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.

C’est par un regard systémique que sont abordés dans cette étude les rapports entre les ordres juridiques européens, Union européenne et Conseil de l’Europe, et les ordres juridiques nationaux sur le terrain spécifique de la protection des droits fondamentaux. L’ensemble des interactions a atteint un degré de sophistication tel qu’il est devenu difficile d’organiser leur analyse. L’approche par l’identification d’un système européen de protection des droits fondamentaux permet de dégager des règles, qui se présentent comme des effets de ce systèmes pour les ordres juridiques précités. Ainsi, la présomption de protection équivalente entre les droits fondamentaux est envisagée comme un élément déclencheur, formalisant les interactions entre les ordres juridiques dans un système. Celui-ci fonctionne grâce aux principes de subsidiarité, de proportionnalité et de sécurité juridique. Ces trois principes sont les règles du système, révélées par le regard englobant du système. Dans l’ensemble, il apparaît que l’adhésion de l’Union européenne à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme serait pertinente mais ne représente pas une étape indispensable. En revanche, il serait souhaitable d’avancer vers une harmonisation matérielle plus poussée, qui pourrait être réalisée par les juges européens. Il suffirait d’élaborer des notions européennes communes et des obligations positives identiques à la charge des États, afin d’assurer une protection effective des droits fondamentaux. / The relationship between the two european legal order, the European Union and the Council of Europe, and national legal orders is analysed through a systemic vision, on the specific field of protection of Fundamental rights. Their relation has become so intense that it is hard to organise a study about them. That is why the systemic approach helps consider those relations as a whole. The first step, that shifts the interaction between the legal orders mentioned into a system is the presumption of equivalent protection. Follows the discovery of the rules of the system, that are also an effect of this system. More precisly, the rules are the principle of subsidiarity, proportionality and legal certainty. It appears that there is no need for the European Union to acceed to the European Convention of Human Rights, even if it would make the legal relation easier. However, it could be useful for the effectiveness of Fundamental Rights to deepen the substantial harmonisation between the european legal orders through the identification by the judges of european autonomous concept and common positive human rights obligations.

Judicial activism implies a hidden politicization of the Court. The legal arguments and the methods used by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) might seem coherent. However, an inquiry into judicial activism means looking beyond the legal reasoning of the Court and trying to “connect the dots” of an alternative narrative that can explain the Court’s long-term approach to certain issues. In the case of judicial activism of the CJEU in the case-law concerning public international law, the veil for the politicization of the Court is provided by the pluralist architecture of global law. The heterarchical structure of relations among legal orders in the international arena activates the CJEU as an actor of global governance. Simultaneously, it results in the Court adopting a rather internal and defensive approach, undermining legal security.<p><p>Judicial activism of the CJEU finds its particular expressions in the case-law concerning public international law. The pro-integrationist tendency of the CJEU often raised in the literature concerning the Court’s role in the process of EU integration, translates into a substantial and an institutional dimension of judicial activism. The substantial articulation of judicial activism in the case-law concerning international law is the Court’s emphasis on the autonomy of the EU legal order. This internal perspective is adopted not only for virtuous reasons, but also in defense of definitely not universal European interests. The institutional dimension refers to the Court’s position within the EU structure of governance. The case-law concerning international law is marked by a close alignment with the European Commission and the integration of the EU goals in external relations. Moreover, the pluralist veil can cover the extent to which the Court’s decisions concerning international law are influenced by considerations completely internal to the EU. <p><p>In my analysis I proceed in three steps that are reflected in three chapters of the thesis. There is no clear and prevalent definition of judicial activism, but instead rather multiple possibilities of approaching the concept. While the general intend of the research project is to critically reflect on the concept of judicial activism of the highest courts within a legal order, the particular focus will be on the CJEU dealing with international law. I proceed in three steps. First, I assess different understandings of the role of the judge and the concept of judicial activism in legal literature in view of ascertaining the relevance of the debate and distilling some general components of a possible definition. Secondly, I identify the factors particular for the position of the CJEU within the EU legal order and with regard to international law. The particular characteristics of the CJEU result in a limited applicability of the general definitions of judicial activism. Finally, I analyze the case-law in view of identifying examples as well as counter-examples of the particular symptoms/attributes. Because judicial activism broadens the scope of the factors guiding judicial decision-making, it enables us to better understand the contingencies in the Court´s jurisprudence. / Doctorat en Sciences juridiques / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished