Depuis l’abolition de la monarchie absolue en 1932, le royaume a connu des situations politiques variées : les activités « contre-révolutionnaires » des royalistes ; l’arrivée au pouvoir des militaires ; l’émergence de nouvelles classes politiques ; les massacres de civils ; les compromis entre les militaires, les royalistes et les progressistes ; l’incertitude sur l’avenir du royaume et de la couronne... L’échec de la transition démocratique thaïlandaise est expliqué généralement par un argument convenu : l’immaturité de la société thaïlandaise ; la démocratie libérale de type occidental ne serait pas appropriée pour le pays, notamment pour des « pauvres ruraux ignorants » ; l’armée est le seul acteur capable d’encadrer le développement d’une démocratie. Pourtant, cette étude présente une explication alternative ; elle démontre que la vie politique du royaume est déterminée par trois axes du pouvoir : les élites traditionnelles, dont la monarchie, l’armée et la haute fonction publique ; c’est cette situation qui explique l’échec du progrès démocratique. Et le coup d’État est la méthode préférée pour protéger le statu quo ; quant à la constitution thaïlandaise est semblable à une « lettre morte » ou à un « instrument de la politique au quotidien » ; elle ne représente plus la norme suprême qui exprime l’idéologie politique du pays ; au contraire, elle est utilisée non seulement pour légitimer a posteriori un coup d’État, mais également pour défendre la domination politique des groupes dominants. Nous pouvons donc conclure que le coup d’État thaïlandais est déclenché par l’armée royale avec l’appui de la monarchie et son réseau de conseillers ; puis, il est justifié par le roi et le judiciaire, en assurant l’impunité de ses auteurs par les lois et la constitution. / Since the abolition of absolute monarchy in 1932, the kingdom has experienced the various political situations: the ‘counter-revolution’ of the royalists, the dictatorial regime, the emergence of the new middle classes, the massacres of civilians, the political compromise, the uncertainty about the future of the kingdom and the crown… The failure of a transition to democracy is usually explained by the usual arguments: the political immaturity of Thai society, the ‘Western-style liberal democracy’ would not be appropriate for the country especially for ‘the ignorant masses’, the army is the only actor, who capable to promote democracy. However, this study presents an alternative explanation. It demonstrates that the political life of the kingdom is determined by three axes of power: traditional elites, including the monarchy, the army and the senior civil servant. It is this situation that explains the failure of the democratic process. And the coup is the traditional method to protect their status quo. As for the constitution, it is similar to a ‘dead letter’ or an ‘instrument of everyday politics’. It isn’t represented as supreme norm that expresses the country’s political ideology. On the contrary, it is used not only to legitimize a coup, but also to defend the political domination of the traditional elites. We can conclude that the Thai coups are triggered by the royal army with the support of the monarchy. Then, justified by the king and the judiciary, and assuring the impunity by the laws and the constitutions.

La diversité des ordres juridiques, ainsi que leur multiplication, ont engendré un besoin croissant d'articulation entre eux. Les seuls mécanismes de coordination ne suffisent plus et s'accompagnent désormais de méthodes d'interaction plus active, durant l'instance et à l'issue de l'instance, formant un tout qu'est le phénomène de coopération judiciaire. Derrière l'analyse de la diversité des méthodes de coopération employées dans l'ordre international (commission rogatoire, notification des actes de procès à l'étranger, extradition, exequatur), et dans l'ordre européen mû par le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle (mandat d'arrêt européen, reconnaissance des décisions civiles et pénales, décision d'enquête européenne), l'étude révèle une unité profonde de la notion de coopération. Les critères de celle-ci, analysée comme un acte de procès, accompli librement par un ordre juridique, à la demande d'un autre, pour les besoins d'une procédure relevant de l'ordre juridique requérant, permettent de remonter à son essence. Elle est un processus d'aide réciproque, fondé sur la réciprocité et dont la finalité de résolution d'un litige transfrontalier dicte les offices respectifs des juges requérant et requis. / The diversity of legal orders and their multiplication have led to a growing need to articulate them. Mechanisms of coordination are no longer sufficient and are complemented by more active methods of interaction both during proceedings in court and upon their completion, thus forming an integral whole, known as the phenomenon of judicial cooperation. Behind the analysis of the diversity of the methods of cooperation that are implemented in the international order (letters rogatory, service of process, extradition, exequatur) and in the European order by virtue of the principle of mutual recognition (European arrest warrant, recognition of civil and criminal judgments, European investigation order), the thesis reveals a prefound unity of the notion of judicial cooperation. Its criteria, analysed as procedural act, free/y accomplished by one legal order upon the request of another, for the needs of judicial proceedings pending before or ended in the requesting legal order, allow to trace the essence of judicial cooperation. At the core of judicial cooperation lies the process of mutual aid, based on reciprocity for the purposes of resolving a transborder litigation, and which defines respective powers of the requesting and the requested judge.

Este trabalho se volta para as formas de problematização contemporâneas da prática sacrificial a partir de um lugar de observação específico, orientado pelo objetivo de compreender como esta prática se torna um mediador de produção de alteridades. Apresento, assim, um caso de dissenso envolvendo a prática sacrificial por grupos religiosos que se apresentam no espaço público enquanto representantes da tradição de matriz africana, após uma interpelação começada por projetos de lei de âmbito local. Como fica claro durante os acontecimentos públicos que envolvem a proposta de legislação, o fulcro da questão é a promoção de uma sensibilização para com o que os produtores deste projeto identificam como afetados e ‘‘violados em seus direitos’’ pelos sacrificantes: os animais não-humanos envolvidos nestas práticas. Especialmente preocupado com grafar a forma como a ‘‘diferença’’ é razoada em distintos momentos da controvérsia, entendo a esta enquanto uma categoria analítica. Assim, a dissertação também recorta o âmbito das moralidades em conflito pelos dois grupos salientando os irredutíveis contornos ontológicos rastreáveis pelas formas de enquadramento da disputa pelo encaminho público do PL 21/2015, o propulsor da controvérsia aqui em análise. / This work emphasizes the contemporary forms of the problematization of the sacrificial practice from a very specific place of observation which is guided by the aim to understand how this practice becomes a mediator at the production of otherness. Thus, I present a case of disagreement involving the sacrificial practice, made by religious groups that appear in the public space as representantives of African matrix tradition, after an interpellation which has begun by local law projects. As it is gets clear during the public events surrounding the proposed legislation, the fulcrum/core is to promote awareness to whom the producers of this project identify as being affected and "violated in their rights" by the sacrificers: -non non-human animals involved in these practices. Particularly concerned with drawing the "difference" at different points in the controversy, I understand it as an analytical category. The dissertation also focus on the scope of the conflicting morals in the two groups here, highlighting the irreducible ontological contours traceable in the forms of framing of the dispute, in the public's law PL 21/2015, the propellant of the controversy under analysis here.

Este trabalho se volta para as formas de problematização contemporâneas da prática sacrificial a partir de um lugar de observação específico, orientado pelo objetivo de compreender como esta prática se torna um mediador de produção de alteridades. Apresento, assim, um caso de dissenso envolvendo a prática sacrificial por grupos religiosos que se apresentam no espaço público enquanto representantes da tradição de matriz africana, após uma interpelação começada por projetos de lei de âmbito local. Como fica claro durante os acontecimentos públicos que envolvem a proposta de legislação, o fulcro da questão é a promoção de uma sensibilização para com o que os produtores deste projeto identificam como afetados e ‘‘violados em seus direitos’’ pelos sacrificantes: os animais não-humanos envolvidos nestas práticas. Especialmente preocupado com grafar a forma como a ‘‘diferença’’ é razoada em distintos momentos da controvérsia, entendo a esta enquanto uma categoria analítica. Assim, a dissertação também recorta o âmbito das moralidades em conflito pelos dois grupos salientando os irredutíveis contornos ontológicos rastreáveis pelas formas de enquadramento da disputa pelo encaminho público do PL 21/2015, o propulsor da controvérsia aqui em análise. / This work emphasizes the contemporary forms of the problematization of the sacrificial practice from a very specific place of observation which is guided by the aim to understand how this practice becomes a mediator at the production of otherness. Thus, I present a case of disagreement involving the sacrificial practice, made by religious groups that appear in the public space as representantives of African matrix tradition, after an interpellation which has begun by local law projects. As it is gets clear during the public events surrounding the proposed legislation, the fulcrum/core is to promote awareness to whom the producers of this project identify as being affected and "violated in their rights" by the sacrificers: -non non-human animals involved in these practices. Particularly concerned with drawing the "difference" at different points in the controversy, I understand it as an analytical category. The dissertation also focus on the scope of the conflicting morals in the two groups here, highlighting the irreducible ontological contours traceable in the forms of framing of the dispute, in the public's law PL 21/2015, the propellant of the controversy under analysis here.

Este trabalho se volta para as formas de problematização contemporâneas da prática sacrificial a partir de um lugar de observação específico, orientado pelo objetivo de compreender como esta prática se torna um mediador de produção de alteridades. Apresento, assim, um caso de dissenso envolvendo a prática sacrificial por grupos religiosos que se apresentam no espaço público enquanto representantes da tradição de matriz africana, após uma interpelação começada por projetos de lei de âmbito local. Como fica claro durante os acontecimentos públicos que envolvem a proposta de legislação, o fulcro da questão é a promoção de uma sensibilização para com o que os produtores deste projeto identificam como afetados e ‘‘violados em seus direitos’’ pelos sacrificantes: os animais não-humanos envolvidos nestas práticas. Especialmente preocupado com grafar a forma como a ‘‘diferença’’ é razoada em distintos momentos da controvérsia, entendo a esta enquanto uma categoria analítica. Assim, a dissertação também recorta o âmbito das moralidades em conflito pelos dois grupos salientando os irredutíveis contornos ontológicos rastreáveis pelas formas de enquadramento da disputa pelo encaminho público do PL 21/2015, o propulsor da controvérsia aqui em análise. / This work emphasizes the contemporary forms of the problematization of the sacrificial practice from a very specific place of observation which is guided by the aim to understand how this practice becomes a mediator at the production of otherness. Thus, I present a case of disagreement involving the sacrificial practice, made by religious groups that appear in the public space as representantives of African matrix tradition, after an interpellation which has begun by local law projects. As it is gets clear during the public events surrounding the proposed legislation, the fulcrum/core is to promote awareness to whom the producers of this project identify as being affected and "violated in their rights" by the sacrificers: -non non-human animals involved in these practices. Particularly concerned with drawing the "difference" at different points in the controversy, I understand it as an analytical category. The dissertation also focus on the scope of the conflicting morals in the two groups here, highlighting the irreducible ontological contours traceable in the forms of framing of the dispute, in the public's law PL 21/2015, the propellant of the controversy under analysis here.

