Suchergebnisse

The Comoros was colonized by France in 1841 up to 1975. From this period up to now, there exist different type of legal systems: French law, Muslim law and customary local law. We can safely say that these three legal systems have given birth to a legal pluralism deriving from the presence of France for one century, from the practice of Islam in the Archipelago and from the endogenous law of the Comorian society. The Comorians use one of these legal systems according to their personal interests. Between Comorians, some disputes concerning personal status or that of young ladies are resolved not based on the intent of legislator but often by a recourse to the local customary law or to the Muslim law. Yet as said by Nobert Rouland "the French conception of people is indivisible, only the State represents the people and makes the law, thus the law itself can only be indivisible and coherent". For settling their disputes, the Comorians do not resort immediately to the State institutions. They prefer to settle their dispute by recourse to traditional authorities specially for the questions of personal status or those of sexually abused minor children. That's why our central proposition come into being: the State of Comoros is not the only institution to regulate the social life; the State is just one between many actors and thus suffer fierce competition from other actors which may be victorious over the State, specially over the questions concerning personal status and protection of sexually abused minors. Given the constant recurrence of this situation which does not easily conform with the prerogatives of State, we propose to study the dispute resolution, specially the social and cultural questions involved. ; Les Comores ont été colonisées par la France de 1841 à 1975. De cette période jusqu'à nos jours, il existe plusieurs types de droit : le droit français, le droit musulman et le droit quotidien (droit traditionnel). Nous pouvons dire que ces trois ordonnancements juridiques ont donné naissance à un pluralisme ...

The Comoros was colonized by France in 1841 up to 1975. From this period up to now, there exist different type of legal systems: French law, Muslim law and customary local law. We can safely say that these three legal systems have given birth to a legal pluralism deriving from the presence of France for one century, from the practice of Islam in the Archipelago and from the endogenous law of the Comorian society. The Comorians use one of these legal systems according to their personal interests. Between Comorians, some disputes concerning personal status or that of young ladies are resolved not based on the intent of legislator but often by a recourse to the local customary law or to the Muslim law. Yet as said by Nobert Rouland "the French conception of people is indivisible, only the State represents the people and makes the law, thus the law itself can only be indivisible and coherent". For settling their disputes, the Comorians do not resort immediately to the State institutions. They prefer to settle their dispute by recourse to traditional authorities specially for the questions of personal status or those of sexually abused minor children. That's why our central proposition come into being: the State of Comoros is not the only institution to regulate the social life; the State is just one between many actors and thus suffer fierce competition from other actors which may be victorious over the State, specially over the questions concerning personal status and protection of sexually abused minors. Given the constant recurrence of this situation which does not easily conform with the prerogatives of State, we propose to study the dispute resolution, specially the social and cultural questions involved. ; Les Comores ont été colonisées par la France de 1841 à 1975. De cette période jusqu'à nos jours, il existe plusieurs types de droit : le droit français, le droit musulman et le droit quotidien (droit traditionnel). Nous pouvons dire que ces trois ordonnancements juridiques ont donné naissance à un pluralisme ...

The Comoros was colonized by France in 1841 up to 1975. From this period up to now, there exist different type of legal systems: French law, Muslim law and customary local law. We can safely say that these three legal systems have given birth to a legal pluralism deriving from the presence of France for one century, from the practice of Islam in the Archipelago and from the endogenous law of the Comorian society. The Comorians use one of these legal systems according to their personal interests. Between Comorians, some disputes concerning personal status or that of young ladies are resolved not based on the intent of legislator but often by a recourse to the local customary law or to the Muslim law. Yet as said by Nobert Rouland "the French conception of people is indivisible, only the State represents the people and makes the law, thus the law itself can only be indivisible and coherent". For settling their disputes, the Comorians do not resort immediately to the State institutions. They prefer to settle their dispute by recourse to traditional authorities specially for the questions of personal status or those of sexually abused minor children. That's why our central proposition come into being: the State of Comoros is not the only institution to regulate the social life; the State is just one between many actors and thus suffer fierce competition from other actors which may be victorious over the State, specially over the questions concerning personal status and protection of sexually abused minors. Given the constant recurrence of this situation which does not easily conform with the prerogatives of State, we propose to study the dispute resolution, specially the social and cultural questions involved. ; Les Comores ont été colonisées par la France de 1841 à 1975. De cette période jusqu'à nos jours, il existe plusieurs types de droit : le droit français, le droit musulman et le droit quotidien (droit traditionnel). Nous pouvons dire que ces trois ordonnancements juridiques ont donné naissance à un pluralisme ...

Résumé Le fédéralisme a été utilisé comme instrument pour mettre fin au violent conflit de Bosnie-Herzégovine et pour assurer la coopération politique après la guerre. Cependant, l'idéologie du fédéralisme comme les institutions de l'État fédéral furent bâties par les acteurs internationaux et non par les acteurs internes à la Bosnie. En conséquence, on constate aujourd'hui que l'idée même d'État fédéral est remise en cause par toutes les parties de la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Bien qu'il y ait eu un nombre important de réformes en Bosnie depuis 1995, celles-ci se sont en général concentrées sur le renforcement du niveau central aux dépens des entités membres. Les réformes n'ont pas pu créer un environnement dans lequel l'État bosniaque en tant que tel ne serait plus remis en cause. Ainsi, l'Union européenne a dû accepter de considérer que la conditionnalité qu'elle imposait ne fonctionne pas en Bosnie, car les élites locales continuent à considérer la politique comme un jeu à somme nulle. Ce dont la Bosnie a besoin est une réforme constitutionnelle, dans laquelle les groupes les plus importants s'accordent sur la nature de l'État bosniaque, sur leurs relations à cet État et sur leurs relations réciproques. Ces réformes doivent être réalisées au travers de compromis locaux et de coopération, et ne peuvent être imposées de l'extérieur. Enfin, cet article démontre en quoi le fédéralisme a contribué à bâtir la paix et à construire un État fédéral en Bosnie, mais aussi en quoi il n'a pas réussi à créer un consensus au sujet de l'État et à assurer que toutes les parties acceptent l'État et sa nature fédérale.

