Le Conseil de sécurité est l’organe principal du système onusien chargé du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales. Face à une situation illégale, il ne peut donc l’ignorer et s’en désintéresser. Cependant, la perpétration d’un acte à la légalité controversée par l’un ou plusieurs de ses membres permanents peut nous laisser entendre que l’organe politique onusien aura des difficultés à remplir son rôle. Les membres permanents vont tenter d’instrumentaliser le Conseil de sécurité afin de diminuer l’illégalité de la situation. Ceci pose avec acuité le problème du contrôle de son activité en matière de maintien de la paix. L’accomplissement d’un acte illégal par un ou plusieurs membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité nécessite alors de réfléchir à des moyens d’ordre juridique pour limiter son pouvoir. Cette réflexion s’avère particulièrement pressante lorsque le Conseil est confronté à une occupation de guerre impliquant ses membres permanents ou, lorsqu’il crée ou autorise des opérations de paix de grandes envergures suite à un conflit armé impliquant ses membres permanents. Afin de limiter les prérogatives du Conseil de sécurité, le régime juridique de l’occupation tel qu’énoncé par le Règlement de La Haye (IV) de 1907 et la IVe Convention de Genève de 1949 devrait être appliquer par l’organe politique onusien lorsqu’il intervient dans une situation d’occupation de guerre impliquant ses membres permanents. L’objectif est d’éviter qu’il n’attribue aux puissances occupantes des missions qui dépassent le cadre juridique imposé par le droit des conflits armés. L’autorisation, par le Conseil de sécurité d’opérations de paix, telles qu’une administration civile transitoire ou une force multinationale avec un mandat de la paix avec recours à la force armée, suite à un conflit armé impliquant ses propres membres permanents, ouvre le débat sur leur réglementation. Alors, il sera proposé une interprétation progressiste de la définition de l’occupation telle qu’énoncée par le Règlement de La Haye (IV) de 1907 et la IVe Convention de Genève de 1949 afin d’y intégrer ces nouvelles formes d’occupations pacifiques, présentant de grandes similitudes avec les occupations de guerre. Ainsi, le régime juridique de l’occupation pourra leur être appliqué. / The Security Council is the primary body of the UN system responsible for peacekeeping and international security. In cases of violations of international law, the Security Council cannot turn a blind eye. Nevertheless, in cases when Security Council members are themselves perpetrators of international law violations one could conclude that this political body has difficulties in fulfilling its mandate. The danger exists that Security Council members in violation of international law will implicate the Security Council in justifying illegal decisions. This therefore raises the question of Security Council accountability. The violation of international law by a Security Council member therefore requires a legal mechanism to limit the powers of this body. This is particularly relevant for cases of occupation involving its permanent members, or, when the Security Council creates or authorizes large-scale peace-keeping operations following an armed conflict involving its own members. In order to limit the powers of the Security Council, this study proposes to impose a legal regime of administration as stipulated by the IV (1907) Hague and the 4th 1949 Geneva Convention, according to which the Security Council intervenes when a territory is administered by one of its permanent members. The goal is to avoid that the Security Council gives too much freedom to an administrative power during interventions which go beyond the legal framework defined by the law on administrated territories. The authorization by the Security Council of peace-keeping operations, such as transitional civil administration or multinational peace-keeping force mandated to use force, following an armed conflict involving its own members, opens the debate of their regulation. Consequently a progressive interpretation of occupation as defined by the IV (1907) Hague and the 4th 1949 Geneva Convention is proposed in order to encompass new forms of peaceful occupations which contain clear similarities with military occupations. Thus, they will fall under the legal mechanism of the latter.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Universität, Frankfurt am Main, 2006. / Material type: Dissertations. Includes bibliographical references (p. 283-317).

