Les déchets ont été initialement appréhendés selon la summa divisio classique droit public-droit privé, occultant ainsi leur dimension environnementale. L’extension progressive de la notion de déchet au regard des enjeux environnementaux et économiques remet en cause cette distinction traditionnelle au nom d’une nécessaire unité du déchet autour de ses différentes composantes intrinsèques. L’ambivalence de la nature du déchet impose de dépasser la division du droit.Le respect de l’intégrité du déchet, de sa conformité à lui-même, rend alors nécessaire la cohabitation du droit de l’environnement avec les autres branches du droit existantes dans le cadre d’une coproduction qui s’impose des contraintes mutuelles. L’objectif de notre étude consiste à définir les modalités de collaboration entre les différentes disciplines juridiques, fondées, d’une part, sur l’intégration de la gestion des déchets dans les règles du marché, assurant la rencontre des considérations environnementales et économiques, et fondées, d’autre part, sur l’application du droit de la concurrence à la gestion des déchets lorsque les pratiques intègrent la composante environnementale. C’est dans la définition des conditions d’interaction entre les impératifs environnementaux et économiques que l’unité du déchet peut être consacrée. / Waste was previously apprehended along the classic summa division of public and private law while concealing its environmental dimension. This traditional distinction has been called into question ever since the notion of waste has gradually expanded in view of economic and environmental issues. The unity of the notion of waste around his inherent parts is now necessary. The ambivalent nature of waste dictates us to go further than this division of law. In order to respect waste’s integrity and its true nature, environmental law must work together with other branches of law towards a co-production that implies mutual constraints. Defining the different ways these legal disciplines collaborate constitutes the study’s objective. These are founded on one hand, on waste management’s integration into market laws, ensuring the meeting of environmental and economical considerations and on the other hand, on the application of competition law to waste management when practices integrate an environmental aspect. Only once the interactions between environmental and economical imperatives are defined can waste’s unity be recognised.

The aim of the present study is to clarify the nature of integration between the individual and the organization. I have utilized four analytical tools in this endeavor – forms of association, theoretical starting points, integrating factors, and principles of integration. The forms of association have been taken from Amitai Etzioni's model for describing the interplay between members' experience of an organization and organizational sanctions. These in turn provide us with three categories – coercion, when association is steered by constraint exercised by the organization; interest, when integration proceeds deliberately and voluntarily; and normative or institutional integration, when association is steered by a normative community. The starting point selected is important, and often decisive, for any effort to understand the connection between the individual and the organization. In the present effort to theoretically explain how a particular association between individual and organization emerges, I have deliberately selected human nature (the integrating unit) from the choice of two alternatives for the starting point. That is to say that the starting point for integration should be sought not in the organization, but in people. The reason for this decision is my contention that organizations have no organic form, and that they can be steered and influenced in a completely differently way than people. In order for the theoretical starting point to function as a explanatory factor, it should provide the location for an active element. I have chosen the individual's striving for development and maturity as the active element or integrating factor in this regard. The integration of individual and organization is fostered to the extent that the individual's striving for development is satisfied within the framework of the organization. I argue that participation is the principle of integration that serves this goal. In conclusion, participation promotes the integration of the individual and organization, and it drives the process of integration in respect to three forms of coordination – coercion, interest, and institutional integration. Submission (the absence of participation) leads to coercion. Negotiation (the preliminary stage of participation) leads to interest integration. Participation, finally, leads to institutional integration.