The historic debate about the relationship between economic interdependence and conflict has intensified in recent years with two schools of thought dominating the discussion. One school argues that increased levels of economic interdependence encourage good political relationships and wards off possible conflict. The opposing school of thought suggests that excessive interdependence may actually create resentment, intensify rivalry and, ultimately, political discontent leading to conflict. This paper examines the main contributions to the debate and then explores the role of economic interdependence in two different conflict scenarios -- Africa and the Balkans. Only recently has the relationship between economic interdependence and conflict scenarios received rigorous empirical analysis and the results so far have failed to reach any kind of consensus. We are left to conclude, therefore, that while economic interdependence may not be a "silver bullet" guaranteed to pacify all interstate conflicts, it may help constrain the conflict escalation process to good effect. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) Bruno Coppieters, Federalism and Conflict in the Caucasus: Perspectives for the South Caucasus (London: Royal Instit International Affairs, 2001); (2) Bruno Coppieters, David Darchiashvili, & Natella Akaba (Eds), Federal Practice: Exploring Alternatives for Georgia and Abkhazia (Brussels, Belgium: Free U Brussel Press, 2000); (3) Svante E. Cornell, Small Nations and Great Powers: A Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict in the Caucasus (Richmond: Curzon, 2001); & (4) Tim Potier, Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: A Legal Appraisal (The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2001). These works examine the processes at work in former Soviet countries attempting to resolve conflicts in the Caucasus, looking specifically at efforts toward peace & the potential of federalism as an instrument of conflict resolution. The works by Coppieters center on the specific advantages that federalism brings to the peace process. Cornell's book takes a geopolitical approach to the recent evolution of conflict in the Caucasus, focusing specifically on the conflicts' internal dynamics. Potier's work details the constitutional debates & negotiations surrounding the conflicts, & the place of self-determination within them. D. Weibel

International audience ; This article presents six cases of conciliation (ṣulḥ) that took place in Baghdad between 460/1068 and 537/1142, in the context of the political domination of the Seljuq sultans over the Abbasid caliphate. These are the only cases for which detailed documentation is available among Arabic sources. While conciliation can be understood as a method for settling precedence disputes between individuals, the study shows that it also enabled the caliph to intervene in controversial and sensitive ideological issues that threatened Baghdadi public order. In some cases, conciliation was the final phase of a maẓālim procedure. Should conciliation fail, the caliph would take the final decision. Through a conclusive synthesis we examined some similarities in these cases in terms of procedure, aims, results, and political and social issues. ; L'article examine six cas de conciliation (ṣulḥ) qui se déroulèrent à Bagdad entre 460/1068 et 537/1142, en les replaçant dans le contexte de la domination politique des sultans seldjoukides sur le califat abbasside. L'étude de ces cas, les seuls détaillés par les sources arabes, montre que la conciliation, perçue a priori comme un mode de règlement de conflits de préséance entre individus, représentait aussi un instrument permettant au calife d'intervenir dans de délicates questions idéologiques, susceptibles de menacer l'ordre public bagdadien. Dans plusieurs cas, la conciliation était la phase finale d'une procédure relevant de la justice des maẓālim ; en cas d'échec, le litige était tranché par le calife. Une synthèse conclusive examine certains points communs à ces différents cas, en matière de procédure, d'objectifs, de résultats et d'enjeux politiques et sociaux.

International audience ; This article presents six cases of conciliation (ṣulḥ) that took place in Baghdad between 460/1068 and 537/1142, in the context of the political domination of the Seljuq sultans over the Abbasid caliphate. These are the only cases for which detailed documentation is available among Arabic sources. While conciliation can be understood as a method for settling precedence disputes between individuals, the study shows that it also enabled the caliph to intervene in controversial and sensitive ideological issues that threatened Baghdadi public order. In some cases, conciliation was the final phase of a maẓālim procedure. Should conciliation fail, the caliph would take the final decision. Through a conclusive synthesis we examined some similarities in these cases in terms of procedure, aims, results, and political and social issues. ; L'article examine six cas de conciliation (ṣulḥ) qui se déroulèrent à Bagdad entre 460/1068 et 537/1142, en les replaçant dans le contexte de la domination politique des sultans seldjoukides sur le califat abbasside. L'étude de ces cas, les seuls détaillés par les sources arabes, montre que la conciliation, perçue a priori comme un mode de règlement de conflits de préséance entre individus, représentait aussi un instrument permettant au calife d'intervenir dans de délicates questions idéologiques, susceptibles de menacer l'ordre public bagdadien. Dans plusieurs cas, la conciliation était la phase finale d'une procédure relevant de la justice des maẓālim ; en cas d'échec, le litige était tranché par le calife. Une synthèse conclusive examine certains points communs à ces différents cas, en matière de procédure, d'objectifs, de résultats et d'enjeux politiques et sociaux.