Le bailli d’Amiens, sous Philippe VI (1328-1350), intervenait fréquemment dans les principautés du Nord de la France que sont les comtés d’Artois, de Ponthieu et de Flandre. L’étendue de son ressort, ainsi que son emplacement stratégique, en firent une sentinelle du gouvernement central et un ardent défenseur des droits du roi. Agissant parfois avec trop de zèle, entrant ce faisant en conflit avec les juridictions urbaines, d’Église et seigneuriales, cet officier royal constituait un lien important entre les justiciables de sa circonscription et l’autorité royale des actes et lettres de laquelle il devait veiller à la transmission et l’exécution. De son côté, la cour du roi sembla approuver le travail du bailli, n’intervenant que rarement en réaction aux excès commis par ce dernier et confirmant l’essentiel des sentences du bailli jugées en appel. / The bailiff of Amiens, under Philip VI (1328-1350), frequently intervened in the principalities of northern France that are the counties of Artois, Ponthieu and Flanders. The extent of its jurisdiction, and its strategic location made him a sentinel of the central government and a staunch advocate of the king’s rights. Sometimes acting too zealously, thereby entering into conflict with urban jurisdictions, and stately church, this royal officer was an important link between citizens of his district and the royal authority of the acts and letters which he had to ensure transmission and execution. For its part, the king's court seemed to endorse the work of the bailiff, intervening only rarely in response to the excesses committed by the latter and confirming the main awards of the Bailiff considered on appeal. / Carte du bailliage en fichier complémentaire.

每當論及清朝中國自鴉片戰爭以來的對外關係，一般都認為是清朝中國被迫簽訂大量不停等條約之「屈辱外交」的開始，特別是在對外司法審判的議題上，大多認為清朝給與外國所謂「領事裁判權」的權利，造成中國司法管轄權的損害。但事實上，這種所謂「領事裁判權」的現象，在中國本身涉及外人在華犯罪的處置上，是普遍被採行的作法，不僅是過去中國歷代均有的慣例，就連清朝本身與俄羅斯簽訂的〈尼布楚條約〉，也被學界公認為是清朝中國第一個對等互惠的對外條約。姑且不論日後領事裁判權對中國的傷害為何，僅以清朝中國在簽約當下的時空背景來看，中國給予西方國家「領事裁判權」一事究竟該如何理解，值得後人重新檢視。 本文研究主旨在於用「同時代史觀」的視角，以清朝簽約當下的時空背景，來重新檢視清朝中國涉外司法審判。本文首先整理了中國自唐朝至明朝以來對涉外司法審判的沿革，並且爬梳清朝中國涉外司法審判的模式，從中發現清朝中國給予西方國家「領事裁判權」的做法，是符合清朝中國對外關係的邏輯思維，並證明清朝中國隊在華外人的司法態度，與中國自唐代以來的對在華外人的司法態度是一致的。本文認為，領事裁判權成為「屈辱外交」的意涵，是因為後人以歐洲近代國際法話語權下的「民族國家」視角來檢視過去清朝中國的對外關係，並且在不理解清朝中國固有對外秩序的邏輯下所做出的評斷。 / When it comes to China’s foreign relations in late Qing dynasty, the government has been criticized for its “humiliated diplomacy”, especially on the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction since the Treaty of Nanking between China and Britain. The authorization of consular jurisdiction to foreign countries is often considered as sabotage for the jurisdiction of China. However, the criticism is questionable because offering extraterritorial jurisdiction is ubiquitous among every dynasty in China. Even in Qing dynasty, the juridical attitude of China in the Treaty of Nerchinsk signed in 1689 with Russia is often recognized by academia as reciprocity to foreign country. Regardless of the disadvantages in the future, this act of giving extraterritorial jurisdiction by Qing dynasty at that time is worth to be scrutinized again. With this in mind, the purpose of this thesis is to discover the pattern of judgments involving foreigners from Tang to Qing dynasty in China. We also discuss about the response of Qing government when it faced the request of extraterritorial jurisdiction from foreign countries. In addition, a reinterpretation of the attitude toward the judgments involving foreigners of Qing dynasty is based on the perspective of China indigenous order to foreign relations. The research analyzes the settlement of judgments involving foreigners in different dynasties of China, confirming the consistency to China indigenous order to foreign relations and evolution during the Qing period. At last, this thesis overthrew the humiliation impression in contemporary understanding of the diplomacy in Qing dynasty, arguing such attitude is interpreted later by the concept of “nation state” , which is developed from early modern European countries to judge the international relations of Qing dynasty without understanding the Chinese foreign relations comprehensively.

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Universiẗat, Diss., 2004.

Europa-Univ., Habil.-Schr.--Zugl.: Frankfurt (Oder), 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [341] - 363.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 2004.

Thesis--Catholic University of America. / Vita. Bibliography: p. 129-133.

La saisine de la Cour pénale internationale désigne l'ensemble des mécanismes d'ouverture de l'instance pénale internationale. Elle naît formellement de l'acte introductif d'instance qui peut être le fait des États parties au Statut, du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU et du Procureur. Les procédures diligentées à la suite des saisines ont pour finalité de situer la responsabilité pénale individuelle et de réprimer les violations massives des droits de l'homme et du droit international humanitaire. L'évaluation de la pratique sélective des saisines permet de déceler la lenteur des procédures en cours. Si cette lenteur a des justifications endogènes, elle est explicable, au plan exogène, par les rapports complexes que la juridiction entretient avec les États au regard du principe de complémentarité. Il en est de même de l'emprise du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU sur la compétence de la Cour et le traitement des saisines. Par ailleurs, en raison de l'exécution discutable de l'obligation de coopération par les États, la CPI assure avec difficulté l'objectif de la lutte contre l'impunité des crimes graves. En tout état de cause, l'essor de la saisine est tributaire d'une application optimale des dispositions statutaires et d'un rééquilibrage des rapports entre les États, le Conseil de sécurité et la Cour / The referral to the International Criminal Court refers to all the opening mechanisms of the international criminal trial. It officially comes from the writ of summons which can be the fact of States parties in the Status, of the UN Security Council and the Prosecutor. The procedures undertaken following the Court referrals have for purpose to locate the individual criminal responsibility and to repress the massive violations of the human rights and the international humanitarian law. The assessment of the selective referrals allows to reveal the slowness of the current procedures. If this slowness has endogenous reasons, it is explained, in the exogenous plan, by the complex relationships that the jurisdiction maintains with States towards the principle of Complementarity. It is the same about the influence of the UN Security Council on the jurisdiction of the Court and the referrals processing. Moreover, because of the questionable performance of the obligation of cooperation by States, the ICC insures with difficulty the objective of the fight against the impunity for serious crimes. In any case, the development of the Court referral is dependent on an optimal application of the statutory disposals and a rebalance of relationships between States, Security Council and Court

