Le contentieux administratif de la séparation des Eglises et de l’Etat sous la IIIe République est un objet ancien de curiosité doctrinale. Un renouvellement de l’approche traditionnelle était cependant possible. Alors que les études classiques insistent sur l’apport du Conseil d’Etat à la réussite de la Séparation et à la protection des libertés de conscience et des cultes, il est envisageable d’étudier la jurisprudence sous l’angle des interactions entre les institutions républicaines et le contrôle juridictionnel de l’administration. Soumise à cette problématique, l’oeuvre du Conseil d’Etat permet une approche monografique de l’histoire de la juridiction administrative républicaine révélant les influences réciproques entre le juge administratif et les institutions républicaines. Dans le cas du contentieux de la Séparation, la jurisprudence administrative a ainsi joué un rôle décisif dans la mise en oeuvre et l’approfondissement des grands principes de la loi du 9 décembre 1905, contribuant à donner une consistance à la notion juridique de laïcité de l’Etat. Dans le même temps, et spécialement dans le cadre du contentieux de la police des cultes, le contexte politique et juridique de la Séparation a contribué à la construction du recours pour excès de pouvoir républicain. Cet apport s’est manisfesté par la modernisation des techniques de contrôle juridictionnel et par un encadrement plus étroit du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’autorité de police. En abordant ces deux aspects du contentieux de la Séparation, cette étude voudrait éclairer la transformation d’une justice administrative d’inspiration impériale en une justice administrative démocratique et républicaine. / Law scolars are traditionnally interested in the implementation of the separation of church and state by the administrative courts during the Third Republic. However, a renewal of the classic understanding was possible. While classic studies focus on the contribution of the Conseil d’Etat to the success of the Séparation and the protection of freedom of thought and religion, it is conceivable to study administrative case law from the angle of interactions between republican institutions and judicial review of administration. This methodological framework allows to underline mutual influences between the judiciary and republican institutions in the history of the administrative jurisdiction. Thus, as the Séparation is concerned, case law has played a strategic part in the implementation and enrichment of the principles established by the 9 december 1905 Act, therefore contributing to provide substance to the legal concept of laïcité de l’Etat. In the same time, and especially concerning the case law relating to the administrative regulation of expressions of religious beliefs in the public space, the political and legal context of the Séparation has had a decisive influence on the construction of the republican recours pour excès de pouvoir. This contribution consisted in a modernization of the judicial review techniques and a more accurate control of discretionary powers of the administrative authority. Through the study of the two main aspects of administrative case law relating to the Séparation, this research would like to enlighten the transformation of the traditional imperial-type administrative jurisdiction into a democratic and republican one.

Pas de résumé / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 outlines the scope of judicial authority as encompassing the resolution of any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law. The courts in South Africa have developed several justiciability canons that restrain when courts may adjudicate disputes, such as standing, mootness, ripeness, and the prevention of advisory opinions. These justiciability canons emanate from constitutional considerations such as respect for separation of powers and the proper role and scope of judicial review in a constitutional democracy. This study focuses on another justiciability canon - the political question doctrine. This doctrine arises from the principle of separation of powers and, in the main, provides that certain questions of constitutional law are allocated to the discretion of the elected branches of government for resolution. As a result, such questions are non-justiciable and require the judiciary to abstain from deciding them because not doing so intrudes into the functions of the elected branches of government. The underlying theme is that such questions must find resolution in the political process. Through a comparative lens, the study examines the origins and current application of the political question doctrine in selected countries with a view to obtain lessons therefrom. It examines the origins of the doctrine, by placing particular emphasis on the early application of the doctrine by the US Supreme Court. The study also examines the modern application of the doctrine in the constitutional jurisprudence of several countries, including Ghana, Uganda and Nigeria. It advances the view that while the doctrine exists in the South African jurisprudence, the Constitutional Court should articulate and develop it into a clear doctrine taking into account lessons from those countries. The study offers some recommendations in this regard. The study submits that the political question doctrine is an appropriate legal mechanism through which the South African judiciary can address the recent problem of the proliferation of cases brought to the courts that raise non-justiciable political questions and threaten to delegitimize the role of the courts in a democracy. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. D.

Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished