La sanction internationale de la violation des droits de l'homme peine à atteindre les objectifs qui lui sont assignés. Les sanctions non juridictionnelles mises en place au sein du système de la Charte des Nations unies sont le régime de droit commun, mais leur efficacité reste limitée pour la victime. Les Comités créés pour veiller à l'application des conventions relatives aux droits de l'homme prennent de simples recommandations à l'issue de l'examen des communications individuelles et sont incompétents pour connaître des violations graves. À défaut de mécanisme de sanction des violations graves, le Conseil de sécurité a étendu l'application des mesures collectives aux droits de l'homme. Le recours ainsi fait au Chapitre VII est confronté aux difficultés opérationnelles qui en limitent la portée. Face à ces difficultés, le Conseil de sécurité a diversifié ses sanctions. Toutefois, qu'elles soient des sanctions ciblées ou des mesures juridictionnelles comme la création de juridictions pénales ou la saisine de la Cour pénale internationale, les mesures collectives sont axées sur l'individu et non l'État. Bien que ce dernier soit le titulaire des obligations internationales en la matière, il est à l'abri de toute sanction contraignante, qu'elle soit collective ou pénale. L'absence de sanction efficace à l'encontre de l'État et la garantie insuffisante des droits de la victime impose une réforme du contentieux international des droits de l'homme. Au-delà du renforcement des mécanismes des organes de traités, la création d'une juridiction universelle chargée de sanctionner la violation des droits de l'homme au sein du système des Nations unies doit être envisagée. / The goal of effectively addressing human rights violations by imposing international sanctions has been hardly achieved. Under the UN Charter, even though non-judicial sanctions are applied as the common system, they are not effective enough in addressing the victim's needs. Committees established to monitor the application of human rights Conventions, while considering individual communications, can only make recommendations, as they are not even competent to handle serious human rights violations. In the absence of an effective mechanism to deal with serious human rights violations, the Security Council has extended the application of collective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter to human rights, resulting into operational difficulties limiting its scope. Therefore, the Security Council has diversified its sanctions in order to address these challenges. However, the collective measures, either targeted sanctions or judicial measures e.g. the establishment of criminal courts or referral to the International Criminal Court, only focus on the individual rather than the State. Although the State is the duty bearer under the international human rights obligations, it is not subject to binding sanctions, whether collective or criminal. The lack of effective sanctions against State and the insufficient guarantee for protection of the victim's rights call for a reform of the international human rights litigation. In addition to strengthening the treaty body system, it is worth considering the establishment of a World Court within the UN system to impose enforceable sanctions on States in case of human rights violation.

Magister Legum - LLM / Hybrid Courts are the latest innovation in the prosecution of international crimes after the era of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Examples include; the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Regulation 64 Panels in the courts of Kosovo and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The hybrid court model at its inception was believed to be the panacea for the short comings of purely international tribunals. The characteristic location of the tribunals in the locus of the atrocities and the participation of local judicial officers alongside their international counterparts was expected to promote legitimacy and foster capacity building for conflict ravaged transitional states. Despite the criticisms of the model today, a new hybrid court has recently been inaugurated to prosecute Hissène Habré the former President of Chad, for international crimes committed during his presidency. The promulgation of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Senegal suggests that the model continues to be useful, especially for Africa. This is of particular significance since international criminal justice has lately come under attack on the continent. The on-going feud between the African Union and the International Criminal court is only the most prolific example of this. This research paper explores the dimensions of the challenges facing the legitimacy of international criminal justice in Africa and the extent to which the hybrid court model can provide a solution for them. In order to do so, the study begins by addressing the meaning of legitimacy within the African context. A general discussion of hybrid tribunals, as well as the specific manifestations of the model in Africa so far, follows. The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Courts of Senegal are distinguishable from each other in structure and are thus juxtaposed in order to illuminate possible improvements on the hybrid court model for the future.