Plus de soixante ans après sa signature, qui sont les personnes bénéficiaires de la qualité de réfugié au sens de l’article 1A de la Convention de Genève relative au statut de réfugié de 1951? En effet, si cette convention compte parmi les plus ratifiées au monde et n’a jamais été remise en cause, celle-ci fait pourtant l’objet de polémiques croissantes portant sur sa capacité à protéger les personnes contraintes de s’exiler. Elle s’applique par ailleurs dans un contexte politique de suspicion grandissante à l’égard des demandeurs d’asile. On peut donc se demander qui sont aujourdh’ui les personnes qui se voient reconnaître la qualité de réfugié ? A cette fin, l’étude s’appuie sur une analyse comparée des jurisprudences de plusieurs pays occidentaux : Australie – Belgique - Canada - Etats-Unis - France – Grande-Bretagne – Nouvelle-Zélande. Elle s’appuie aussi sur une analyse systémique de l’article 1A et ses interprétations jurisprudentielles à la lumière des évolutions du droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit international humanitaire. Ainsi, l’analyse met en lumière plusieurs points. Plus que les motifs invoqués ou la nature des mauvais traitements craints, c’est sur le caractère individuel ou collectif des persécutions que se dessine une ligne de fracture entre les Etats occidentaux. En effet, ces derniers ont, de manière convergente, fait évoluer leur interprétation de la qualité de réfugié quand les requérants invoquent des persécutions individuelles. C’est ainsi que les individus craignant d’être persecutés en raison de l’expression de leurs opinions politiques ou religieuses dissidentes, ou du libre exercice de leurs droits fondamentaux, quel que soit leur genre ou leur orientation sexuelle, se voient aujourd’hui communément reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Dans le cadre de ces persécutions individuelles, les Etats ont aussi développé de manière convergente une interprétation assouplie des agents de persécution, acceptant ainsi de protéger les personnes fuyant des mauvais traitements perpétrés par des agents étatiques et des personnes privées. En revanche, il existe encore de nombreuses divergences entre les Etats lorsque les individus revendiquent fuir des persécutions collectives. S’appuyant sur la reconnaissance d’une interprétation plus ou moins individualiste de la qualité de réfugié, les personnes craignant d’être persécutées en raison de leur race, de leur nationalité ou de leur appartenance à un groupe religieux ne doivent pas satisfaire aux mêmes exigences pour se voir reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Et dans le contexte actuel où de plus en plus de personnes fuient des persécutions collectives perpétrées dans un Etat en situation de conflit armé, ces divergences sont d’autant plus importantes. / Sixty years after its signatory, who can be qualify as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugee ? If it is one of the most ratified treaty of the world, it’s relevance have nevertheless recently been questioned and some commentators don’t hesitate to speak of an outdated Convention. Moreover, it applies in a political context of clear suspicion against asylum-seekers. So, we can wonder who can nowadays qualify as a refugee among the million of persons fleeing their home ? To answer to this question, the study focuses on judicial review of many industrialized countries, such as Australia – Belgium – Canada – United States – France – Great-Britain and New Zealand. A systemic interpretation of Article 1A and its judicial interpretation in the light of both international human right law and international humanitarian law also helps to conduce the study. First, the analyse reveals that it is not on the motives of persecution neither the nature of the treatment feared that we can observe similarities or differences between the countries. It is on individual or collective persecutions. When asylum seekers look for international protection based on individual persecutions, States have commonly adopted a dynamic interpretation of article 1A . Persons who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because they have freely express their dissent political or religious opinion, their sexual orientation, or because they refuse to conform to the roles and identities attributing to their gender, can be recognised as refugees in all the countries of the study. In the context of individual persecutions, States have also commonly developed an evolutive interpretation of the persecution agents. They protect all the persons who risk to be persecuted by state agents or non-state agents. On the contrary, there are many continuing and growing divergences between States when persons flee collective persecutions because of their race, their nationality of their belonging to a religious group. They keep on developing a different interpretation of the individualist definition of the refugee. And while more and more person ask for international protection because they flee collective persecutions during an armed conflict, these divergences are even more important.

