The promise of devolution was to ‘do politics differently’ by creating a more plural, consensual and participative political landscape underpinned by the Scottish Parliament’s founding principles of openness, accountability, sharing of power and equal opportunities. In this context, it might be expected that post-devolution Scotland would provide a fertile environment for fostering innovation in family policy-making. Using a case study approach to critically analyse the policy processes of both the family law reforms and the sexual health strategy, the research uses Kingdon’s multiple streams framework to explore:- - the extent to which devolution has enabled civil society to participate in the policy process - how political activity by civil society impacts on government policy - whether or not devolution has fostered innovation in family policy-making. - who is influencing the family policy agenda in post-devolution Scotland The multiple streams framework offers a useful entry point for analysing the public policy process but Kingdon’s claim for the independence of the three streams of problems, policy and politics is problematic since these were found to be inter-related with a symbiotic relationship between the policy and politics streams. This supports work by Kendall (2000) which found a greater degree of connectedness between the policy and politics stream. The findings indicate that devolution has created a more fluid space for civil society participation in family policy-making but a paradoxical effect has been to increase the potential for interests to clash in the public sphere. And although progressive reforms were implemented in both cases, the formal policy instrument of primary legislation to implement the family law reforms facilitated engagement of a wider range of actors, enabled fuller debate of the issues and provided more checks and balances on the system than the informal policy instrument of the expert reference group used to develop the sexual health strategy. Devolution has not reduced conflict in family policy debates – the family continues to be a site of contestation and in the policy processes observed in one of the case studies, the combined forces of religion, politics and a distinctive media presence coalesced to create a ‘radioactive’ political climate. This had a direct effect on the policy process inside government which in turn, shaped the tone and content of the final policy output raising questions about the extent to which post-devolution Scotland can be regarded as providing a fertile environment for fostering innovation in family policy-making.

L’égalité a investi le champ du droit béninois de la famille depuis plus d’une décennie. Elle a ainsi permis la suppression du pluralisme juridique et judiciaire qui prévalait jusqu’en 2004. Elle a aussi permis la suppression de la polygamie et la fidélité est ainsi devenue une obligation envers un conjoint unique. La discrimination dans l’appréciation et la répression de l’adultère aussi a disparu. La puissance maritale, et son corollaire, l’incapacité de la femme mariée ont aussi été retirées du droit béninois. Les enfants bénéficient désormais d’une protection presque égale de la loi quelques soient leurs sexes et l’origine de leurs filiations.En dépit de cette grande ouverture du droit de la famille à l’égalité, il y demeure d’importants points d’ombre. Il s’agit notamment du nom des époux, de la transmission du nom aux enfants, de l’acquisition et de la transmission de la nationalité, du choix du domicile conjugal et du délai de viduité.En marge de ces inégalités, les mutations sociales et les progrès de la médecine constituent un tremplin pour de nouvelles revendications de l’égalité. Il est possible de prédire, dans un avenir très proche, l’organisation d’un statut du concubinage, des luttes pour le mariage des homosexuels et des transsexuels en vertu du principe d’égalité. De même, le droit à l’avortement et le droit à l’enfant pourraient avoir les mêmes bases. / Equality invested field of Benin family law for over a decade. It has enabled the removal of legal and judicial pluralism that existed until 2004. It also allowed the suppression of polygamy and loyalty has become an obligation to a single joint. Discrimination in the appreciation and punishment of adultery also disappeared. The marital power and its corollary, the inability of married women were also removed from the Beninese law. The children now have an almost equal protection of the law regardless of their gender few and origin of their affiliations.Despite the openness of family law to equality, there remain significant gray areas. These include the name of the spouses, the name of the transmission to children, acquisition and transmission of nationality, the choice of the marital home and the waiting period.Besides these inequalities, social changes and medical advances are a stepping stone for new claims of equality. It is possible to predict, in the very near future, the organization of a status of concubinage, struggles for marriage of homosexuals and transsexuals under the principle of equality. Similarly, the right to abortion and the right to the child might have the same bases.

Lorsqu’au sein d’une famille le recours à la justice devient nécessaire, la spécificité du droit de la famille, les différents intérêts en présence laissent entrevoir un particularisme, le pluralisme juridictionnel. Ce pluralisme juridictionnel est apprécié comme la coexistence de plusieurs juridictions dans un même système de justice familiale. Ainsi, pourront intervenir, le juge aux affaires familiales, le juge des enfants, le juge des tutelles, ou encore le Tribunal de grande instance. Nous nous sommes demandé si cette pluralité était justifiée. D’une manière générale le pluralisme juridictionnel en droit de la famille paraît être conditionné par la recherche de la meilleure application de la règle de droit aux personnes. Le pluralisme juridictionnel traduit ainsi l’adaptation de la loi à l’évolution de la famille. Il est la traduction de l’évolution du pluralisme des modes de vie en famille. Dès lors le pluralisme juridictionnel permet différentes manières d’appliquer la règle de droit à l’ensemble des membres de la famille et réserve une protection plus spécifique à l’enfant. / When, within a family recourse to justice becomes necessary, the specificity of family law, the various interests involved suggest a particularism, judicial pluralism. This judicial pluralism is valued as the coexistence of several courts in the same family justice system. So could be made, the family court judge, the juvenile court judge, the guardianship judge, the Court of First Instance. We wondered if this plurality was justified. Generally judicial pluralism in family law seems to be conditioned by the search for the best application of the rule of law to people. Judicial pluralism and reflects the adaptation of the law to the evolution of the family. It is the translation of the development of pluralism in lifestyles family. Therefore judicial pluralism allows different ways to apply the rule of law to all family members and provided more specific protection to the child.

Cette recherche s’impose donc comme une étude comparative entre le système juridique français et le système juridique algérien autour de la médiation familiale. Au terme de ce travail, constats et réflexions s’articulent autour de 4 axes : Le premier axe est l’étude de la place qu’occupe la médiation en tant que mode de résolution de conflits dans le système juridique français et le système juridique algérien après un rappel de ses fondements et des facteurs expliquant son émergence. Le deuxième axe a trait au statut juridique de la médiation et souligne l’importance de son développement de manière très différente d’un système juridique à un autre. Le troisième axe est lié à l’émergence d’un droit de l’enfant qui nécessite l’intervention du juge pour asseoir son statut sur des bases plus solides que celles de la famille d’aujourd’hui. Le quatrième axe consiste à mettre en lumière comment l’application du droit conventionnel gère les situations de conflits familiaux internationaux relatifs aux enlèvements d’enfants issus du mariage de couples mixtes. C’est dans ce contexte que le droit international privé a été abordé pour mettre en relief les apports et les spécificités des deux droits. / This research is viewed as a comparative study between the French legal system and the Algerian legal system regarding the family mediation. As a conclusion of this work, the observations and reflections are articulated around 4 axes: The first axis is the study of the role that mediation embodies as a tool for resolving conflicts in the French legal system and the Algerian legal system after a reminder of its foundations and factors explaining its emergence. The second axis concerns the legal status of mediation and enlightens the importance of its development in a very different way from one legal system to another. The third axis is related to the advent of a child's right which requires the intervention of the judge to establish his status on a more solid basis than the one of today’s family. The fourth axis emphasises on how the application of conventional law deals with situations of international family conflict related to the abduction of children from the marriage of mixed couples. It is in this context that private international law was approached to highlight the contributions and specificities of the two rights.