En droit français, le régime des attroupements et rassemblements est au carrefour des droits administratif et pénal. Il dépasse le droit de manifester reconnu et protégé, tout en étant une nouvelle manière pour les citoyens de manifester leurs opinions, souvent véhiculées par Internet. Ces prises de position ont souvent pour point commun leur caractère spontané et immédiat, ainsi que leurs formes très éclectiques. Polysémique et évolutif dans son contenu, l’ordre public limite les atteintes à la liberté de manifester dont il est le corollaire. Dès lors, un équilibre entre les deux est exigé, illustré par la tolérance de l'autorité administrative d'un certain degré de désordre. C'est aujourd'hui la seule manière de concilier l'intérêt du pouvoir et des attroupements mobilisés dans la rue. Le maintien de l’ordre est l’une des missions principales des forces de police. Les dispositifs de prévention et les opérations de rétablissement de l’ordre troublé doivent obéir à la nécessité et à la proportionnalité reconnues à l’échelle européenne et nationale, assurant ainsi la légitimité des interventions policières. L’objectif poursuivi de cette recherche est de tenter de définir un régime juridique des attroupements unique, fondé sur l’ordre public dans un système cohérent et pertinent, indicateur du degré démocratique des systèmes contemporains. Ce fil directeur prend appui sur les textes, sur la jurisprudence, ou sur la doctrine mais aussi sur la pratique du maintien de l’ordre. / In French law, the rules governing gatherings and assemblies sit at the crossroads of administrative and criminal law. They go beyond the right to protest, which is recognised and protected, whilst also being a new way for citizens to demonstrate their opinions, often conveyed via the internet. Such positions often share a spontaneous and immediate nature, as well as taking highly eclectic forms. Polysemous and constantly evolving in terms of its content, public order limits the freedom of demonstration of which it is a corollary. Consequently, a balance between the two is required, illustrated by tolerance on the part of the administrative authorities of a certain degree of disorder. It is currently the only way to reconcile the interests of public authority and gatherings mobilised in the streets. One of the main tasks of police forces is to maintain order. Preventive mechanisms and operations intended to re-establish public order must be guided by necessity and proportionality, which are recognised at European and national levels, thus ensuring the legitimacy of police intervention. The aim pursued by this research is to attempt to define a single set of rules governing gatherings, based on public order within a consistent and relevant system, which is an indicator of the level of democracy in modern systems. That guiding principle is based on legislation, case law and jurisprudence, as well as the practicalities of maintaining public order.

Title: ​Proportionality of a four-year ineligibility for the first intentional anti-doping rule violations and its impact on professional athletes' careers Objectives: ​The aim of this thesis is to ascertain whether the four-year ineligibility for the first intentional anti-doping rule violations has liquidation impact on professional athletes' careers. Methods: ​For quantitative research, I have used the electronic interrogation method and for qualitative research the in-depth semi-structured interview. Results: ​I have found that most athletes really do perceive a four-year ineligibility for the first intentional anti-doping rule violations as disproportionate. Only 24 % of surveyed athletes said that a four-year ineligibility is an appropriate punishment. 82 % of surveyed athletes would end their careers after receiving a four-year ineligibility, and just 30 % of them think that It's realistic to go back to an active career after a four-year break. Moreover, athletes have consistently said that the most crucial obstacles to their return are financial distress, loss of motivation and lack of racing mode. On the basis of these results, I have also developed my own solution to ineligibility for the first intentional anti-doping rule violations. Keywords: ​proportionality, sanction, ineligibility,...

Syfte: Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera remissutfallet gällande inhemska arrangemang i SOU 2018:91 (Rapporteringspliktiga arrangemang – ett nytt regelverk på skatteområdet). Med utgångspunkt i de inhemska arrangemangen, kommer begreppen rådgivare, rapporteringspliktiga arrangemang och den i utredningen presenterade rapporteringsavgiften beskrivas och analyseras utifrån proportionalitets- och legalitetsprincipen, dvs. balans mellan mål och medel samt krav på lagstöd och förutsebarhet. Uppsatsen bygger på synpunkter från följande remissinstanser, Föreningen auktoriserade revisorer, Näringslivets skattedelegation, Skatteverket, SRF konsulterna, Sveriges advokatsamfund. Frågan om inhemska arrangemang har ännu inte lett till någon lagstiftning. Metod: Uppsatsen bygger på en rättsdogmatisk- och en rättsanalytisk metod. Slutsats: Vår slutsats är att de i utredningen föreslagna rapporteringspliktiga arrangemang, begreppen rådgivare och rapporteringsavgift inte är helt förenliga med proportionalitets- och legalitetsprincipen. / Purpose: The purpose of the work is to analyze the outcome of the investigation, SOU 2018: 91 (Rapporteringspliktiga arrangemang – ett nytt regelverk på skatteområdet) regarding domestic arrangements. Based on the domestic arrangements, the concepts of advisers, reportable arrangements and the reporting charge presented in the investigation will be described and analyzed based on the principles of proportionality and legality. The work is based on views from the following consultation bodies, the Association of Authorized Public Accountants, the Business Tax Delegation, the Swedish Tax Agency, the SRF consultants, the Swedish Bar Association. The issue of domestic arrangements has not yet led to any legislation. Method: The work is based on a legal dogmatic- and a legal analytical method. Conclusion: Our conclusion is that the reportable arrangements, the concepts of advisers and reporting charge, are contrary to the principles of proportionality and legality.

