Political actors are often perceived as self-preserving, rational actors who rarely give power away voluntarily. Yet the proliferation of independent constitutional courts presents the puzzle of why politicians are willing to delegate, seemingly irrevocably, authority to institutions that will most certainly constrain the implementation of their policy preferences. A variety of hypotheses purport to explain this phenomenon of judicial empowerment, relying variously on economic factors, electoral strategy, international influences, ideology, and interest groups. My dissertation examines this larger question in light of the sudden transformation of France’s Constitutional Council into a potent constitutional court in October of 1974. France, with its long political tradition of hostility to American-style judicial review, provides perhaps the most dramatic example of judicialization. Drawing on research into elite attitudes, parliamentary debates, government and intra-party documents, and extensive newspaper reports, the project evaluates the claims of competing explanations of judicial empowerment in the French context, with an eye to their applicability in other industrial democratic states. It concludes with a comparative inquiry into the genesis of constitutional courts, juxtaposing case studies from France, Israel, and Sweden. / text

La norme pénale valide est celle qui possède la capacité de déployer ses effets. Elle est celle qui autorise le déclenchement des poursuites, le prononcé des condamnations et l'exécution de peines. En premier lieu, il a fallu montrer ce qui paraît s’imposer d’instinct : loin de se résumer au respect d'exigences formelles, la validité de la norme pénale dépend directement de la conformité à des exigences substantielles, portées par la Constitution et les conventions européennes. La preuve de la part substantielle de validité est apportée en deux temps. D’abord, l’entrée en vigueur de la règle pénale est subordonnée à sa bonne insertion dans la hiérarchie des normes. Ensuite, les normes répressives irrégulières sont systématiquement invalidées.En second lieu, la composante substantielle de la validité de la norme pénale a de multiples conséquences, qui sont tantôt bénéfiques, tantôt problématiques. En effet, les principes qui conditionnent substantiellement la validité de la norme pénale assoient la légitimité de la répression. En revanche, l’avènement du pouvoir prétorien, dans une discipline en quête de stabilité, soulève de nombreuses difficultés. Pour les surmonter, proposer des clefs de résolution s’est révélé nécessaire. / The valid criminal norm is the one that is able to have a legal impact. It allows for the commencement of a prosecution, the imposition of a sanction, and the enforcement of sentences. Firstly, we had to demonstrate what seems manifest: far from being only a matter of respecting the formal requirements, the validity of a criminal norm depends directly on its compliance to substantial requirements that are contained in the French Constitution and the European conventions. The substantial proportion of the validity is demonstrated in two steps. The entry into force of the criminal rule is at first subordinated to its correct integration in the hierarchy of norms. Then, the improper repressive norms are systematically invalidated. Secondly, the substantial part of the validity of the criminal norm has several consequences that are in some cases beneficial but not in others. Indeed, the principles that substantially determine the validity of the criminal norm make the punishment legitimate. However, the emergence of the judge-made law raises many difficulties in a discipline that yearns for stability. In order to overcome them, it appeared necessary to suggest some key elements of resolution.