On October 1, 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front launched a war from and with the support of the Republic of Uganda against Rwanda. This war was accompanied by unspeakable violations of International Humanitarian Law. Both conflicting parties violated the basic rules protecting the civilian population in situations of armed conflicts. The United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of its Charter, passed resolution 955 of November 8, 1994 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute alleged responsible of such violations. This study investigates the background of the ICTR and questions the nature of the conflict that prompted the Security Council to establish another ad hoc international criminal tribunal after the one established for the former Yugoslavia. It further inquires into its jurisprudence and reflects critically on the ICTR's approach to serious violations of IHL under Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. / Jurisprudence / LL. M. (Law)

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. / O trabalho expõe a consolidação do direito à verdade pelo Direito Internacional e a complementaridade entre as comissões da verdade e os tribunais, mecanismos de justiça de transição, como a combinação que melhor lhe confere aplicabilidade. Primeiramente, a tese reivindica que a transição e a consolidação democrática devem se dar por meio da prestação de contas com o passado, o que se torna possível na medida em que se promoveram a partir da 2a Guerra Mundial significativas alterações no Direito Internacional, que se afasta do paradigma vesfaliano de soberania. Aborda-se assim o excepcional desenvolvimento do Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, do Direito Internacional Humanitário e do Direito Penal Internacional, centralizados na ideia de responsabilidade. A tese também abrange o desenvolvimento do direito à verdade no seio da Organização das Nações Unidas e dos sistemas regionais de proteção de direitos humanos, tendo alcançado o status de norma imperativa ou peremptória, sendo explorados os obstáculos ao seu exercício como no caso de anistias e outras medidas similiares como a prescrição, a justiça militar e a coisa julgada. Enfrentam-se, ainda, as potencialidades e limites da verdade que resulta de comissões da verdade e dos tribunais, concebida esta como conhecimento sobre os fatos e o reconhecimento da responsabilidade pelo ocorrido. O trabalho aborda temas como a independência e imparcialidade das comissões de verdade, seus poderes e o alcance de suas conclusões e recomendações. Por sua vez, com vistas a identificar as verdades a serem alcançadas pelos tribunais, privilegia-se o processo criminal, por se entender que a sentença penal pressupõe o exercício mais completo do devido processo. A imperatividade do direito à verdade é também demonstrada pela defesa da participação da vítima no processo criminal e da admissão de culpa por parte do acusado -- ambos consagrados pelo Tratado de Roma. Por fim, a tese analisa alguns cenários para a complementaridade entre estes dois mecanismos de justiça de transição, fazendo o estudo dos casos do Chile, Peru, Serra Leoa e Quênia, casos estes permeados pelo Direito Internacional, seja pela influência da jurisdição universal ou pelo impacto da jurisdição internacional. O caso brasileiro, por certo, não se ajusta a nenhum destes cenários. Sua caracterização como um diálogo em aberto, para efeitos deste trabalho, pressupõe que o Brasil encontra-se em um importante momento de decisão sobre a complementaridade entre comissões da verdade e tribunais - a recente aprovação da Comissão Nacional da Verdade deve conviver com o aparente conflito entre a decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal, que afirmou a constitucionalidade da Lei de Anistia de 1979, e a decisão da Corte Interamericana no caso Araguaia, que entende nulos os dispositivos da lei que obstaculizam o processamento dos responsáveis, ambas no ano de 2010 - com a oportunidade de demonstrar que a passagem do tempo não arrefece as obrigações a que se comprometeu no cenário internacional. / The dissertation exposes the consolidation of the right to truth by international law and the complementarity of truth commissions and tribunals, both transitional justice mechanisms, as the combination that better confers its aplicability. First, the work claims that transition to and consolidation of democracy should provide accountability for past abuses, what became possible by the changes that have impacted international law after the World War II. The exceptional development of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law is explored, considered the idea of responsability. The dissertation takes care of the development of the right to truth within the United Nations Organization and the human rights regional