La sécurité humaine est un concept qui a été formellement dégagé du rapport sur le développement humain du PNUD de 1994. Présentée par ce dernier comme une alternative au développement humain, la sécurité humaine a été institutionnalisée davantage comme une réponse aux préoccupations contemporaines en termes de sécurité globale et de bien être des individus, et comme un levier de garantie de la paix internationale.Dans la dynamique de la sécurité humaine, il sera observé une mutation du système normatif international par le renforcement de la place des droits de l’Homme et du droit international humanitaire dans l’ordre juridique. Aussi, la nécessité de la sécurité humaine va entrainer une nouvelle conception de l’objet de la sécurité collective. À cet effet, les Nations unies joueront un rôle déterminant en ce qu’elles vont développer de nouvelles compétences (en termes de garantie de la paix) et de nouvelles activités relatives à la sécurité humaine. Cet élan, d’une part, dynamisera un grand nombre d’acteurs internationaux qui s’investiront en faveur de la sécurité et de la protection des individus et, d’autre part, suscitera l’établissement de nouveaux mécanismes de paix et de sécurité internationales / Human security is a concept that was officially drawn out in the UNDP’s 1994 report on human development. In this report the concept was introduced as an alternative to human development and then became institutionalised as a response to contemporary preoccupations related to security matters. Human security therefore relates to threats to individuals, which are not only different to those that jeopardise State security but relate to the physical security and well-being of individuals.International peace and security factors were subsequently revised from a conceptual perspective, shifting from a State security-based focus to a focus on the global security of individuals.In the dynamics of human security, the international order’s normative system is shifting, especially owing to the growing importance of human rights and international humanitarian law in the legal order. Similarly, ensuring human security will redefine the objectives and activities of collective security. In this respect, the United Nations plays a crucial role. The Organisation will develop new competences in terms of peacekeeping and will carry out new operations for the benefit of human security. This renewed effort will reinforce many international stakeholders who will develop competences and establish organisations to contribute significantly to the security and protection of individuals and larger to the international peace

"The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome in 1998 is a milestone for humanity and a watershed in the life of victims of ongoing violations or wars. The Preamble to the Rome Statute of the ICC acknowledges that 'during this century [20th century] millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity'. This dissertation explores the development and state of victims' rights in international criminal law. ... The study consists of five chapters. Chapter one will provide the context in which the study is set. It oulines the basis and structure of the study. Chapter two endeavours to define some of the basic concepts central to the study: victim, witness, compensation, reparation, redress, restitution, etc. This chapter will give a brief overview of victims' rights in the domestic system. It will also analyse the right to an effective remedy in international law with specific focus on the UN human rights system and on regional systems. Chapter three will outline victims' rights before the ad hoc international criminal tribunals and hybrid courts. These tribunals and courts are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Special Court of Sierra Leone (SCSL), Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECC), and the Special Pannels for Serious Crimes in East Timor (SPSC). Chapter four is devoted [to] the ICC. It will focus on its provisions dealing with victims' rights and assess whether this mechanism makes effective allowance for victims to be heard and compensated. Chapter five will consist of a summary of the entire presentation and the conclusions drawn from the study. It will make some recommendations for the adequate protection of victims' rights." -- Introduction. / Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Raymond Koen at the Faculty of Law, University of the Western Cape / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2006. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Lorsqu’il a fallu moderniser les instruments du droit international humanitaire le conflit armé non international n’était qu’un épiphénomène et son avènement a toujours été considéré comme un élément perturbateur d’une scène internationale profondément étatisé. Néanmoins l’importance croissante de ce type de conflit a permis de mettre en exergue le rôle sans cesse croissant d’un nouveau type d’acteurs à savoir les groupes armés non étatiques. Désormais, ils sont les acteurs majeurs de conflits largement majoritaires. Pour cette raison, nous pensons qu’il est temps de changer d’approche et de revoir les solutions proposées dans les instruments internationaux applicables. Pour toutes ces raisons et pour adapter le droit aux réalités des conflits actuels, une approche dépouillée de toute charge idéologique et péjorative doit primer par rapport à celle actuelle. De même, il est fondamentalement nécessaire de faire assumer à ces groupes les conséquences de leurs agissements en engageant leur responsabilité internationale. / When the instruments of international humanitarian law had to be modernized, the non-international armed conflict was an epiphenomenon and its advent has always been considered a disruptive element of a deeply internationalized international scene. Nevertheless, the growing importance of this type of conflict has highlighted the ever-increasing role of a new type of actors, namely non-State armed groups. From now on, they are the major actors of conflicts largely majority. For this reason, we believe that it is time to change the approach and review the solutions proposed in the applicable international instruments. For all these reasons and to adapt the law to the realities of current conflicts, an approach stripped of any ideological and pejorative burden must take precedence over the current one. Similarly, it is fundamentally necessary to make these groups bear the consequences of their actions by committing their international responsibility.

International crimes prosecutions have become more common since 1993, both domestically and at international courts and tribunals. The advance of this norm confronts realist state interests causing debate about the norm's status. Kathryn Sikkink views a norm as cascading when enough states adopt it to cause international influence, without domestic pressure, to procure levels of conformity. This thesis considers the degree of conformity by observing the level of case selection independence to determine whether this norm is cascading. By identifying the jurisdictional and functional elements of case selection independence, I develop a framework for observing the interface between politics and law. While Sikkink errs towards the quantity of international crimes prosecutions, I focus on the quality. This project examines case selection independence at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the International Criminal Court, in Uganda. The project considers whether case selection has become more or less independent at these courts - whether the norm of international crimes prosecution has cascaded or contracted. In observing the various case selection independence elements I attempt to explain the observed cascades and contractions at each court. I then consider whether a cascade or contraction occurred during the period of the courts' collective design and function. The research qualitatively observes a cumulative justice contraction. The research observes a combination of factors affecting case selection independence, including shifts in power dynamics between and among weak and powerful states, increasing state sophistication in international court engagement, a shift in jurisdiction triggering actors and forums, and realist state co-option of norm entrepreneurs via endearing explanation of independence-diminishing policies.

La « responsabilité de protéger », concept politique adopté en 2005 pour prévenir et mettre fin aux atrocités criminelles, repose sur un premier pilier —l'obligation de l'Etat de protéger ses populations— dont le consensus apparent a conduit à un manque d’analyse institutionnelle dans sa double dimension constitutionnelle comparée et internationale. Or, l’obligation de l’Etat incombe enparticulier au chef d'Etat. Son obligation de protéger est un élément commun de définition de sa fonction, mais aussi un critère essentiel de différenciation —selon que le chef d’Etat relève d’un modèle étatiste, privilégiant la protection de l’Etat quitte à suspendre le droit, ou d’un modèle libéral, privilégiant la protection de la Constitution et la soumission permanente de l’action politique au droit. La thèse analyse d'abord les sources de l'obligation de protéger du chef d’Etat,successivement théorisée, constitutionnalisée et internationalisée, puis l'exécution de cette obligation résultant de prérogatives, d'immunités et de contrôles de la protection. Les sources de l’obligation révèlent que le chef d’Etat, à l’interface des ordres juridiques interne et international, aune obligation spécifique, non réductible à celle de l’Etat ou de l’individu, qui comporte à la fois une dimension négative (ne pas commettre de crimes contre la population) et une dimension positive(empêcher la commission de tels crimes) et dont l’internationalisation permet de combler les lacunes des Constitutions. Si l’exécution par le chef d’Etat de son obligation de protéger, par la mise en oeuvre de ses prérogatives de protection, est soumise à un contrôle croissant, tant politique que juridictionnel, ce processus reste néanmoins inachevé, faute d'une responsabilité politique internationale, systématique et institutionnalisée. La thèse conclut à l’utilité d'une individualisation de la « responsabilité de protéger » et à l’enrichissement de ce concept par le contrôle de l’obligation de protéger du chef d’Etat. / The political concept of the “responsibility to protect” was adopted in 2005 to prevent and p ut anend to criminal atrocities. The apparent consensus over its first pillar, the State’s obligation to protect its populations, has resulted in a lack of institutional analyses regarding its combined comparative constitutional and international aspects. Importantly, the State’s obligation rests in particular with the Head of State. The obligation to protect is common to all heads of state, but it also differentiates among them, depending on whether their obligation is State-oriented (with the aim to protect the State, even if that requires the suspension of the rule of law) or Rule-of-law oriented (with the aim to protect a liberal constitutional order while always subjecting political actionto the rule of law). The thesis begins with an analysis of the sources of law relating to the Head of State’s obligation to protect, as it was successively theorised, constitutionalised and internationalised. It then turns to the execution of this obligation, which derives from the Head of State’s prerogatives, the relevant immunities involved and available institutional review over his orher activities. The study of the sources reveals that the Head of State (at the interface between the domestic and the international legal orders) is bound by a specific obligation, which exceeds the confines of the obligations of either the State or the individual. This obligation is both negative and positive as it requires both not to commit crimes against the population, and to prevent and put an end to such crimes. Its international dimension supplements the missing parts in the Constitutions.The execution of this obligation, by the implementation of the Head of State’s prerogatives, is subject to an increasing political and judicial control. However, this control remains under construction due to a lack of systematic and institutionalized international political responsibility. The thesis concludes that the “responsibility to protect” could be usefully “individualized” and enriched by institutional supervision and judicial review of the Head of State’s obligation to protect.