The aim of this thesis is to discuss the ethical issues which arise by nuclear deterrence. I have taken the position that the use of nuclear weapons is morally wrong. Nuclear deterrence is kind of a preventive measure, but not a way of fighting a war. Therefore, I used the ‘just war theory’ as a starting point to formulate analytical questions through which I have interpreted my material. The analytical questions are based on proportionality, utilitarianism, deontology and the ‘Doctrine of double effect’. I have used contemporary material by political scientists which form a symposium where they discussed on the topic of ‘just deterrence’. In my thesis, I argue that the liberty, life and happiness must be defended, but not to any price. I argue that we must see the value life itself has, because if our life, liberty and happiness is threatened, we have nothing to defend. The question that arises is whether there is an ethical approach which can help us understand these questions.

A fundamentação e a correção de decisões jurídicas na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral exigem o cumprimento das regras e formas do discurso jurídico fundado em bases pragmático-universais. As viradas lingüística e pragmática, por obra de Frege, Wittgenstein e Peirce, fundaram os alicerces de uma teoria dos atos de fala, de Austin e Searle, de uma teoria da argumentação, de Toulmin, e de uma teoria comunicativa e discursiva da verdade e correção, em Habermas. A ética procedimentalista e cognitivista habermasiana reconstrói o princípio da universabilidade em trajes discursivos. Alexy enuncia um conceito não-positivista e inclusivo da moral fundamentado na pretensão de correção jurídica e argúi a tese do discurso jurídico como caso especial do discurso prático geral. Uma decisão jurídica correta deve ser justificada com base nas regras e formas da justificação interna e externa do discurso. A fundamentação das decisões por meio de argumentos de princípios coloca a exigência da aplicação do preceito da proporcionalidade. As dogmáticas e jurisprudências alemã e brasileira, na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral, utilizam inicialmente uma fórmula da proibição da arbitrariedade ou correlação lógica, da qual resulta uma vinculação fraca do legislador, e passam a adotar uma fórmula baseada na proporcionalidade, com uma vinculação severa do legislador, especialmente quando há tratamento desigual de indivíduos com características especiais elencadas na Constituição. A racionalidade de uma decisão que se utiliza da estrutura da proporcionalidade depende da justificação externa de cada uma das premissas usadas na justificação interna. Há uma relação necessária entre discurso jurídico, proporcionalidade e dogmáticas dos direitos fundamentais. / The justification and correction of legal decisions in the application of general equality principle demands the fullfilment of rules and forms of legal discourse founded on a universal-pragmatic basis. The linguistic and pragmatic turn, by Frege, Wittgenstein, and Peirce, established the foundations of a theory of speech acts, by Austin and Searle, of a theory of reasoning, by Toulmin, and a communicative and discoursive theory on truth and correctness in Habermas. The habermasian proceduralism and cognitivism ethics reconstructs the principle of universability in discoursive ways. Alexy states a non-positivistic and moral inclusive concept of law grounded in the claim to legal correction and argues that the legal discourse must be understood as a special case of general practical discourse. A correct legal decision must be justified on the rules and forms of internal and external justification of discourse. The justification for the decisions by means of arguments of principle sets the demand of applying the partial requirements of proportionality. German and Brazilian legal theory and jurisprudence, in applying the right to general equality, apply initially a formula of prohibition of arbitrary and correlational logic, where there is a weak attachment of the legislature, and start adopting a formula based on proportionality, where there is severe attachment of the legislature, especially in the case of discrimination against individuals with special features listed in the Constitution. The rationality of a decision which uses the structure of proportionality depends on the external justification of each of the premises used in the internal justification. There is a necessary link between proportionality, legal discourse and fundamental rights legal theory.

A fundamentação e a correção de decisões jurídicas na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral exigem o cumprimento das regras e formas do discurso jurídico fundado em bases pragmático-universais. As viradas lingüística e pragmática, por obra de Frege, Wittgenstein e Peirce, fundaram os alicerces de uma teoria dos atos de fala, de Austin e Searle, de uma teoria da argumentação, de Toulmin, e de uma teoria comunicativa e discursiva da verdade e correção, em Habermas. A ética procedimentalista e cognitivista habermasiana reconstrói o princípio da universabilidade em trajes discursivos. Alexy enuncia um conceito não-positivista e inclusivo da moral fundamentado na pretensão de correção jurídica e argúi a tese do discurso jurídico como caso especial do discurso prático geral. Uma decisão jurídica correta deve ser justificada com base nas regras e formas da justificação interna e externa do discurso. A fundamentação das decisões por meio de argumentos de princípios coloca a exigência da aplicação do preceito da proporcionalidade. As dogmáticas e jurisprudências alemã e brasileira, na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral, utilizam inicialmente uma fórmula da proibição da arbitrariedade ou correlação lógica, da qual resulta uma vinculação fraca do legislador, e passam a adotar uma fórmula baseada na proporcionalidade, com uma vinculação severa do legislador, especialmente quando há tratamento desigual de indivíduos com características especiais elencadas na Constituição. A racionalidade de uma decisão que se utiliza da estrutura da proporcionalidade depende da justificação externa de cada uma das premissas usadas na justificação interna. Há uma relação necessária entre discurso jurídico, proporcionalidade e dogmáticas dos direitos fundamentais. / The justification and correction of legal decisions in the application of general equality principle demands the fullfilment of rules and forms of legal discourse founded on a universal-pragmatic basis. The linguistic and pragmatic turn, by Frege, Wittgenstein, and Peirce, established the foundations of a theory of speech acts, by Austin and Searle, of a theory of reasoning, by Toulmin, and a communicative and discoursive theory on truth and correctness in Habermas. The habermasian proceduralism and cognitivism ethics reconstructs the principle of universability in discoursive ways. Alexy states a non-positivistic and moral inclusive concept of law grounded in the claim to legal correction and argues that the legal discourse must be understood as a special case of general practical discourse. A correct legal decision must be justified on the rules and forms of internal and external justification of discourse. The justification for the decisions by means of arguments of principle sets the demand of applying the partial requirements of proportionality. German and Brazilian legal theory and jurisprudence, in applying the right to general equality, apply initially a formula of prohibition of arbitrary and correlational logic, where there is a weak attachment of the legislature, and start adopting a formula based on proportionality, where there is severe attachment of the legislature, especially in the case of discrimination against individuals with special features listed in the Constitution. The rationality of a decision which uses the structure of proportionality depends on the external justification of each of the premises used in the internal justification. There is a necessary link between proportionality, legal discourse and fundamental rights legal theory.

A fundamentação e a correção de decisões jurídicas na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral exigem o cumprimento das regras e formas do discurso jurídico fundado em bases pragmático-universais. As viradas lingüística e pragmática, por obra de Frege, Wittgenstein e Peirce, fundaram os alicerces de uma teoria dos atos de fala, de Austin e Searle, de uma teoria da argumentação, de Toulmin, e de uma teoria comunicativa e discursiva da verdade e correção, em Habermas. A ética procedimentalista e cognitivista habermasiana reconstrói o princípio da universabilidade em trajes discursivos. Alexy enuncia um conceito não-positivista e inclusivo da moral fundamentado na pretensão de correção jurídica e argúi a tese do discurso jurídico como caso especial do discurso prático geral. Uma decisão jurídica correta deve ser justificada com base nas regras e formas da justificação interna e externa do discurso. A fundamentação das decisões por meio de argumentos de princípios coloca a exigência da aplicação do preceito da proporcionalidade. As dogmáticas e jurisprudências alemã e brasileira, na aplicação do direito de igualdade geral, utilizam inicialmente uma fórmula da proibição da arbitrariedade ou correlação lógica, da qual resulta uma vinculação fraca do legislador, e passam a adotar uma fórmula baseada na proporcionalidade, com uma vinculação severa do legislador, especialmente quando há tratamento desigual de indivíduos com características especiais elencadas na Constituição. A racionalidade de uma decisão que se utiliza da estrutura da proporcionalidade depende da justificação externa de cada uma das premissas usadas na justificação interna. Há uma relação necessária entre discurso jurídico, proporcionalidade e dogmáticas dos direitos fundamentais. / The justification and correction of legal decisions in the application of general equality principle demands the fullfilment of rules and forms of legal discourse founded on a universal-pragmatic basis. The linguistic and pragmatic turn, by Frege, Wittgenstein, and Peirce, established the foundations of a theory of speech acts, by Austin and Searle, of a theory of reasoning, by Toulmin, and a communicative and discoursive theory on truth and correctness in Habermas. The habermasian proceduralism and cognitivism ethics reconstructs the principle of universability in discoursive ways. Alexy states a non-positivistic and moral inclusive concept of law grounded in the claim to legal correction and argues that the legal discourse must be understood as a special case of general practical discourse. A correct legal decision must be justified on the rules and forms of internal and external justification of discourse. The justification for the decisions by means of arguments of principle sets the demand of applying the partial requirements of proportionality. German and Brazilian legal theory and jurisprudence, in applying the right to general equality, apply initially a formula of prohibition of arbitrary and correlational logic, where there is a weak attachment of the legislature, and start adopting a formula based on proportionality, where there is severe attachment of the legislature, especially in the case of discrimination against individuals with special features listed in the Constitution. The rationality of a decision which uses the structure of proportionality depends on the external justification of each of the premises used in the internal justification. There is a necessary link between proportionality, legal discourse and fundamental rights legal theory.

