Le Code pénal consacre au sein de son Livre IV une section intitulée « Des manquements au devoir de probité », héritage de l’ancienne forfaiture. La catégorie n’a cessé d’évoluer au plan interne, appuyé par le droit pénal international, puisque ce ne sont pas moins de six conventions pénales qui l’influencent aujourd’hui. Il en ressort un véritable foisonnement normatif qui repose pour l’essentiel sur l’incrimination. Son étude méthodique permet d’observer un droit pénal arraché de son ultima ratio, mettant à mal sa fonction dissuasive. La pédagogie du Code pénal est également atteinte à l’heure où les manquements visés n’annoncent plus clairement ce qu’ils répriment. Dans ce contexte, depuis 2013, le législateur a fait de l’exemplarité la toile de fond des manquements au devoir de probité. Au-delà de l’affichage individuel, le travail de recherche invite à s’interroger sur la mise en œuvre d’une telle fonction par le droit pénal. Un « manquement » a une connotation morale plus forte que la violation d’une règle juridique. Un « devoir » suppose une règle plus sociale qu’une simple obligation. C’est dire que la répression entend punir un « faire-valoir », pour donner une consistance à la chose publique dans laquelle la société croit et dont les personnes exerçant une fonction publique sont les gardiens. Ces incriminations moralisatrices resserrées autour d’une responsabilité pénale à fondement social permettent de faire apparaître la pénalité sous un nouveau jour. En se recentrant sur son application, la thèse redécouvre ainsi la fonction d’exemplarité du droit pénal. / Book IV of the Criminal Code is devoted to a section entitled « Failures in the duty of probity », formerly referred to in French law as « forfaiture », i.e. serious abuse of office. This category has constantly evolved in domestic law, under the influence of international criminal law, since today it is concerned by no fewer than six criminal law conventions. The result is a veritable proliferation of legislation based mainly on the creation of offences. Its systematic review reveals criminal law torn from its ultima ratio, undermining its dissuasive function. The educational aspect of the Criminal Code is also diminished when it is no longer clear what is repressed in the targeted failures. In this context, since 2013, legislation has set failures in the duty of probity against the backdrop of exemplarity. Going beyond an individual stand, this research invites us to question such an approach by criminal law. « Failure » has a moral undertone greater than the breach of a legal rule. A « duty » implies a rule more social than a simple obligation. This means that repression intends punishing a « foil », which, by contrast, gives substance to the public good in which society believes and for which individuals performing a public function are the guardians. These moralising regulations to punish defined offenses, based on the notion of socially-founded criminal responsibility, allow the penalty to be seen in a new light. By refocusing on its application, the analysis thus rediscovers the function of exemplarity in criminal law.

Pour identifier des limites internationales de la liberté de l’État en matière fiscale, il convient d’étudier non seulement sa compétence fiscale — envers qui il peut exercer le pouvoir fiscal — mais aussi son pouvoir fiscal — ce qu’il peut faire dans l’exercice de ce pouvoir. Ces éléments sont éclaircis à travers l’analyse de la pratique étatique et de la jurisprudence internationale. La compétence fiscale de l’État ne repose pas sur une habilitation par l’ordre juridique international, mais doit être appréhendée sous le prisme des deux faces de l’État : personne publique et sujet de droit international. D’une part, les États disposent d’un pouvoir fiscal originaire de leur constitution comme personnes publiques souveraines. D’une autre part, en tant que sujets de droit international, ils peuvent se reconnaître des droits et des obligations subjectifs, et donc aménager l’exercice de leurs pouvoirs fiscaux par la détermination des sphères de leurs compétences par la conclusion d’engagements interétatiques. En dehors de cette hypothèse, les critères de rattachement fiscal sont des représentations d’une relation entre l’État et le sujet ou l’objet de l’impôt selon l’appréciation de l’État normateur, et non pas des règles certaines de compétence internationale.La liberté de l’État de déterminer le contenu de son pouvoir fiscal est encadrée de manière rudimentaire par le droit international. Cet encadrement implique essentiellement l’inopposabilité des normes fiscales d’effet extraterritorial et l’interdiction de réalisation d’opérations matérielles en territoire étranger. Pour autant, parce qu’il est souverain, l’État peut consentir à des limitations de son pouvoir fiscal dans le cadre de la coopération ou l’intégration internationale, sans que le titre de son pouvoir ne soit contesté. / In order to determine the international limits of State freedom in tax matters, one should take into account not only thescope of the power to tax (i.e. the competence to tax), but also its content, in relation to the exercise of the power to tax.Therefore, jurisdiction to tax is a twofold concept: it entails a competence to tax — with regard to whom a State may exerciseits power to tax — and a power to tax — what a State may do while exercising this power. Its analysis is based on Statepractice and international case law.Competence to tax is not based on an empowerment by international law. Its analysis has to be guided by the idea thatStates have two facets: they are public persons and at the same time international law subjects. First, the creation ofStates as sovereign public persons marks the origin of their jurisdiction to tax. Secondly, as international law subjects, Statesmay recognize rights and assume obligations. Thus, they can adjust the exercise of their power to tax by establishing theirscope through double taxation conventions. In all other cases, tax nexus criteria do not constitute certain rules ofjurisdiction, but merely depict the way States conceive their relationship with a tax subject or object.International law restrictions to the exercise of the power to tax are minor. Indeed, these restrictions mainly entail theunenforceability of tax rules with extraterritorial effect and the prohibition of material acts of enforcement on foreignterritory. Therefore, as sovereign subjects, States are free to allow restrictions to their powers through internationalcooperation and integration. Such restrictions do not challenge the foundations of their power to tax.

La question des traités internationaux devant la juridiction constitutionnelle ivoirienne est une illustration du contentieux interne relatif au droit international conventionnel. Dans le cadre de ce contentieux relatif aux rapports entre le droit international et le droit interne, la juridiction constitutionnelle est amenée à se prononcer sur la constitutionnalité des traités internationaux avant leur insertion dans l’ordre juridique ivoirien. Les modalités d’introduction des traités internationaux en droit ivoirien traduisent l’option du pays en faveur de la doctrine moniste avec primauté du droit international. Les traités régulièrement ratifiés sont automatiquement incorporés au droit interne et ont, dès leur publication, une autorité supérieure à celle des lois internes. Cependant, avant leur ratification, la Constitution prévoit une procédure de vérification de leur constitutionnalité. Ce contrôle préventif a pour effet d’empêcher l'entrée dans l'ordre juridique ivoirien de tout traité international contraire à la Constitution, en dehors de l’intervention du pouvoir constituant. Si le traité est déclaré contraire à la Constitution, l’autorisation de le ratifier ne peut intervenir qu’après la révision constitutionnelle. Le mécanisme de contrôle mis en place par la Constitution de 1960 et reconduit par la Constitution de 2000 actuellement en vigueur a connu une évolution notable relativement à ses conditions d’exercice. Celles-ci ont été progressivement et considérablement élargies par les textes dans le but de faciliter et favoriser le déclenchement du contrôle…. Au total, la juridiction constitutionnelle n’a pu se pencher que sur une vingtaine de traités dont elle a, tant bien que mal, apprécié la conformité à la Constitution. Dans la confrontation de la norme internationale avec la Constitution, l’attitude du juge constitutionnel, emprunte parfois d’hésitations, repose largement sur une interprétation assez libérale de l’exigence de non-contrariété qui aboutit à faciliter la participation de l’État au droit international conventionnel en général et au droit communautaire africain en particulier. En effet, jusqu’ici, l’exercice du contrôle de la constitutionnalité des traités a révélé que, loin de constituer un « frein au développement du droit international », comme aurait pu laisser présager le mécanisme du contrôle, de façon générale, celui-ci s’avère plutôt favorable à l’influence du droit international. Seul le traité de Rome portant Statut de la Cour pénale internationale a été déclaré contraire à la Constitution par le Conseil constitutionnel dans sa décision du 17 décembre 2003. La révision constitutionnelle attendue en vue de la ratification du Traité de Rome permettra d’apprécier l’exécution des décisions de contrariété rendues par l’instance constitutionnelle. / The issue of international treaties before the Ivorian constitutional court is an illustration of the internal dispute relating to international treaty law. In the framework of this dispute concerning the relationship between international law and national law, the constitutional court is asked to decide on the conformity of international treaties before their integration in the Ivorian legal order. The conditions of integration of international treaties in the Ivorian domestic law reflect the country’s option in favor of the monist doctrine with primacy of international law. Treaties duly ratified are automatically incorporated into the national law and shall, upon publication, prevail over Acts of Parliament. However, before their ratification, the Constitution provides a procedure for the review of their constitutionality. The effect of this preventive review is to avoid the entry of unconstitutional international treaties into the Ivorian legal order without the decision and intervention of the constituent power. If the treaty is held not to be in conformity with the Constitution, authorization to ratify it may be given only after amending the Constitution. The mechanism of constitutional review established by the Constitution of 1960 and extended by the Constitution of 2000 (currently in force) undergone significant evolution regarding its conditions of implementation. These conditions were considerably widened in order to facilitate the release of control… In total, the constitutional court was able to look into only twenty or so treaties for which, somehow, the judge reviewed compliance with the Constitution. In the confrontation of treaties with Constitution, the attitude of the constitutional court is sometimes hesitant. Its interpretation of the requirement of non-contradiction between the treaty and the Constitution generally leads to facilitate the participation of the State to International law in general and African community law in particular. Indeed, so far, the practice of the constitutional review by the judge revealed that, the review, far from being an "obstacle to the development of international law", as could foreshadow its mechanism, is rather favorable to its development. Only the Treaty laying down the Statute of the International Criminal Court was declared not to be in conformity with the Constitution by the constitutional court in its decision of 17 December 2003. The amendment of the Constitution that is expected for the ratification of this treaty will be an opportunity to appreciate the enforcement of non-conformity decisions.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.