Les interférences nées de la coexistence des systèmes constitutionnel et européens de protection des droits fondamentaux peuvent, sous certaines conditions, être bénéfiques aux titulaires de ces derniers. Elles comportent cependant une part de risques devant d’autant plus être prise au sérieux que le recours au traditionnel principe hiérarchique est aporétique. Quelle est la gestion faite de ces risques ? Qu’elle soit neutralisée ou, de manière plus aboutie, concurrencée dans ses principales fonctions, la hiérarchie est en tous cas, sinon évitée, du moins relativisée au profit de méthodes de plus en plus perfectionnées s’inscrivant dans une perspective durable et construite d’émergence de principes de régulation des rapports entre les systèmes axés autour des idées maîtresses de coopération et de conciliation. L’hypothèse de la mise en place d’un système de rapports doit toutefois être aussitôt éclairée par le constat de son caractère inabouti, du fait notamment de phénomènes de résurgence de hiérarchie. C’est finalement toute la dialectique de la coopération des systèmes de protection qui se fait jour et révèle le tournant à l’aune duquel se trouvent les rapports étudiés : la limite de la satisfaction paraît avoir été atteinte et des défis d’un genre nouveau apparaissent. Il est primordial que le système d’ensemble parvienne à préserver l’équilibre progressivement construit. Au-delà, c’est également un mouvement de redynamisation qu’il convient d’encourager afin que, dépassant le stade actuel, le défi de l’achèvement et de l’amélioration soit relevé / The interferences between constitutional and European fundamental Rights protection systems can help the subject of fundamental Rights under certain conditions. But they also provide some risks that should be taken seriously, given that the traditional hierarchical principle does not appear to give an appropriate solution. How do the principal actors of the fundamental Rights protection in Europe deal with that? The hierarchy, simply neutralized or challenged in its main functions, is avoid or at least reduced in favor of more sophisticated methods. Those appear to be maintained over time and to give pace to regulation principles within systems, based on cooperation and conciliation ideas. However, the theory of a new system of relations emergence is still incomplete. The perfect normative harmony hasn’t been reached yet, due to several factors, including phenomena of resurgence of hierarchy. In the end, the whole dialectic of system of protection’s cooperation is revealed and highlights a turning point where the studied relations now find themselves: the limitation to the satisfaction appears to be reached as new challenges are emerging. It is crucial that the global system remains in capacity to keep a progressively built balance. Above all, a stimulating impulsion should be encouraged in order to complete and improve what has been started

La thèse s’attache à définir la certification équitable depuis une perspective juridique. Tant l’analyse de sa dimension formelle que matérielle permettent de conclure qu’elle est caractérisée par un dualisme face au droit étatique. Elle entretient à la fois une relation d’autonomie et d’hétéronomie à l’égard des ordres juridiques étatiques. Sur le plan formel, le caractère autonome du régime équitable est révélé par l’existence d’un ordre juridique distinct des ordres étatiques. En effet, les institutions du régime équitable jouent le rôle de tiers impartial et désintéressé à l’égard des producteurs du Sud et des acheteurs du Nord. Le rapport d’hétéronomie se manifeste par l’intervention d’éléments provenant d’ordres juridiques étatiques au sein du régime. Celle-ci contribue à sécuriser et à bonifier le régime équitable. Sur le plan matériel, l’autonomie du régime se traduit par des dispositions inédites. Bien qu’originales par rapport aux normes d’origine étatique, l’analyse de ces normes montre qu’elles ne se placent cependant pas en situation de concurrence face à celles-ci. Elles interviennent plutôt comme complément. Les standards de la certification équitable ne comportent cependant pas que des normes inédites. Plusieurs reprennent textuellement des dispositions d’instruments juridiques internationaux et nationaux d’origine étatique, alors que d’autres les traduisent dans un langage plus accessible et adapté au contexte de leurs destinataires. Dans ces deux cas, il s’agit de réitérer le droit en vigueur plutôt que de s’y opposer en ne se limitant pas à le répéter mais plutôt en facilitant sa connaissance et sa mise en œuvre par des mesures concrètes. / The thesis aims to define fairtrade certification from a legal perspective. Both its formal and its material dimensions allow concluding that it is characterized by a dualism towards state law. It is both autonomous and heteronomous in relation to state legal orders. On the formal dimension, the fairtrade regime autonomy is revealed by the existence of a legal order distinct from state orders. Indeed, fairtrade regime institutions act as the impartial and disinterested third party towards the producers of the South and the buyers of the North. The heteronomy is shown by interventions, in the fairtrade regime, of elements originated in state legal orders. These interventions contribute to secure and improve the fairtrade regime. On the material dimension, the regime’s original provisions reveal its autonomy. The analysis concludes that these provisions although novel if compared to state norms are not competing with the latters. To the contrary, they intervene as a complement to state legal orders. Fairtrade standards do not only contain unprecedented norms. Several simply reproduce the exact wording of state legal instruments, while other translate them into a more accessible and context adapted language. In both cases, they reiterate the law instead of contradicting it. The regime’s main appeal is that it does not repeat the law but contributes to facilitate its understanding and implementation by concrete measures.

