O objeto do trabalho é a análise da utilização da regra da proporcionalidade pelos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Após a seleção, leitura e análise de 81 acórdãos obtidos por meio da ferramenta pesquisa livre, disponível na página eletrônica do tribunal, julgados entre os anos de 2004 e 2006 e que mencionavam a proporcionalidade, foi definida a amostra de votos relevantes para a pesquisa. Decidiu-se analisar mais profundamente os 22 votos do ministro Gilmar Mendes no que diz respeito à coerência (forte, média ou fraca) na utilização da proporcionalidade em cada um de seus votos. Além disso, outras variáveis foram pesquisadas nos votos do ministro (por exemplo, interesse predominante, área do direito na qual o debate jurídico situa-se, decisão pela constitucionalidade ou inconstitucionalidade, origem da norma questionada). A conclusão foi no sentido de que apenas quatro votos apresentaram coerência forte no uso da proporcionalidade. Percebeu-se também que, quando a proporcionalidade foi utilizada, o ministro Gilmar Mendes decidiu mais freqüentemente pela inconstitucionalidade de legislação federal e pela preponderância de um direito individual. / The purpose of this paper is to analyze some instances of the use of the proportionalitys rule by members of the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal STF). By using the tool pesquisa livre, available in the courts web site, 81 decisions given between the years 2004 and 2006 which mentioned proportionality were located, selected, read and analyzed. The sample of relevant decisions was then defined. The choice was to analyze the 22 decisions by Justice Gilmar Mendes more profoundly, in regard to their coherence in the use of the proportionality (classified as strong, medium or weak). In addition, other elements present in the decisions by Justice Mendes (such as the identification of the prevailing interest, the area of the Legislation in which the judicial debate occurs, the decision regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality, the source of the questioned legal norm) were also analyzed. The conclusion was that only four of the decisions by Justice Mendes could be considered to show evidence of a strong degree of coherence in the use of the proportionality. It was also noticed that, in the decisions in which the proportionality was applied, Justice Mendes tended to declare the unconstitutionality of the federal laws and to grant the prevalence of individual rights.

Cette recherche se propose d’étudier l’effet d’un dispositif d’aide aux élèves en difficulté à l’école élémentaire dans le cadre des APC (activités pédagogiques complémentaires).L’hypothèse émise est qu’il est possible de passer d’un dispositif de soutien à un véritable dispositif d’aide aux élèves en difficulté par le truchement de la mise en mots par l’élève de sa propre activité, cette mise en mots permettant à l’élève de conscientiser les procédures efficaces afin de les réinvestir dans des activités de classe ordinaires.Le dispositif que nous proposons consiste à mettre en oeuvre des débats sociocognitifs entre les élèves, ces débats étant étayés par l’enseignant qui adopte une posture de médiateur. Ces débats concernent des élèves de cycle 3 et sont focalisés sur la résolution de problèmes mathématiques entrant dans le champ de la proportionnalité.Il s’agit d’une recherche-action dont la méthodologie s’appuie sur une démarche expérimentale. Cette démarche est complétée par une observation différée des séances mises en oeuvre par l’intermédiaire de vidéos et par des entretiens avec les enseignants des classes concernées.À l’issue de ces débats, outre les progrès observés chez les élèves, les résultats démontrent un renforcement de leur dynamique motivationnelle et un engagement plus important dans les activités de classe ordinaires. / This research will examine the effects of an aid scheme for pupils with learning difficulties in elementary school through a system called APC (complementary pedagogical activities).The hypothesis is that it is possible to switch from a support scheme to a real aid scheme to help pupils with learning difficulties, by enabling them to put into words the activities they carry on, with a view to allowing them to realize and reuse effective procedures in regular classroom activities.The scheme that we propose is to organize sociocognitive debates between pupils. The teacher scaffolds the debates by assuming the role of a mediator. These debates are aimed at pupils from grade 3 to grade 5 and focus on solving mathematical problems related to the notion of proportionality.The methodology of this action-research leans on an experimental approach. This approach will be completed with differed observations of the class sessions thanks to videos and with interviews with the teachers of the concerned classes.The debates having been held and besides the progress observed as far as the pupils are concerned, the results of the study demonstrate a strengthening of the pupils’ motivational dynamics and a more important commitment to ordinary classroom activities.