La justice est un attribut fondamental de l’Etat moderne. Elle assure, dans unesociété démocratique, la sauvegarde de l’édifice normatif ainsi que la protection des droitset libertés. Une justice indépendante et efficace est un symbole de l’Etat de droit. Ellerévèle la réalité de la séparation des pouvoirs et consacre le règne du droit. Maisl’efficacité de tout appareil judiciaire dépend de la nature et de l’ampleur des moyens dontil dispose. Or, dans nombre d’Etats francophones, le système judiciaire connaît denombreuses faiblesses, liées tantôt aux avatars des processus de stabilisationdémocratique, tantôt aux situations plus fragiles de sortie de crise. La question durenforcement des capacités des institutions judiciaires se trouve ainsi posée. Et c’est surcette base que l’Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) a investi, depuisune trentaine d’années, le champ de la coopération juridique et judiciaire. Ayant inscrit lapromotion de la démocratie au coeur de son action politique, la Francophonie a pris desengagements forts et développé, en s’appuyant sur ses réseaux institutionnels, desprogrammes destinés à accompagner ses Etats membres dans le renforcement descapacités de leurs systèmes de justice. Cet engagement est perceptible dans le corpusnormatif de l’Organisation. Il marque la ferme volonté des Etats francophones d’ancrerleurs relations dans un cadre de coopération, attaché à la protection des droitsfondamentaux et à la régulation des pouvoirs majoritaires. La justice est donc désormaisérigée en priorité dans le champ des préoccupations francophones. Elle y est saisie tantaux niveaux national et international que dans sa dimension transitionnelle. / Justice is a fundamental attribute of modern States. In a democratic society, itguarantees the safeguard of the standard-setting framework as well as the protection ofrights. An independent and effective justice is a symbol of the rule of law. It illustrates theseparation of powers and establishes the primacy of law. But the efficiency of any judicialsystem depends on the nature and the extent of the resources at its disposal. Yet, inmany Francophone countries, the judicial system faces many weaknesses, sometimesrelated to the avatars of democratic stabilisation processes, sometimes to more fragilepost-crisis situations. So the question of the capacity development of the judicialinstitutions arises. For thirty years, the International Organization of La Francophonie(OIF) has entered the legal and judicial cooperation field on this basis. By including thepromotion of democracy at the heart of its political action, the OIF has indeed made strongcommitments and developed programs aimed at accompanying its member States in thecapacity development of their justice systems, thanks to its institutional networks. Thiscommitment can be seen in several statements of the Organization. It demonstrates thewill of the Francophone States to anchor their relationships in a cooperation framework,dedicated to the protection of fundamental rights and the regulation of majorities’ powers.Today, justice is consequently established as a priority in Francophone concerns. It isentered in both national and international level and in its transitional dimension

Les crimes internationaux constituent des infractions dont les conséquences dramatiques affectent la communauté internationale dans son ensemble. Cette dernière s'est engagée dans la poursuite d'auteurs présumés de ces crimes à travers les différents mécanismes juridiques mis en place par la justice pénale internationale. Il incombe essentiellement aux États d'assurer l'effectivité de cette justice. Ainsi, quand des auteurs présumés de crimes internationaux se trouvent sur le territoire ou dans la juridiction d'un État, ce dernier est tenu de les poursuivre ou de les extrader vers d'autres États ou juridictions pénales internationales lorsque cela est nécessaire. Depuis la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, certains États mettent en application ces obligations en engageant des poursuites à l'encontre de criminels internationaux. La répression nationale des crimes internationaux se heurte à de nombreuses difficultés afférentes, le plus souvent, au manque de moyens ou de volonté, à l'inadéquation de certains systèmes juridiques nationaux, à la realpolitik (de l'allemand politique réaliste), à la nécessité de préserver les relations interétatiques, etc. Par ailleurs, il n'existe pas encore d'instance supranationale capable de