systems, and its status of imperative or peremptory norm, as well the obstacles for its exercise in the case of amnesties and other similar measures as statute of limitation, military justice and doble jeopardy (res judicata). The truth that results from truth commissions and tribunais its potentialities and limits are here conceived as knowledge e acknowledgment of what occured. The work also considers aspects as the independence and impartiality of truth commissions, its powers and the reach of its conclusions and recommendations. On the other hand, considering the truth to be obtained by tribunals, the dissertation priviledges the analysis of criminal procedure, in the sense that a criminal veridict implies due process. The imperativity of the right to truth is also demonstrated by the participation of victims in the criminal procedure and the admission of guilty by the accused both celebrated by the Statute of Rome. The dissertation also covers some sceneries of complementarity between truth commissions and tribunals, making use of the case of Chile, Peru, Sierra Leone and Kenya, cases that suffered significant impact by international law, considered the influence of universal jurisdiction or the impact of international jurisdiction. The Brazilian case, at the end, does not fit precisely in any of these sceneries. Its caracterization as an open dialogue assumes that the country has come face to face with the debate of complementarity the recent approval of the National Truth Commission has to live together with the apparent conflict between two decisions held in 2010: the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the 1979 Amnesty Law and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Araguaia Case that considered null and void the parts of the law that obstacle the criminal persecution of the ones responsible -, and has opportunity to demonstrate that time has not moderated the obligations to which Brasil has compromised with in the international arena.

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. / O trabalho expõe a consolidação do direito à verdade pelo Direito Internacional e a complementaridade entre as comissões da verdade e os tribunais, mecanismos de justiça de transição, como a combinação que melhor lhe confere aplicabilidade. Primeiramente, a tese reivindica que a transição e a consolidação democrática devem se dar por meio da prestação de contas com o passado, o que se torna possível na medida em que se promoveram a partir da 2a Guerra Mundial significativas alterações no Direito Internacional, que se afasta do paradigma vesfaliano de soberania. Aborda-se assim o excepcional desenvolvimento do Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, do Direito Internacional Humanitário e do Direito Penal Internacional, centralizados na ideia de responsabilidade. A tese também abrange o desenvolvimento do direito à verdade no seio da Organização das Nações Unidas e dos sistemas regionais de proteção de direitos humanos, tendo alcançado o status de norma imperativa ou peremptória, sendo explorados os obstáculos ao seu exercício como no caso de anistias e outras medidas similiares como a prescrição, a justiça militar e a coisa julgada. Enfrentam-se, ainda, as potencialidades e limites da verdade que resulta de comissões da verdade e dos tribunais, concebida esta como conhecimento sobre os fatos e o reconhecimento da responsabilidade pelo ocorrido. O trabalho aborda temas como a independência e imparcialidade das comissões de verdade, seus poderes e o alcance de suas conclusões e recomendações. Por sua vez, com vistas a identificar as verdades a serem alcançadas pelos tribunais, privilegia-se o processo criminal, por se entender que a sentença penal pressupõe o exercício mais completo do devido processo. A imperatividade do direito à verdade é também demonstrada pela defesa da participação da vítima no processo criminal e da admissão de culpa por parte do acusado -- ambos consagrados pelo Tratado de Roma. Por fim, a tese analisa alguns cenários para a complementaridade entre estes dois mecanismos de justiça de transição, fazendo o estudo dos casos do Chile, Peru, Serra Leoa e Quênia, casos estes permeados pelo Direito Internacional, seja pela influência da jurisdição universal ou pelo impacto da jurisdição internacional. O caso brasileiro, por certo, não se ajusta a nenhum destes cenários. Sua caracterização como um diálogo em aberto, para efeitos deste trabalho, pressupõe que o Brasil encontra-se em um importante momento de decisão sobre a complementaridade entre comissões da verdade e tribunais - a recente aprovação da Comissão Nacional da Verdade deve conviver com o aparente conflito entre a decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal, que afirmou a constitucionalidade da Lei de Anistia de 1979, e a decisão da Corte Interamericana no caso Araguaia, que entende