<p>This thesis consists of four papers about the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model in survival analysis. </p><p>The <b>first paper </b>compares the hazard ratio estimated from the Cox model to an exact calculation of the geometric average of the hazard ratio when the underlying assumption of proportional hazards is false, i.e. when the hazards are not proportional. The estimates are evaluated in a simulation study.</p><p>The <b>second paper</b> describes and compares six of the most common numerical procedures to check the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model. The tests are evaluated in a simulation study.</p><p>Six graphical procedures to check the same assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model are described and compared in the <b>third paper</b>. A criterion for rejection is derived for each procedure, to make it possible to compare the results of the different methods. The procedures are evaluated in a simulation study.</p><p>In the <b>fourth paper </b>the effects of covariate measurement error on testing the assumption of proportional hazards is investigated. Three of the most common numerical procedures to check the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model are evaluated in a simulation study. </p>

This thesis consists of four papers about the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model in survival analysis. The <b>first paper </b>compares the hazard ratio estimated from the Cox model to an exact calculation of the geometric average of the hazard ratio when the underlying assumption of proportional hazards is false, i.e. when the hazards are not proportional. The estimates are evaluated in a simulation study. The <b>second paper</b> describes and compares six of the most common numerical procedures to check the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model. The tests are evaluated in a simulation study. Six graphical procedures to check the same assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model are described and compared in the <b>third paper</b>. A criterion for rejection is derived for each procedure, to make it possible to compare the results of the different methods. The procedures are evaluated in a simulation study. In the <b>fourth paper </b>the effects of covariate measurement error on testing the assumption of proportional hazards is investigated. Three of the most common numerical procedures to check the assumption of proportional hazards for the Cox model are evaluated in a simulation study.

The dissertation explores the principle of proportionality as an instrument deriving from the notion of "democratic society" and applied by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in order to establish whether national institutions succeeded in striking a fair balance between the conflicting Convention rights or between competing individual and public interests. In the first chapter, after presenting the origins of the principle, the development of a three-tiered proportionality test and its dissemination, the main parameters relevant for the analysis of this principle are identified and the main issues of academic discussion concerning the application of proportionality by the ECtHR are revealed. The second chapter explores the evolution of the application of the proportionality principle in the case law of ECtHR and reveals the main features of proportionality test as applied in the early practice of Convention institutions. The third chapter deals with the interaction of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, in particular examining the impact of