La gestion préventive des risques naturels et technologiques constitue un enjeu de premier ordre pour les autorités étatiques que ce soit à l’égard des populations, des biens et de l’environnement ou pour le coût que la réalisation de tels risques peut représenter. Aussi, le décideur public, contraint juridiquement de protéger ces enjeux, est dans l’obligation, après avoir évalué et qualifié le risque, de déclencher une action publique préventive. C’est au cours d’un processus décisionnel complexe qu’il devra déterminer le degré de dangerosité du risque et les mesures préventives appropriées et proportionnées. S’effectue alors, pour le décideur public, la recherche du meilleur compromis possible entre les libertés et les objectifs de sécurité dans le cadre d’un difficile bilan coûts/avantages. Le droit tente d’encadrer ce processus décisionnel en laissant une marge d’appréciation importante et nécessaire au décideur public dans la détermination du degré d’acceptabilité du risque. C’est la recherche de ce compromis qui sera étudiée dans le cadre de cette thèse et plus particulièrement la manière dont le droit encadre cette recherche, gère cette question délicate et éventuellement contrôle les décisions entérinées. / Preventive management of natural and technological hazards is a major issue for state authorities, in regards to the people, property and the environment or in regards to the cost represented by the realization of such risks. Therefore, policy makers legally bound to protect these interests are required to initiate a preventive public action after evaluating and qualifying the risks. The level of hazard and the appropriateness and proportionality of preventive measures will be determined within a complex decision-making process. The policymakers then strive to reach the best possible compromise between freedom and security objectives within the framework of a delicate cost/benefit analysis. The law attempts to regulate this decision-making process by leaving a large and necessary margin of discretion to the public policy makers in determining the acceptability of the risk. This thesis will explore the process to reach this compromise, and in particular how the law governs it, manages this delicate issue and potentially controls the endorsed decisions.