nulos os dispositivos da lei que obstaculizam o processamento dos responsáveis, ambas no ano de 2010 - com a oportunidade de demonstrar que a passagem do tempo não arrefece as obrigações a que se comprometeu no cenário internacional. / The dissertation exposes the consolidation of the right to truth by international law and the complementarity of truth commissions and tribunals, both transitional justice mechanisms, as the combination that better confers its aplicability. First, the work claims that transition to and consolidation of democracy should provide accountability for past abuses, what became possible by the changes that have impacted international law after the World War II. The exceptional development of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law is explored, considered the idea of responsability. The dissertation takes care of the development of the right to truth within the United Nations Organization and the human rights regional systems, and its status of imperative or peremptory norm, as well the obstacles for its exercise in the case of amnesties and other similar measures as statute of limitation, military justice and doble jeopardy (res judicata). The truth that results from truth commissions and tribunais its potentialities and limits are here conceived as knowledge e acknowledgment of what occured. The work also considers aspects as the independence and impartiality of truth commissions, its powers and the reach of its conclusions and recommendations. On the other hand, considering the truth to be obtained by tribunals, the dissertation priviledges the analysis of criminal procedure, in the sense that a criminal veridict implies due process. The imperativity of the right to truth is also demonstrated by the participation of victims in the criminal procedure and the admission of guilty by the accused both celebrated by the Statute of Rome. The dissertation also covers some sceneries of complementarity between truth commissions and tribunals, making use of the case of Chile, Peru, Sierra Leone and Kenya, cases that suffered significant impact by international law, considered the influence of universal jurisdiction or the impact of international jurisdiction. The Brazilian case, at the end, does not fit precisely in any of these sceneries. Its caracterization as an open dialogue assumes that the country has come face to face with the debate of complementarity the recent approval of the National Truth Commission has to live together with the apparent conflict between two decisions held in 2010: the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the 1979 Amnesty Law and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Araguaia Case that considered null and void the parts of the law that obstacle the criminal persecution of the ones responsible -, and has opportunity to demonstrate that time has not moderated the obligations to which Brasil has compromised with in the international arena.

L’échec de l’impérativité du droit international pénal et la fragilité de la justice pénale internationale qui en résulte ne dépendent pas du choix normatif d’un modèle de juridiction, ad hoc ou conventionnel, mais simplement des défaillances et des réticences des États à l’égard de la norme choisie. Ce constat d’évidence trouve sa confirmation dans le processus de mise en place et de fonctionnement de la Cour pénale internationale, fâcheusement contournée à faire prévaloir sur la lutte contre l’impunité une lutte pour la « justiciabilité » des auteurs des crimes les plus graves qui heurtent la conscience de l’Humanité : crimes contre l’humanité, crime de génocide, crimes de guerre, crime d’agression. L’obstacle qu’elle doit essentiellement surmonter est en effet que sa compétence peut être délibérément mise en échec à tout moment, directement ou indirectement, par tout État avant tout soucieux de sa propre souveraineté, qu’il soit ou non partie au Statut de Rome. L’observation des stratégies étatiques montre d’une part que la faculté de renoncer à l’exercice de sa propre compétence répressive se traduit par une négation de l’impérativité des engagements souscrits auparavant, certains Etats se désolidarisent de la répression dont ils se sont désistés. D’autre part, et à l’inverse, l’exercice légitime de sa compétence répressive par un Etat peut très facilement lui permettre de glisser vers une obstruction chronique de la juridiction internationale, voire ou déni du droit impératif qui la régit. En l’absence d’une réelle reconnaissance de la juridiction internationale, les conséquences de telles attitudes sont d’une ampleur qui dépasse l’imagination. Seul un comportement coopératif et constructif, affranchi des compromis égoïstes et opportunistes des États, pourrait parer au risque actuel d’une érosion progressive de l’architecture punitive partagée mise en place par les États eux-mêmes