margin of appreciation doctrine upon the proportionality assessment conducted by the ECtHR and analysing the contents and interplay of the factors determining the width of the margin of appreciation. The forth chapter explores both commonalities and peculiarities of the application of proportionality principle in the context of different Convention rights and exposes the main criteria relevant to the balancing... [to full text] / Disertacijoje nagrinėjama proporcingumo principo, kaip iš demokratinės visuomenės idėjos kylančio instrumento, Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo (EŽTT) pasitelkiamo siekiant nustatyti, ar nacionalinės institucijos išlaikė teisingą pusiausvyrą tarp konkuruojančių Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijos (Konvencijos) ginamų teisių ar tarp Konvencijos teisių ir viešų interesų, sampratos ir taikymo praktikos problematika. Pirmoje disertacijos dalyje, aptarus proporcingumo principo kilmę, trinario proporcingumo tyrimo modelio susiformavimą ir sklaidą, apsibrėžiami svarbiausi proporcingumo tyrimui reikšmingi parametrai ir atskleidžiama EŽTT taikomo proporcingumo principo sampratos problematika mokslinėje literatūroje. Antroje dalyje nagrinėjama proporcingumo principo taikymo EŽTT praktikoje raida ir plėtra, identifikuojami pagrindiniai ankstyvojoje Komisijos ir Teismo praktikoje taikyto proporcingumo testo bruožai. Trečioje dalyje tiriama proporcingumo principo sąveika su subsidiarumo principu, atskleidžiamas vertinimo laisvės doktrinos poveikis EŽTT atliekamam proporcingumo vertinimui, tiriami vertinimo laisvės apimtį lemiantys kriterijai ir jų sąveika. Ketvirtoje dalyje analizuojama proporcingumo principo taikymo praktika skirtingų Konvencijos ginamų teisių kontekste, atskleidžiant tiek bendruosius principo taikymo bruožus, tiek ir Teismo taikomos priežiūros intensyvumo nulemtus proporcingumo testo ypatumus. Paskutinėje dalyje EŽTT taikomas balansavimu grindžiamas... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]

Το πρόβλημα της δίκαιης κατανομής είναι ένα πολύ σημαντικό πρόβλημα που έχει ανακύψει στον τομέα της επιστήμης των υπολογιστών και όχι μόνο. Κάποιες από τις μορφές που έχει εμφανιστεί είναι π.χ. στην κατανομή πόρων σε δίκτυα υπολογιστών, στο διακανονισμό συνόρων σε διεθνείς διαφωνίες, στο οικογενειακό δίκαιο και ως πρόβλημα της μείωσης των εκπομπών αερίων του θερμοκηπίου. Θεωρούμε προβλήματα αναθέσεων στα οποία ένα σύνολο αγαθών είτε αγγαρειών πρέπει να ανατεθεί σε κάποιους παίκτες. Κάθε παίκτης έχει μία συνάρτηση κέρδους (κόστους) που δείχνει πόσο εκτιμά κάθε αγαθό (αγγαρεία, αντίστοιχα) και το κέρδος (κόστος) του παίκτη για κάθε πιθανό σύνολο αντικειμένων προκύπτει αθροιστικά. Στόχος του προβλήματος είναι, φυσικά, η αποδοτικότητα και η δικαιοσύνη της ανάθεσης, περιορισμοί όμως, όπως η εγωιστική συμπεριφορά των παικτών οδηγούν σε πολύ ενδιαφέρουσες παραλλαγές του προβλήματος. Το πρώτο αποτέλεσμα της εργασίας προκύπτει από τη μελέτη του προβλήματος ανάθεσης ενός συνόλου αδιαίρετων αγαθών σε παίκτες όταν μας ενδιαφέρει να μην υπάρχει μεγάλη ζήλεια μεταξύ των παικτών. Αδιαίρετα λέγονται τα αντικείμενα που δεν μπορούν να κοπούν σε κομμάτια και πρέπει να ανατεθούν ακέραια σε κάποιο παίκτη, ενώ ζήλεια, διαισθητικά, είναι η προτίμηση που έχει κάποιος παίκτης για το σύνολο αγαθών που ανατέθηκαν σε κάποιον άλλον σε σχέση με τα αγαθά που ανατέθηκαν στον ίδιο. Όπως έχουμε αναφέρει, στην πράξη οι παίκτες έχουν εγωιστική συμπεριφορά, υπό την έννοια ότι προσπαθούν να μεγιστοποιήσουν το κέρδος τους. Για αυτό το λόγο, μπορεί να αναφέρουν εσφαλμένες συναρτήσεις κέρδους για να πετύχουν μία καλύτερη ανάθεση. Ως ειλικρινής χαρακτηρίζεται ένας μηχανισμός ανάθεσης ο οποίος εγγυάται ότι η ανάθεση των αντικειμένων βασίζεται στις σωστές συναρτήσεις κέρδους των παικτών. Υπό μία έννοια, ένας ειλικρινής μηχανισμός ανάθεσης αναγκάζει τους παίκτες να πουν την αλήθεια για τις συναρτήσεις κέρδους τους, ή αλλιώς, εγγυάται πως το κέρδος ενός παίκτη από την ανάθεση που βασίζεται σε εσφαλμένη συνάρτηση κέρδους δεν είναι μεγαλύτερο από το κέρδος που θα είχε αν η ανάθεση είχε βασιστεί στην πραγματική συνάρτηση κέρδους του, δεδομένου του ότι οι υπόλοιποι παίκτες λένε την αλήθεια. Παρουσιάζουμε μία απλή απόδειξη ότι ειλικρινείς ντετερμινιστικοί μηχανισμοί ανάθεσης δεν ελαχιστοποιούν τη ζήλεια, χαρακτηρίζοντας τέτοιους μηχανισμούς για δύο παίκτες και δύο αντικείμενα. Συγκεκριμένα, στην απόδειξη μας φαίνεται ότι για κάθε τέτοιο ειλικρινή μηχανισμό υπάρχουν στιγμιότυπα για τα οποία η ζήλεια σχεδόν μεγιστοποιείται. Επίσης, παρουσιάζουμε μία ανάλυση για ομοιόμορφα τυχαίες αναθέσεις οι οποίες είναι ειλικρινείς μηχανισμοί κατά μέσο όρο. Τα αποτελέσματα αυτά απλοποιούν και βελτιώνουν προηγούμενα αποτελέσματα των Lipton, Markakis, Mossel και Saberi. Συγκεκριμένα, δείχνουμε ότι η ζήλεια φράσσεται εκ των άνω από την ποσότητα O(a√(m ln n)) με μεγάλη πιθανότητα, όπου a είναι το μέγιστο κέρδος για κάθε αντικείμενο για κάθε παίκτη, n είναι ο αριθμός των παικτών και m ο αριθμός των αντικειμένων. Για την περίπτωση που το κέρδος κάθε παίκτη στο σύνολο των αντικειμένων είναι 1, το φράγμα γίνεται O(√(a ln n)). Στη συνέχεια μελετούμε την επίπτωση της δικαιοσύνης στην αποδοτικότητα των αναθέσεων. Στα ακόλουθα θα θεωρούμε ότι όντως είναι γνωστές οι πραγματικές συναρτήσεις κέρδους των παικτών. Επίσης, θεωρούμε και αναθέσεις αγγαρειών εκτός από αγαθών, καθώς επίσης και αναθέσεις διαιρετών εκτός από αδιαίρετων αντικειμένων. Ασχολούμαστε με τρείς διαφορετικές έννοιες δικαιοσύνης ανάμεσα στους παίκτες, συγκεκριμένα την αναλογικότητα, τη μη ύπαρξη ζήλειας και την ισοτιμία για αναθέσεις διαιρετών και αδιαίρετων αγαθών και αγγαρειών. Γενικά, μία ανάθεση αντικειμένων σε n παίκτες είναι αναλογική εάν σε κάθε παίκτη δίνεται η εντύπωση ότι παίρνει ένα σύνολο αντικειμένων “καλύτερο” από ποσοστό 1/n του συνόλου των αντικειμένων προς ανάθεση. Μία ανάθεση είναι χωρίς-ζήλεια εάν κάε παίκτης προτιμά όσα του έχουν ανατεθεί σε σύγκριση με το τι έχει πάρει οποιοσδήποτε άλλος παίκτης, ενώ μία ανάθεση είναι ισότιμη όταν όλοι οι παίκτες είναι εξ'ίσου ικανοποιημένοι με αυτά που τους έχουν ανατεθεί. Τέλος, μία ανάθεση είναι βέλτιστη εάν μεγιστοποιεί το κέρδος (ελαχιστοποιεί το κόστος, αντίστοιχα) του συνόλου των παικτών, δηλ. κάθε αντικείμενο ανατίθεται σε εκείνον τον παίκτη που το εκτιμά περισσότερο (του κοστίζει λιγότερο, αντίστοιχα). Παρουσιάζουμε μία σειρά αποτελεσμάτων για το κόστος της δικαιοσύνης όσον αφορά σε κάθε μία από τις τρείς έννοιες δικαιοσύνης που αναφέρθηκαν παραπάνω, πάνω σε διαιρετά και αδιαίρετα αντικείμενα αγαθών και αγγαρειών και ποσοτικοποιούμε την απώλεια αποδοτικότητας σε δίκαιες αναθέσεις σε σύγκριση με τις βέλτιστες. Παρουσιάζουμε άνω και κάτω φράγματα για κάθε περίπτωση, τα περισσότερα από τα οποία είτε συμπίπτουν είτε απέχουν κατά σταθερούς πολλαπλασιαστικούς παράγοντες. / Fair division (or fair allocation) dates back to the ancient times and has found applications such as border settlement in international disputes, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, allocation of mineral riches in the ocean bed, inheritance, divorces, etc. In the era of the Internet, it appears regularly in distributed resource allocation and cost sharing in communication networks. We consider allocation problems in which a set of goods or chores has to be allocated among several players. Each