La délimitation des frontières maritimes revêt une importance capitale pour un grand nombre États, que cela soit d’un oint de vue symbolique, culturel, stratégique ou économique. Néanmoins, le droit international conventionnel reste au mieux largement ambigu, au pire entièrement silencieux sur la question de savoir quelles sont les méthodes précises pour résoudre les éventuels différends entre États pouvant surgir lors de la délimitation de leurs espaces maritimes. Face à ces ambiguïtés et silences conventionnels et face aussi à une pratique étatique incohérente et dépourvue d’une opinio juris, c’est principalement dans leur propre vision que les juridictions internationales ont puisé la règle de l’équidistance/circonstances pertinentes, en vertu de laquelle toute délimitation maritime décidée, quel que soit l’espace maritime considéré, y inclus le plateau continental étendu, et quelle que soit la configuration côtière, débute par la construction d’une ligne d’équidistance provisoire. Cette ligne pourra éventuellement être modifiée pour tenir compte descirconstances particulières de chaque affaire dans une deuxième phase de la délimitation. En dépit de la consécration claire et – une première dans l’histoire de la CIJ – unanime de la règle de l’équidistance/circonstances pertinentes dans l’affaire de la Délimitation maritime en mer Noire en 2009, de nombreuses zones d’ombre et difficultés d’ordre technique existent dans sa mise en œuvre pratique par les cours et tribunaux internationaux, notamment en ce qui concerne le risque d’une part trop importante de subjectivité, voire d’arbitraire, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le choix des points de base et le rôle joué par la proportionnalité. De même, afin de garantir une « matérialisation » efficace de la frontière maritime décidée sur le « terrain », une collaboration étroite entre le juriste d’une part et le cartographe, l’hydrographe, le géologue et le géographe d’autre part s’impose. / The delimitation of maritime boundaries is of utmost importance for many states, whether on a symbolic, cultural, strategic or economic level. Nevertheless, international treaty law is at best largely ambiguous, at worst entirely silent as to what the precise methods for resolving possible disputes that might surface during the delimitation process are. Confrontedwith these ambiguities and silences, but also with incoherent state practice devoid of any opinio juris, it is primarily from their own vision that international jurisdictions have drawn the equidistance/relevant circumstances rule, according to which, regardless of the maritime zone concerned, including the extended continental shelf, and regardless of the coastalconfiguration, every decided maritime delimitation begins with the establishment of a provisional equidistance line. This line can later be modified in a second phase of the delimitation to take into account the particular circumstances of each case. In spite of the unequivocal and – a premiere in the history of the Court – unanimous consecration of theequidistance/relevant circumstances rule by the ICJ in the Delimitation in the Black Sea case in 2009, numerous unsettled areas and technical difficulties remain in the delimitation process, notably regarding the risk of too great a degree of subjectivity, if not arbitrariness, particularly regarding the choice of the base points and the role to be played by proportionality. Likewise, in order to guarantee a smooth “materialisation” of the border on the “ground”, a close collaboration between the jurist on the one hand and the cartographer, geologist, hydrologist and geographer on the other hand is indispensable.

Le droit international privé est éprouvé par les droits fondamentaux. Les données à partir desquelles la discipline a été pensée ont d’abord évolué. Les droits de l’homme créent une connexion entre les ordres juridiques étatiques et protègent la mobilité internationale des personnes. Si cette évolution ne remet pas en cause l’existence du problème de droit international privé, force est d’admettre que les droits fondamentaux modifient aujourd’hui son analyse. Tandis que les conflits d’ordres juridiques sont transformés en conflit de valeurs, la hiérarchie des intérêts du droit international privé est remplacée par leur mise en balance. Les solutions de droit international privé sont, ainsi, perturbées par l’application contentieuse des droits fondamentaux. La proportionnalité est plus précisément à l’origine de cette perturbation. Technique de réalisation des droits de l’homme, la proportionnalité a une incidence inégale sur la discipline. Si le contrôle de proportionnalité épargne ses méthodes, il bouleverse en revanche ses solutions. Les Cours européennes ont tendance à privilégier la continuité des situations juridiques sur la défense de la cohésion interne. Aussi pressent-elles le droit international privé à libéraliser ses solutions. L’application contentieuse des droits fondamentaux doit, dès lors, être rationalisée pour préserver l’autorité et la prévisibilité des solutions du conflit de lois et de juridictions. C’est en dissociant l’application des droits de l’homme de l’exception d’ordre public international et en corrigeant la mise en œuvre du contrôle de proportionnalité que l’équilibre du droit international privé pourrait, nous semble-t-il, se reconstruire. / Fundamental rights put private international law to the test. First, the context in which private international law operates has evolved. Fundamental rights have created a better, closer, intertwining of the separate state legal orders and have achieved a higher protection for the persons as they experience international mobility. If this evolution does not threaten, as such, the existence of private international law, it must be acknowledged that fundamental rights modify its analysis. Whereas the conflicts between legal orders are transformed into conflicts between values, the hierarchy of interests protected by private international law is replaced by a balancing of these interests. The solutions of private international law are thus disrupted by the enforcement of fundamental rights through litigation. Proportionality is at the source of this disruption. Being a case by case technique of enforcement of fundamental rights, the influence of the proportionality test on private international is uneven. If the proportionality test is found to be overall indifferent to the methods of private international law, its main impact is on the solutions of PIL. The European courts are indeed prone to favour the continuity in the legal situations of the persons, over the defence of the internal cohesion of the state legal orders. As a consequence, private international law is invited to reach liberal solutions. The enforcement of fundamental rights through litigation must hence be clarified so as to maintain a mesure of authority and predictability of the solutions of the rules of conflict of laws, international jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgements. It is, on the one hand, by methodologically dissociating the enforcement of fundamental rights from the public policy exception and, on the other hand, through an amendment to the proportionality test, that the balance of private international may hopefully be restored.