lors de la création de la Cour pénale internationale et ainsi de garantir que soient punis à coup sûr les auteurs de crimes insupportables. / The failure to make international criminal law imperative and the resulting fragility of international criminal justice should not be understood as the consequence of a normative choice toward a jurisdictional model, be it ad hoc or conventional. Rather, it derives from the State's weaknesses and reluctance to abide by the chosen norm. This is clearly confirmed by the very way the International Criminal Court was implemented, functions and is being sadly circumvented. Instead of bolstering the fight against impunity, it focuses on the fight for the “justiciability” of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, resulting in subsequent negative effects on Humanity’s consciousness: crimes against humanity, crime of genocide, war crimes and crime of aggression. Owing to the fact that a State's primary concern is its own sovereignty, the biggest obstacle the Court has to overcome remains that at any moment, directly or indirectly, its competence can be intentionally overruled by any State, signatory or not of the Treaty of Rome. Observing State strategies shows that relinquishing one’s repressive authority is generally seen through a negation of formerly made commitments: some States dissociate from the repression monopoly they disclaim. Conversely, the legitimate exercise of a State’s repressive authority can easily result in regular obstruction of international jurisdiction, and even the refusal of the imperative law that governs it. Without any genuine recognition of international jurisdiction, such attitudes have undeniable serious consequences that far outreach the imagination. The only solution is cooperative and constructive behavior, free of opportunistic and selfish compromises of States. This behavior could protect against the current risk of the progressive erosion regarding shared punitive organization which States themselves implemented through the creation of the International Criminal Court. The result would guarantee the punishment of perpetrators of unbearable crimes.

The thesis analyses the legality of the use of drones in warfare based on the examination of three specific case studies. Firstly the use of armed drones in Afghanistan 2001 and 2002, then Pakistan drone strikes ongoing since 2004 and lastly the Yemen case study. A developed legal framework is used to assess the legality of the use of drones. Furthermore, it briefly touches upon the aspects of morality and ethics of the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles in combat.

The development of joint criminal enterprise at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been controversial since the doctrine was first created in 1997. For the judgments rendered by the ICTY to be perceived as legitimate, the doctrines used to bring charges against defendants must also be perceived as legitimate. The purpose of my thesis is to study the application of joint criminal enterprise at the ICTY and examine how the doctrine has influenced the length of sentences given. I find that joint criminal enterprise may be influencing longer sentences and the three categories of joint criminal enterprise are being used differently on defendants of different power levels. By empirically analyzing the patterns developing at the ICTY, I can see how joint criminal enterprise is influencing sentencing and the fairness of trials.

Cette étude s’intéresse aux enjeux éthiques de l’advocacy et de la défense des droits comme composante de l’humanitaire d’urgence. Les violences sexuelles sont devenues des instruments de guerre, utilisées à des fins politiques et militaires. Les plaidoyers qui sont habituellement une fonction des organisations humanitaires des droits de l’homme intègrent les interventions humanitaires d’urgence. Le recours à l’advocacy dans le milieu humanitaire expose les missions humanitaires à des tensions et dilemmes éthiques notamment en ce qui concerne l’accès aux victimes et la défense de leurs droits, le principe d’humanité et le principe de neutralité. L’advocacy représente également un danger pour l’image apolitique des organisations humanitaires et ébranle la confiance des États belligérants aux conflits. Face à ces dangers que présente l’advocacy, la question se pose sur les raisons qui peuvent justifier une partie advocacy dans les interventions humanitaires dans le cas des violences sexuelles utilisées à des fins politiques. A partir d’une méthode décrite comme un essai interdisciplinaire et critique de théorie du droit, notre argumentation et nos preuves sont structurées afin de justifier l’hypothèse selon laquelle le silence face au non-respect de la dignité humaine et des droits des victimes est contraire aux valeurs universelles et à l’esprit d’humanité qui sont la