contraindre les États à respecter leurs obligations internationales de répression des crimes internationaux. Par conséquent, l'idée de l'implication des cours régionales des droits de l'Homme dans la répression nationale des crimes internationaux s'impose davantage eu égard aux exigences internationales de répression des crimes internationaux qu'elles rappellent constamment aux États / International crimes constitute offences whose dramatic consequences affect the international community as a whole. This international community has committed itself to prosecute alleged perpetrators of these crimes through various legal mechanisms created by international criminal justice. The States are primarily responsible for ensuring the effective implementation of international criminal law. Consequently, when alleged perpetrators of international crimes are on the territory or under the jurisdiction of a given State, national authorities must prosecute them in their own national courts or extradite them to others States or international criminal courts when necessary. Since the Second World War, some States implement these international obligations by prosecuting international criminals. The national prosecution of international crimes faces many barriers related most of the time to a lack of financial resources or political will. This can also result from the inadequacy of some national legal systems, realpolitik, the need to safeguard inter-state relations... In addition to this, a supranational body compelling States to respect their international obligations to prosecute international crimes has not yet been created. Therefore, the legal involvement of regional human rights courts in the implementation of national prosecution of international crimes is necessary. This is the consequence of international requirements related to the pursuit of international criminals reminding the States of their legal duties

Le système de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), dont la mission est d’assurer la justice internationale, repose sur un lien étroit avec le Conseil de sécurité. Il convient donc de s’interroger sur le rôle du Conseil dans le fonctionnement de la justice pénale internationale. Cette question est fondamentale, car l'intervention d'un organe politique dans l’activité d’un organe judiciaire remet en cause les missions de chacune de ces institutions. L’intrusion du Conseil dans l’activité de la CPI, basée sur sa mission de maintien de la paix, est en fait établie au nom d’un ordre international voulu par le Conseil lui-même. Ce rôle affecte le fonctionnement, l’indépendance et même l’impartialité de la Cour. Les pouvoirs que le Statut de Rome confère au Conseil, lui permettent en effet de saisir la CPI, d’imposer aux Etats de coopérer avec la Cour, de suspendre son activité ou encore de qualifier un acte, de crime d’agression. Cependant, les rapports entre le Conseil et la CPI ne devraient pas être subordonnés, mais entretenus dans le respect mutuel, ainsi une véritable crainte existe concernant le respect du Conseil envers le Statut de Rome. L’étude met en évidence le conflit entre justice et politique et révèle les enjeux actuels en termes de justice pénale internationale. / The international criminal Court system (ICC) whose mission is to ensure international justice, is based on a close relationship with the security Council. So it is proper to wonder about the Council’s role in the functioning of international criminal justice. Such a questionning is fundamental, for the intervention of a political body into the functioning of a judicial body calls into question the missions of both institutions. The Council’s interference in the activity of the ICC, based on its mission of maintaining international peace, is actually carried out on behalf of an international order intended by the Council itself. This role affects the functioning, the independence and even the impartiality of the ICC. The powers the Rome Statute gives to the Council allow it to refer to the ICC, to impose for the States to cooperate with the Court, to suspend its activity or also to qualify an act as a crime of aggression. However the relations between the Council and the ICC should not be subordinated, but maintained in mutual respect. Thus there is a real concern regarding the observance of the Rome Statute by the Council. The study highlights the conflict between justice and politics and reveals the current issues in terms of international criminal justice.