[pt] Na filosofia política contemporânea, a problemática do reconhecimento pode ser enfocada sob duas perspectivas: como uma questão de autorrealização ou como uma questão de justiça. Fraser e Habermas assumem uma perspectiva deontológica e procedimental por meio da qual as reivindicações identitárias são tematizadas no espaço público, concebendo o reconhecimento como uma questão de justiça. Taylor e Honneth seguindo o modelo hegeliano, concebem o reconhecimento como uma questão de autorrealização, terminando por enfatizar a dimensão psicológica do reconhecimento. Pretendemos apresentar um diálogo entre os referidos autores, pois suas propostas teóricas são fundamentais para compreensão dos desafios propostos pelas sociedades multiculturais. O tema do reconhecimento, todavia, será analisado, não apenas em uma dimensão filosófica, mas também contemplando um aspecto fundamental: a proteção jurisdicional aos direitos fundamentais de minorias. Inicialmente, pretendemos estabelecer os conceitos essenciais acerca dos fundamentos filosóficos das teorias do reconhecimento; logo após, tais premissas teóricas serão articuladas com a análise de formas de ativismo judicial voltadas para a proteção de minorias estigmatizadas que se delinearam na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal, do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e da Suprema Corte Americana. Em suma, estabelecidos os contornos teóricos acerca dos fundamentos filosóficos das teorias do reconhecimento, propugnamos compreender a dimensão simbólica das lutas por reconhecimento na arena jurídicoconstitucional, sob uma perspectiva filosófica, especialmente no que se refere ao papel dos tribunais superiores brasileiros (Supremo Tribunal Federal e Superior Tribunal de Justiça) e Suprema Corte americana na proteção de grupos estigmatizados cujas expectativas normativas, muitas vezes, não são satisfeitas pelas instâncias deliberativas. / [en] In contemporary political philosophy, the issue of recognition can be approached from two perspectives: either as a matter of self-realization or as a matter of justice. Fraser and Habermas take an ethical and procedural perspective through which the claims of identity are themed in the public space, conceiving recognition as a matter of justice. Taylor and Honneth, following the Hegelian model, see recognition as a matter of self-realization and eventually emphasize the psychological dimension of recognition. We intend to present a dialogue between these authors, because their theoretical propositions are fundamental to understanding the challenges posed by multicultural societies. The issue of recognition, however, will be examined not just in its philosophical dimension, but also in view of a fundamental aspect: the judicial protection of the fundamental rights of minorities. Initially, we intend to establish the essential concepts regarding the philosophical foundations of theories of recognition; following that, such theoretical premises will be coordinated with the analysis of forms of judicial activism aimed at protecting stigmatized minorities as outlined in the jurisprudences of the Higher Court of Justice and Federal Supreme Court, and of the U.S. Supreme Court. In short, once the theoretical outlines of the philosophical theories of recognition have been set, we aim at understanding the symbolic dimension of the struggle for recognition in the legal-constitutional arena from a philosophical perspective, particularly regarding the role of the higher Brazilian courts (the Higher Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court) and of the U.S. Supreme Court in the protection of stigmatized groups whose normative expectations are often not met by the deliberative bodies.

The principal questions addressed in this portfolio of eleven publications concern the reforms to French justice at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. The portfolio is accompanied by a supporting statement explaining the genesis and chronology of the portfolio, its originality and the nature of the submission's distinct contribution to knowledge. The thesis questions whether the reforms protect the rights of the defence adequately. It considers how the French state views its responsibility to key figures in criminal justice, be they suspected and convicted criminals, the victims of offences or the professionals who are prosecuting the offences. It reflects upon the role of the examining magistrate, the delicate relationship between justice, politics and the media, breaches of confidentiality and the catastrophic conditions in which suspects and prisoners are detained in French prisons. It then extends its scope to a case study of the prosecution of violent crimes before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and discovers significant flaws in procedures even at international levels. In concluding, it asks whether, given the challenges facing the French criminal justice system, French courts are adequately equipped to assure justice when suspects charged with the most serious international crimes appear before them under the principle of universal jurisdiction. The research, carried out over a number of years, relies predominantly on an analysis of French-language sources and represents a unique contribution to the understanding and knowledge of French justice for an English-speaking public at the turn of the twenty-first century.

Liability for defective products meets a modern legal framework applicable to cases which have an international nature in the European Union. However, the new regulatory developments have not solved the existing coordination problems and offer an unjustified complexity, so there is a certain risk that the objectives pursued by the European legislator in this strategic sector for the EU internal market are not going to be fulfilled. The objective of this study is to analyze the solutions contained in Regulation (EC) 442001, relating to jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and Regulation (EC) 8642007, concerning the law applicable to non-contractual obligations («Rome II»), aswell as their interrelationship with other conventional instruments. / La responsabilidad por productos defectuosos cuenta en la Unión Europea con un moderno marco legal aplicable a los casos que cuenten con una naturaleza internacional. Sin embargo, los nuevos desarrollos normativos no han suprimido los problemas de coordinación existentes y ofrecen una injustificada complejidad, por lo que existe un cierto riesgo de que se malogren los objetivos perseguidos por el legislador europeo en este estratégico sector para el mercado interior de la Unión Europea. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar las respuestas contenidas en el Reglamento (CE) 44/2001, relativo a la competencia judicial, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de resoluciones judiciales en materia civil y mercantil y el Reglamento (CE) 864/2007, relativo a la ley aplicable a las obligaciones extracontractuales («Roma II») asícomo su interrelación con otros instrumentos convencionales.