player has a utility (disutility) function indicating the happiness (regret) of the player if she is allocated the particular good (chore, respectively); this function is non-negative and additive. The objective of the problem is the efficiency and the fairness of the allocation, but restrictions like the selfish nature of the players lead to very interesting variants of the problem. Our first result stems from the study of the problem where a set of indivisible items has to be allocated to some players and where allocations in which no player envies the bundle of items allocated to the other players too much are considered. Indivisibility implies that an item cannot be broken into parts and must be allocated to a single player, and envy, intuitively implies the preference of a player for the bundle of items allocated to another player compared to that of the items allocated to her. As we stated above, in practice, players are usually selfish in the sense that they aim to increase their benefit, i.e., their total utility on the bundle of items the algorithm allocates to them. In order to do so, they may report false valuations of items to the algorithm (i.e., different than their true utilities). Truthful allocation functions guarantee that the allocation is based on the true utilities of the players. In a sense, a truthful allocation function motivates the players to be truthful, or, put differently, guarantees that the benefit obtained by a player when reporting false valuations on the items is not greater than the benefit she would have obtained by telling the truth, given that the rest of the players are truthful. We present a simple proof that deterministic truthful allocations do not minimize envy by characterizing the truthful mechanisms for two players and two items. Our proof actually shows that for any truthful allocation function, there are instances in which the envy is almost maximized. We also present an improved analysis of uniformly random allocations of m items over n players, which are truthful in expectation. We show that the envy is at most O(a√(mln n)) with high probability, where a is the maximum utility per item over all players and items. For the case where the sum of utilities of each player is 1, we prove a bound of O(√(aln n)). This improves the previous bound of O(√a n^{1/2+e}) for any e>0. We also study the impact of fairness on the efficiency of allocations. For this part of the paper, we assume that the true utility functions of the players are public knowledge. We consider both goods and chores, as well as divisible and indivisible items. Furthermore, we consider three different notions of fairness, namely proportionality, envy-freeness, and equitability. Informally, an allocation among n players is proportional if each player has the impression that she gets a better share than a fraction of 1/n of the items to be allocated. An allocation is envy-free if no player envies some other player, whereas an allocation is equitable when all players are equally happy with their shares. Finally, an allocation is optimal when it maximizes the total utility (minimizes the total disutility, respectively) of the set of players, i.e., each item is allocated to the player that values it the most (costs her the least). We present a series of results on the price of fairness under the three aforementioned different notions of fairness, for the cases of divisible and indivisible goods and chores, and quantify the efficiency loss in fair allocations compared to optimal ones. We present upper and lower bounds on each case, most of which are either exact or tight within constant factors.

[pt] Com a Constituição Federal de 1988, em especial a partir do reconhecimento expresso implementado pela Emenda Constitucional n. 26, de 14.02.2000, que alterou o art. sexto, o direito à moradia ganhou status de direito fundamental. Uma das principais manifestações da eficácia do direito à moradia é colocar a salvo da agressão executiva dos credores o imóvel residencial próprio dos devedores, por meio do mecanismo da impenhorabilidade. Atualmente, essa proteção encontra-se concretizada por meio da Lei 8.009, de 29.03.1990. A garantia da impenhorabilidade do imóvel residencial colide com o direito de propriedade do credor - também com status de direito fundamental - e com o interesse tributário estatal - protegido constitucionalmente -, que necessariamente sofrem restrições para acomodar essa manifestação da eficácia do direito à moradia. A dissertação pretende demonstrar, utilizando-se da ponderação, como técnica hermenêutica de solução das colisões entre normas constitucionais, e da proporcionalidade e do respeito ao núcleo essencial, como instrumentos metodológicos de aferição da validade material (mérito) das restrições impostas aos preceitos fundamentais em disputa, que a impenhorabilidade do imóvel residencial somente será constitucionalmente legítima até o limite necessário para assegurar a manutenção de uma moradia adequada ao devedor, situação na qual não se incluiu a propriedade sobre imóvel de elevado valor de mercado, que poderá ser penhorado para assegurar a efetividade do direito de propriedade dos credores, com reserva de parte do numerário apurado na venda forçada para a manutenção do direito à moradia do executado. / [en] With the 1988 Federal Constitution, especially as for the explicit acknowledgement implemented by the Constitutional Amendment number 26, on 14/Feb/2000, which altered art. 6, the right to dwelling has gained the status of fundamental right. One of the main manifestations of the efficacy of the right to dwelling is to safeguard from the executive aggression of the creditors the dwelling-house owned by the debtors, by means of the restraint of mortgage mechanism. Currently, this protection is grounded by Law 8.009, from 29/03/1990. The guarantee of the restraint of mortgage of the dwelling-house conflicts with the creditor s right of property - with the status of fundamental right as well - and with the state tributary interest - constitutionally protected -, that necessarily suffers restraints to settle this manifestation of the efficacy of the right of dwelling. The dissertation intends to demonstrate, using the ponderation as a hermeneutic technique for solutions of the collisions among the constitutional norms, and of the proportionality and of the respect to the essential nucleus, as methodological verification instruments of the material validity (grounds of action) of the restraints imposed to the fundamental precepts in contest, which the restraint of mortgage of the dwelling-house shall only be constitutionally legitimate as far as the necessary limit to assure the subsistence of a proper dwelling for the debtor, situation in which has not been included the property upon the estate of high market price, which may be attached to assure the effectiveness of the creditors property right, with reserve of part of the money raised from the forced selling for the subsistence of the right to dwelling of the judgment debtor.

This enquiry makes an analysis of the entitlement to the fundamental right to freedom in the moment of criminal sentencing. Through a concise scrutiny of the practicalities of fundamental rights and their likelihood to be restrained and circumscribed, it is investigated how the proportionality principle, which is considered a limit to limits, should interfere to ensure effective protection of fundamental rights, particularly the fundamental right to freedom. Therefore, the many polemical aspects of proportionality, as well as the other punitive interrelated principles are addressed. It is also endeavored a dissection of the individualized sentencing process and its foremost role in the Democratic State of Law. In order to do so, it is established a set of guidelines on how the judge must proceed, either to evaluate the precise circumstances relevant to the given existent situation or to measure their significance. Thus, some of the interconnected criteria found in doctrine are displayed. As a final point, it is stated that Judges must be led by the proportionality principle when conducting the sentencing process, with the objective of preventing arbitrary and capricious punishment, and consequently, violations to the fundamental right to freedom. / Este trabalho faz uma análise da tutela ao direito fundamental à liberdade quando da fixação da pena. Fazendo um suscinto estudo das funções dos direitos fundamentais e da possibilidade deste ser objeto de limitações e restrições, investiga-se como a proporcionalidade, que é considerada um limite dos limites, deve interferir para que seja assegurada a efetiva proteção dos direitos fundamentais, em específico do direito fundamental à liberdade. Desse modo, abordam-se os diversos aspectos polêmicos da proporcionalidade, bem como os princípios penais influentes em matéria que com ela se relacionam. Realiza-se, também, um estudo do processo de aplicação da pena e da função que esta última desempenha no Estado Democrático de Direito. Para tanto, faz-se uma abordagem de como o magistrado deve proceder, quer quando for avaliar as circunstâncias aplicáveis ao caso concreto, quer quando for mensurá-las. Nesse sentido, apresentam-se alguns critérios propostos pela doutrina. Com isso, demonstra-se que quando da aplicação da pena, o magistrado deverá se pautar pelo princípio da proporcionalidade, evitando-se, com isso, o excesso, cuja consequência é a violação ao direito fundamental à liberdade.

