management bodies and activities, is rejected. To support a sound administration of justice and to foster the necessary balance between public and private interests, the Conseil d'Etat, followed by the Cour de Cassation, confirms the value of traditional concepts and accepts only certain developments in definying them. Vichy's State-directed economy thus reveals how strongly the traditional concepts of administrative law may resist and how its content, which is never definitively fixed, appears able to adjust to changes in social life. But above all, the phenomenon highlights the importance of past authority : jurists, conservative by nature, refuse to break with tradition. They prefer to maintain imperfect classifications, but of which they know the effects, rather than replacing them with new ones, which seem better, but whose real effectiveness they can doubt. ; Pour faire face aux circonstances de la Seconde guerre mondiale et satisfaire la nouvelle idéologie au pouvoir, le régime de Vichy (1940-1944) met en place une politique de direction de l'économie qui désempare le juriste. Dans le silence du législateur et afin de déterminer le droit applicable et la juridiction compétente, les auteurs, publicistes et privatistes, se divisent tout comme les juges, administratifs et judiciaires, sur les catégories juridiques dans lesquelles classer les réalités du dirigisme. Les conditions sont propices à une révolution paradigmatique du droit administratif car aucun des concepts de cette matière ne semble capable de résister au choc des événements. Pourtant, les questions de qualification sont résolues dans la continuité. L'hypothèse de l'apparition d'un troisième droit (économique ou professionnel), dont auraient relevé les organismes et les activités de direction, est rejetée. Au nom de la bonne administration de la justice et de la nécessité de préserver un équilibre entre les intérêts publics et privés, le Conseil d'Etat, suivi par la Cour de cassation, confirme la valeur des notions traditionnelles et n'accepte que certaines évolutions de définitions. Le dirigisme de Vichy révèle ainsi la force de résistance des concepts traditionnels du droit administratif, dont le contenu, jamais définitivement fixé, s'avère capable de s'adapter aux évolutions de la vie sociale. Mais le phénomène met surtout en lumière l'importance de l'autorité du passé : les juristes, conservateurs par nature, refusent de rompre avec la tradition. Ils préfèrent maintenir des classifications imparfaites, mais dont ils connaissent les effets, plutôt que de les remplacer par de nouvelles, d'apparence meilleures, mais dont ils peuvent douter de la véritable efficacité.

To cope with the circumstances of the Second World War and to satisfy the new ideology in power, the Vichy government (1940-1944) implements a policy directing the economy which confuses the jurist. Facing the silence of the legislator and in order to determine the applicable law and the competent jurisdiction, the authors, both publicists and privatists, divide themselves as well as the judges, whether administrative or judicial, on the legal categories in which the realities of state-controlled economy should be classified. The conditions are favorable for a paradigmatic revolution in administrative law because no concept in this field seems able to withstand the shock of the events. However, the issues of qualifying the new economic realities are addressed in continuity. The hypothesis of a third (economic or professional) law appearing, with authority over management bodies and activities, is rejected. To support a sound administration of justice and to foster the necessary balance between public and private interests, the Conseil d'Etat, followed by the Cour de Cassation, confirms the value of traditional concepts and accepts only certain developments in definying them. Vichy's State-directed economy thus reveals how strongly the traditional concepts of administrative law may resist and how its content, which is never definitively fixed, appears able to adjust to changes in social life. But above all, the phenomenon highlights the importance of past authority : jurists, conservative by nature, refuse to break with tradition. They prefer to maintain imperfect classifications, but of which they know the effects, rather than replacing them with new ones, which seem better, but whose real effectiveness they can doubt. ; Pour faire face aux circonstances de la Seconde guerre mondiale et satisfaire la nouvelle idéologie au pouvoir, le régime de Vichy (1940-1944) met en place une politique de direction de l'économie qui désempare le juriste. Dans le silence du législateur et afin de déterminer le droit applicable ...