raison d’être des actions humanitaires, que cela renforce également l’État de non-droit et l’impunité des auteurs des crimes, mais en même temps cela accentue la stigmatisation des victimes. En effet, le silence des organismes humanitaires qui sont témoins des violations des droits fondamentaux, perpétue la culture du silence qui accompagne habituellement les actes de violence sexuelle et ne permet pas de restaurer la paix ni de prévenir que cela ne revienne dans le futur. La collecte des données pour étayer cette hypothèse s’effectue à partir d’une recherche documentaire analysée de manière critique, réflexive et interdisciplinaire. Le caractère oscillatoire de l’essai, entre les différentes disciplines, a fait ressortir que sur le plan moral, le silence complice est contraire à l’esprit de l’humanitaire. L’advocacy est une interprétation du principe d’humanité qui est l’essence de l’assistance humanitaire. La prise en charge des victimes par les organisations humanitaires ne saurait se limiter, de ce fait, à la médecine humanitaire d’urgence. En même temps, l’obligation de réserve et de confidentialité est également contraire au principe de « first do not harm ». Soigner et soutenir les victimes nécessite que l’action humanitaire soit étendue aux protections de la vie humaine dans un sens holistique et aussi aux défenses des droits des victimes. Sur le plan juridique, l’analyse des paradigmes concernant l’humanitaire démontre que les mécanismes juridiques mis en place pour protéger les personnes, en temps de conflit, sont en grande partie tributaires des organisations humanitaires et de leurs rôles en tant que « gardiens » du droit international. Le plaidoyer et la défense des droits sont devenus des obligations légales implicites des organisations humanitaires pour prévenir la résurgence des violations des règles de droit dans le futur mais également dans le but de réprimer les auteurs des crimes. / This study looks at the ethical issues of advocacy and rights-based approaches to emergency humanitarian work. Sexual violence has become an instrument of war, used for political and military purposes. Advocacy, which is usually a function of humanitarian human rights organizations, is becoming part of emergency humanitarian response. The use of advocacy in humanitarian settings exposes humanitarian missions to ethical tensions and dilemmas, particularly with regard to access to victims and the defense of their rights, the principle of humanity and the principle of neutrality. Advocacy also represents a danger to the apolitical image of humanitarian organizations and therefore undermines the confidence of belligerent states in conflicts. In view of these dangers of advocacy, the question arises as to what reasons might justify advocacy in humanitarian interventions in the case of politically motivated sexual violence. From a method described as an interdisciplinary and critical essay of legal theory, our argument and evidence will be structured to justify the hypothesis that silence in the face of non-respect for human dignity and the rights of victims is contrary to the universal values and spirit of humanity that are the raison d'être of humanitarian actions, that it also reinforces the state of lawlessness and impunity of perpetrators, but at the same time it accentuates the stigmatization of victims. In fact, the silence of humanitarian organizations that witness violations of fundamental rights perpetuates the culture of silence that usually accompanies acts of sexual violence and does not help to restore peace or prevent it from happening again in the future. The collection of data to support this hypothesis is based on a documentary research that is critically analyzed, reflexive and interdisciplinary. The oscillating nature of the essay, across disciplines, made it clear that morally, complicit silence is contrary to the spirit of humanitarianism. Advocacy is an interpretation of the principle of humanity that is the essence of humanitarian assistance. The care of victims by humanitarian organizations cannot therefore be limited to emergency humanitarian medicine. At the same time, the obligation of reserve and confidentiality is also contrary to the "first do not harm" principle. Caring for and supporting victims requires that humanitarian action be extended to the protection of human life in a holistic sense and also to the defense of victims' rights. From a legal perspective, the analysis of humanitarian paradigms demonstrates that the legal mechanisms put in place to protect people in times of conflict are largely dependent on humanitarian organizations and their roles as "gatekeepers" of international law. Advocacy has become a legal obligation of humanitarian organizations as a preventive measure against future violations of the rule of law, but also as a repressive measure against perpetrators.