Difficile de nier qu’il arrive quelque chose au droit constitutionnel sousl’effet conjugué de l’internationalisation du droit et de la construction communautaire. Eneffet, le droit constitutionnel s’internationalise, se régionalise dans un mouvementexponentiel. L’Afrique en général et l’espace CEDEAO en particulier n’échappent guère àcette dynamique globale du constitutionnalisme moderne. Aussi, a-t-on constaté quel’internationalisation du droit constitutionnel sur le continent africain qui prend la forme d’unprocessus d’impact, d’influence ou parfois de contraintes induit à la fois à une reconfigurationhorizontale des pouvoirs constitutionnels et une redistribution verticale du pouvoir au sein del’Etat. En revanche, au niveau supranational, ce processus dynamique et intense qui marqueune ouverture des systèmes de droit et favorise la communicabilité entre ordres juridiques setraduit par un phénomène d’intégration, d’harmonisation progressive des systèmesconstitutionnels étatiques autour de standards démocratiques consacrés par le Protocole de laCEDEAO sur la démocratie et la bonne gouvernance de 2001. La dialectique est, au final,paradoxale en ce que l’internationalisation du droit constitutionnel en Afrique et plusparticulièrement dans l’espace CEDEAO se révèle être l’expression d’un phénomèneperturbateur des ordres juridiques constitutionnels étatiques et communautaire mais aussi eten même temps un instrument de convergence matérielle (droits fondamentaux) et structurelle(régime politique démocratique) de ces dits ordres au travers de standards constitutifs dupatrimoine constitutionnel commun. / It is difficult to deny that something has happened to constitutional lawunder the combined effect of the internationalization of law and the construction of thecommunity. Indeed, constitutional law is internationalized, regionalized in an exponentialmovement. Africa in general and the ECOWAS area in particular do not escape the globaldynamics of modern constitutionalism. Thus, it has been observed that theinternationalization of constitutional law on the African continent, which takes the form of aprocess of impact, influence or sometimes constraints, leads both to a horizontalreconfiguration of constitutional and a vertical redistribution of power within the state. Onthe other hand, at the supranational level, this dynamic and intense process, which marks anopening up of legal systems and promotes communication between legal orders, is reflectedin a phenomenon of integration and progressive harmonization of the state's constitutionalsystems around democratic standards The ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and GoodGovernance of 2001. The dialectic is, in the end, paradoxical in that the internationalizationof constitutional law in Africa and more particularly in the ECOWAS area proves to be aphenomenon Disrupting the constitutional legal systems of the state and the community,and at the same time an instrument of material (fundamental) and structural (democraticpolitical rule, rule of law) convergence of these orders through standards which constitutethe common constitutional heritage.

