Trata-se de tese de doutorado que analisa a possibilidade da adoção de contramedidas por Estados não diretamente lesados por um ato ilícito internacional diante da violação de uma norma protetora de direitos humanos. Partindo do estudo sobre a responsabilidade internacional dos Estados, analisam-se as consequências jurídicas advindas desta responsabilidade, dentre elas, o direito de outros Estados de adotarem contramedidas contra o Estado violador do Direito Internacional. Com base em pesquisa documental, jurisprudencial e bibliográfica, averigua-se a legalidade da adoção de contramedidas por Estados não diretamente lesados, levando-se em conta o trabalho da Comissão de Direito Internacional da ONU, a jurisprudência, a doutrina e a prática dos Estados nesta matéria. Argumenta-se que a existência de uma norma consuetudinária garante o direito dos Estados recorrerem a contramedidas mesmo quando estes não tenham sido diretamente lesados pelo ato internacionalmente ilícito, nos casos em que a obrigação violada é devida à comunidade internacional como um todo. Estuda-se também a necessidade da adoção das contramedidas em resposta a violações graves a normas de proteção de direitos humanos fundamentais, tendo em vista o sistema global de proteção destes direitos. Conclui-se que, diante da eficácia limitada dos mecanismos de proteção global dos direitos humanos do Direito Internacional atual, as contramedidas adotadas por Estados não diretamente lesados são não somente legais, mas necessárias à garantia da mais ampla proteção aos direitos humanos fundamentais. / This work is a doctoral thesis that analyzes the possibility of the resort to countermeasures by non directly injured States in light of the violation of a norm protecting human rights. Starting from a study of the international responsibility, the legal consequences of this responsibility are analyzed, among them, the right of other States to adopt countermeasures against the State violating the International Law. Based on a documental, jurisprudential and bibliographic research, the legality of the adoption of countermeasures by non directly injured States is verified taking in account the work of the International Law Commission of the UN, the jurisprudence, and the State practice in the subject. It is argued that the existence of a customary norm guarantees the right of States to resort to countermeasures even when they are not directly injured by the internationally unlawful act, in the cases where the violated obligation is due to the international community as a whole. The necessity of the resort to countermeasures in light of serious violations of norms protecting fundamental human rights in view of the global system for protection of these rights. It is concluded that in view of the limited efficacy of the global mechanisms for the protection of human rights in the current International Law, the countermeasures adopted by non directly injured States are not only legal, but also necessary to the guarantee of the broadest protection of fundamental human rights.

Trata-se de tese de doutorado que analisa a possibilidade da adoção de contramedidas por Estados não diretamente lesados por um ato ilícito internacional diante da violação de uma norma protetora de direitos humanos. Partindo do estudo sobre a responsabilidade internacional dos Estados, analisam-se as consequências jurídicas advindas desta responsabilidade, dentre elas, o direito de outros Estados de adotarem contramedidas contra o Estado violador do Direito Internacional. Com base em pesquisa documental, jurisprudencial e bibliográfica, averigua-se a legalidade da adoção de contramedidas por Estados não diretamente lesados, levando-se em conta o trabalho da Comissão de Direito Internacional da ONU, a jurisprudência, a doutrina e a prática dos Estados nesta matéria. Argumenta-se que a existência de uma norma consuetudinária garante o direito dos Estados recorrerem a contramedidas mesmo quando estes não tenham sido diretamente lesados pelo ato internacionalmente ilícito, nos casos em que a obrigação violada é devida à comunidade internacional como um todo. Estuda-se também a necessidade da adoção das contramedidas em resposta a violações graves a normas de proteção de direitos humanos fundamentais, tendo em vista o sistema global de proteção destes direitos. Conclui-se que, diante da eficácia limitada dos mecanismos de proteção global dos direitos humanos do Direito Internacional atual, as contramedidas adotadas por Estados não diretamente lesados são não somente legais, mas necessárias à garantia da mais ampla proteção aos direitos humanos fundamentais. / This work is a doctoral thesis that analyzes the possibility of the resort to countermeasures by non directly injured States in light of the violation of a norm protecting human rights. Starting from a study of the international responsibility, the legal consequences of this responsibility are analyzed, among them, the right of other States to adopt countermeasures against the State violating the International Law. Based on a documental, jurisprudential and bibliographic research, the legality of the adoption of countermeasures by non directly injured States is verified taking in account the work of the International Law Commission of the UN, the jurisprudence, and the State practice in the subject. It is argued that the existence of a customary norm guarantees the right of States to resort to countermeasures even when they are not directly injured by the internationally unlawful act, in the cases where the violated obligation is due to the international community as a whole. The necessity of the resort to countermeasures in light of serious violations of norms protecting fundamental human rights in view of the global system for protection of these rights. It is concluded that in view of the limited efficacy of the global mechanisms for the protection of human rights in the current International Law, the countermeasures adopted by non directly injured States are not only legal, but also necessary to the guarantee of the broadest protection of fundamental human rights.

La responsabilité internationale est un ensemble de conséquences liées à laviolation des obligations internationales, soit le lien juridique par lequel un sujet de droitinternational est tenu, envers un ou plusieurs autres sujets, d’adopter un comportementdéterminé ou de s’en abstenir. S’il y a un comportement illicite, la Communautéinternationale peut intervenir, c’est ce que l’on dénomme souvent « droit d’ingérence ». Cedernier a évolué récemment vers une nouvelle terminologie introduite dans le rapport de laCIISE : « responsabilité de protéger ». C’est un concept selon lequel les Etats souverains ontl’obligation de protéger leurs propres populations contre des catastrophes de grande ampleur.Dans la dynamique du dépassement de l’antagonisme entre souveraineté et intervention, nousanalyserons le comportement de la Communauté internationale face à la « responsabilité deprotéger », le rôle qui lui incombe lorsque l’Etat faillit à ses obligations. Au-delà de cesauteurs, il reste encore à définir quels sont les bénéficiaires de cette protection, sa mise enœuvre et ses limites. Si la notion de « responsabilité de protéger » ne constitue pas seulementune nouvelle terminologie, garantit-t-elle un degré de protection plus élevé par rapport au« droit d’ingérence ». / International responsibility is a set of consequences connected to the violation ofinternational obligations, this being the legal ties which bind a subject of international law toadopt a defined way of behaving towards another or others or to abstain. If there is illicitconduct the International Community can intervene, which is often named “right ofintervention”. The latter hasrecently developeda new terminology introduced in the (ICISS)report: “responsibility to protect”. It is a concept according to which the sovereign states havethe obligation to protect their own populations against large-scale catastrophes.From theperspective of going beyond the opposition between sovereignty and intervention we willanalyse the behaviour of the International Community faced with the “responsibility toprotect”, its incumbent role when the state fails in its obligations.Aside from its creators itremains to be seen who will benefit from this protection, its implementation and its limits. Ifthe notion of the “responsibility to protect” not only constitutes new terminology, does itchange an issue already raised by the “right of intervention”: military deployment with aimswhich are not purely military?

Cette étude aborde la problématique de la participation des personnes morales de droit public à l’arbitrage à l’occasion des litiges relatifs aux relations qu’elles entretiennent avec les personnes privées étrangères. Par opportunisme économique, un certain nombre de pays développés et en développement se montrent tout à fait favorables à ce que l’État se soumette au contentieux arbitral. Dans d’autres pays, tels qu’en Amérique latine et dans le monde arabe, il se manifeste des tendances nettement hostiles gravitant entre l’interdiction totale et une adhésion conditionnelle de l’État à l’arbitrage. Deux écoles s’affrontent, celle des privatistes qui considèrent l’arbitre international comme le juge naturel du milieu des affaires, face à celle des étatistes qui postulent que les juridictions étatiques demeurent les seules habiles à connaitre souverainement des litiges opposants les personnes publiques à leur interlocuteur privé. Les raisons qui sous-tendent l’assouplissement de certains gouvernements vers un élan libéral de l’arbitrage en droit public, résultent du phénomène globalisant de l’économie qui tend à réduire à néant les règles internes des États dans le cadre du nouvel ordre économique mondial. Par contre, les conséquences sociales, financières et juridiques des sentences arbitrales portent certains gouvernements à adopter une position réfractaire à l’arbitrage mettant en cause les entités publiques. Ils brandissent le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples pour éviter le bradage de leurs ressources au détriment des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels de leurs populations, et ce, en dépit du fait que l’investissement direct étranger joue un rôle considérable dans le développement des pays en émergence. Notre défi ultime dans ce travail est d’explorer les diverses avenues permettant d’atteindre un juste équilibre entre les intérêts publics et la protection des investissements privés. Ceci exige un changement de paradigme qui prendra en compte les dimensions plurielles que constitue le contentieux investisseurs-États. / This study investigates the difficulties that arise when legal disputes between public bodies and foreign private entities are resolved through arbitration. For economic expediency, some Western states and developing countries are quite open to the idea of resolving legal disputes by submitting to arbitration proceedings. Other countries, such as Latin America and the Arab world, have a clearly hostile approach to state participation in arbitration proceedings, ranging from total prohibition to conditional submission. There is a clash between two schools of thought: the privatist approach that considers international arbitration to be the business community’s natural forum, as opposed to the statist approach according to which only state courts are qualified to consider legal disputes between public bodies and private entities. The underlying reasons for the increased flexibility of certain governments in favor of a liberal move towards public law arbitration are a result of the globalizing effect of the economy, which tends to decimate domestic state laws within the framework of the new global economic order. On the other hand, the social, financial and legal consequences of arbitration awards render some governments resistant to arbitration involving public entities. They brandish the right to self-determination of peoples to guard against the depletion of their resources to the detriment of the economic, social and cultural rights of their populations. This is despite the fact that foreign direct investment plays a considerable role in the development of emerging countries. The ultimate aim of this study is to explore different avenues for striking a fair balance between public interests and the protection of private investments. This requires a paradigmatic change so as to take into account the multiple dimensions of legal disputes between the state and investors.

Le droit des investissements internationaux est largement présenté au travers de la jurisprudence arbitrale, notamment celle du CIRDI. Une telle approche a paru insuffisante. En effet, dans l'examen des questions touchant le droit des investissements internationaux, la jurisprudence de la CIJ et de sa devancière semble être un passage obligé à certains égards. S'agissant de règles primaires, c’est dans la jurisprudence de la Cour qu’ont émergé et pris forme certaines règles substantielles relatives aux investissements internationaux, et dont la désuétude est loin d'être établie par l'avènement du CIRDI. Par ailleurs, le rôle général de la Cour dans le fonctionnement de l'ordre juridique international à travers les règles juridictionnelles, procédurales, d’interprétation ou encore de responsabilité internationale, est indéniable. Or, certaines de ces règles se présentent comme des chapitres incontournables du droit des investissements internationaux. Ce sont là autant de raisons qui ont conduit à entreprendre une étude sur Le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ et le CIRDI en l’abordant au travers de la question de savoir si les tribunaux CIRDI puisent dans l’héritage de la Cour sur les problématiques juridiques relatives aux investissements internationaux ou s’en départissent. La confrontation des jurisprudences de la Cour et des tribunaux CIRDI a permis de conclure que le droit des investissements internationaux vu par la CIJ n’est que partiellement le droit des investissements internationaux vu par les tribunaux CIRDI. Globalement, sur une problématique donnée, en même temps que certaines solutions retenues par la jurisprudence des tribunaux CIRDI dénotent un emprunt aux règles et principes posés par la Cour, d’autres s’en départissent, qu'il s'agisse des règles primaires en la matière, ou bien des règles secondaires du droit international dans leur déclinaison dans le cadre du droit des investissements internationaux. Parce qu’elle livre, entre autres, une vue d’ensemble de la jurisprudence de la Cour de la Haye en matière d’investissements internationaux – démarche inédite –, la thèse se présente comme une piste pour les arbitres sur le chemin de l’émergence d’une jurisprudence arbitrale cohérente en droit des investissements internationaux. / To international investment law questions, the ICJ decisions are materials that must be taken into consideration. Indeed, substantive rules in international investment law and their issues are older than the ICSID creation. The legal issues had already been raised in the Court which set rules and principles covering international investment law principles. Thus, it is into the Court’s decisions that some rules relating to international investments was created. From this perspective, the ICJ cases could be seen as a legitimate forerunner for substantive rules in international investment law. In the other hand, the ICJ has a main role in the development and promotion of the rules of international litigation, some of which are of relevance in international investment law. The present work, by using the ICJ cases as guidance precedents, challenges the ICSID decisions to determine if the ICSID follows or not the rules and principles raised by the Court in international investment law. The analysis shows that if some ICSID decisions borrow the principles and rules established by the ICJ, others follow new ways in both primary and secondary rules in international investment law.

Ma thèse vise en premier ressort à étudier toutes les questions juridiques concernant la ‘question arménienne’.D’abord, le sujet de l’existence des éléments du crime de génocide en 1915 au niveau du droit international conventionnel a été notre première question à étudier. Ensuite, il était indispensable d’étudier la nature du crime commis envers les Arméniens ottomans en 1915.En plus, est-ce que l’Etat Turc actuel peut-il être responsable d’un crime commis par l’Empire ottoman, selon le principe de la succession d’Etats en droit international, surtout que l’Etat Turc n’était créé qu’en 1923 ? Et en cas de l’existence de cette responsabilité, est-ce que l’Arménie a droit à l’action en responsabilité, surtout qu’au moment de la perpétration du crime, il n’y avait pas un Etat Arménien ? Les victimes étaient des ressortissants de l’Empire ottoman mais d’origine arménienne. Donc il faudra étudier la qualité de l’Arménie pour agir en justice, par des moyens judiciaires ou extrajudiciaires, vis-à-vis surtout du principe de la non-rétroactivité des traités, surtout que dans notre cas, le crime a été perpétré en 1915, alors que la Convention sur le génocide n’a été promulguée qu’en 1948.En fait, notre thèse vise en dernier ressort à rapprocher les deux pays et mettre fin réellement au conflit entre eux, à percevoir ce qui les rassemblent et non ce qui les divisent, et trouver une solution équitable et objective pour les deux pays afin de contribuer à mettre fin à leur litige historique, et cela à travers une étude réaliste, impartiale et basée sur la logique et la nature des choses et des circonstances du fait existantes. / The main purpose of my thesis is to study all the legal issues concerning the 'Armenian question'.First, the existence of the elements of the crime of genocide in 1915 at the conventional international law, made our first question to consider. Then, it was necessary to study the nature of the crime committed against the Ottoman Armenians in 1915.In addition, can Turkey be responsible for a crime committed by the Ottoman Empire, according to the principle of succession of States in international law, especially that the Turkish state was created in 1923?And in case of such responsibility, has Armenia the right to maintain a lawsuit against Turkey, especially at the time of the crime, there was no Armenian state?The victims were citizens of the Ottoman Empire but of Armenian descent.Also, the quality of Armenia to take legal action, by judicial or extrajudicial processes, must be studied, regarding especially to the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties, especially that in our case, the crime was committed in 1915, while the Genocide Convention was enacted in 1948.In fact, our thesis aims ultimately to bring the two countries closer and actually try to help reach the end of the conflict between them, perceive what gather them and not what divides them, and find a fair and objective solution for both countries, in order to help put an end to their historic dispute, and that through a realistic and impartial study, based on logic and the nature of things and the circumstances of the existing.