The jus in bello proportionality rule establishes an upper boundary on how much collateral damage combatants can cause whilst striking a lawful target and its associated rule on precautions in attack compels them to take all feasible measures to properly understand the situation on the ground and to mitigate civilian harm. Proportionality and precautions in attack have been codified in API for over forty years, but in that time, it has been difficult to hold troops and their leaders accountable for breaches of these rules. In this study, I examine several reasons for why these rules have been difficult to apply ex post by considering the strategic motivations of state officials and prosecutors. Specifically, I propose a game-theoretic model which describes the decisions that state officials and prosecutors have historically made, and I explore what changes to this model would prompt these actors to behave differently. The model was developed using insights gained from legal case studies, archival research and a series of interviews with relevant actors. It suggests, inter alia, that to induce state officials to support a stricter liability standard for unlawful attacks, they must either ascribe much more value to legitimacy than to the success of future military operations, or they must perceive the success of future military operations to be unaffected by the possibility of losing criminal or civil adjudication. State officials may perceive losing a civil case based on state liability as being less likely to affect the success of future military operations compared with criminal liability against individual troops. Therefore, state officials may be inclined to support a stricter civil liability standard, if they believed it would help the state to secure greater legitimacy.

La mystérieuse notion de protection de la substance du droit recouvre dans la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise, comme en droit comparé, une double dimension : faisant instinctivement écho à une perception idéale du droit, trouvant ses origines dans un jusnaturalisme moderne, elle convoie tout d'abord un sens absolu. Il s’agit ainsi d’admettre l’existence d’une substance déterminée inhérente à tel ou tel droit garanti et sujette à une protection totale et inconditionnelle face aux limitations étatiques. Cela dit, les limites théoriques, mais surtout pratiques, à l’expression d’une conception absolue de la notion dans la jurisprudence conventionnelle sont nombreuses. Ces limites convergent vers l'adhésion principale du juge européen à une vision réaliste de la protection de la substance du droit. Comprise comme un strict outil du contrôle judiciaire, elle détient alors un caractère pleinement relatif, se voyant la plupart du temps associée de fait – voire, dans les principes – à une logique proportionnaliste par la Cour européenne. L’ambivalence globale et profonde d’une telle jurisprudence incite à repenser l’emploi de cette notion, tout en préservant sa précieuse finalité au sein du système conventionnel. / The mysterious notion of protection of the essence of the right has in European Court's case- law, as in comparative legal systems, a double dimension: it seems instinctively to be linked to an ideal vision of the law, drawing its roots in the jusnaturalist ideology, and possesses an absolute meaning. It implies admitting the existence of a specific essence, inherent to one or another right itself, and prone to a full and unconditional protection. However, theoretical and above all practical limits against the absolute conception of the notion in the Court's case-law are numerous. These limits converge towards the idea of a main support from the European judge to a realistic perception. Understood only as a tool for the judge, it covers then a relative conception, the protection of the essence of the right being often assimilated – in fact, and even within the principles – to the proportionality rule by the ECtHR. In front of the global and deep ambivalence of the related case-law, it appears necessary to rethink this notion, keeping in mind its precious purpose inside of the system of the ECHR.