This essay examines and juxtaposes Mario Jori’s and Frederick Schauer’s ideas on legal formalism. Although developed independently of each other, these ideas show remarkable similarities: both focus on the notion of norm or rule as a tool for clarifying the notion of legal formalism; both defend legal formalism from the criticisms routinely moved against it. The author maintains that Jori’s and Schauer’s theories may contribute to shed light on (and criticize) the controversial notion of defeasibility of legal rules; they may also contribute to scale down, from a legal-theoretical point of view, the novelties of contemporary constitutional orders; finally, it may help to better understand their working machinery. / In questo saggio vengono esaminate e messe a confronto le idee di Mario Jori e di Frederick Schauer in tema di formalismo giuridico. Pur essendo state elaborate l’una indipendentemente dall’altra, presentano notevoli somiglianze, perché entrambe usano la nozione di norma o regola come punto focale per chiarire la nozione di formalismo giuridico, e perché entrambe difendono quest’ultimo dalle critiche usualmente rivolte ad esso. L’autrice ritiene che l’esame delle idee dei due autori possa contribuire a chiarire (e criticare) la controversa nozione di defeasibility delle norme giuridiche e possa altresì, in via generale, contribuire a ridimensionare, dal punto di vista teorico-giuridico, le novità del diritto degli odierni Stati costituzionali, oltre che a comprenderne meglio i meccanismi di funzionamento. / En este trabajo se examina y compara las ideas de Mario Jori y de Frederick Schauer en relación con el formalismo jurídico. A pesar de haber sido desarrolladas de forma independiente unas de las otras, dichas ideas presentan notables semejanzas ya que ambos autores utilizan el concepto de una norma o regla como punto focal para aclarar la noción de formalismo jurídico, y porque ambos lo defienden de las críticas que usualmente se le dirigen. La autora considera que el examen de las ideas de los dos autores puede contribuir a aclarar (y criticar) la controvertida noción de defeasibility (derrotabilidad) de las normas jurídicas y, de modo general, también a redimensionar, desde el punto de vista teórico-jurídico, las novedades que presentan los derechos de los modernos Estados constitucionales, y comprender mejor los mecanismos de su funcionamiento.

Le droit des organisations internationales a été le lieu d’une belle querelle d’école entre les détracteurs et les adeptes de la normativité relative. Il en va de même des rapports de systèmes, qui divisent la doctrine entre les monistes (en voie de disparition), les dualistes et les non-alignés. Aborder le thème du traitement du droit dérivé par les ordres juridiques internes c’est prendre le risque de s’égarer dans ces tourbillons doctrinaux. Si l’on accepte que le point de vue du juge interne est pertinent pour la détermination de la force normative du droit dérivé, on comprend que le premier débat semble dépassé : le juge admet que le droit institutionnel est du droit, qu’il soit obligatoire ou non. Se pose dès lors la question de la capacité de ce droit à être source de droits et obligations dans l’ordre interne. On remarque qu’à cette fin, l’ensemble des ordres juridiques examinés exige l’incorporation des actes institutionnels, mais aussi que les juges internes accordent de la place à des formes de reconnaissance des effets des actes institutionnels déconnectées de l’incorporation. Ces tendances convergentes démontrent à la fois que le clivage monisme/dualisme n’est pas décisif, mais aussi que la pensée dualiste ne reflète pas fidèlement les modalités d’interaction entre les ordres juridiques dans le monde pluraliste. La reconnaissance participe d’un principe de coordination et non pas de séparation des ordres juridiques, qui se prolonge par ailleurs dans les solutions aux conflits normatifs, ainsi que dans les modalités et les effets du contrôle, par les juges internes, des normes institutionnelles. / The law of international organisations has been the theatre of passionate academic debate between the detractors and the disciples of the relative normativity. The same can be said about the relations between the legal orders, which divide the doctrine into monists, dualists and non-aligned. Analysing the topic of the place of institutional law in domestic legal orders is taking the risk of losing one’s way in these doctrinal whirls. If we take for granted that the point of view of the domestic judge is relevant for appreciating the normative force of institutional law, we may say that the first debate seems outdated : the domestic judge recognizes that the law produced by international organisations is law, whether is binding or not. The following question is to what extent the norms thus produced may be source of rights and obligations in the internal legal orders. The entire range of legal orders examined requires for institutional law to be incorporated for that purpose. The domestic judges leave nonetheless the door opened to other forms for taking into account some of the legal effects of institutional acts. These convergent tendencies show both that the monist/dualist divide is immaterial for the legal status of these acts and that the dualist doctrine does not accurately reflect the modalities of interaction between the legal systems in the world of pluralism. The recognition of unincorporated legal norms, which triggers consequences in terms of conflict of norms and judicial review of institutional law, stands in favour of a model of coordination and not of separation of the legal orders.