Suggérant une forme de primauté du fait sur le droit, la notion d’effectivité est paradoxalement présente au sein même du droit international positif. Sa signification fait l’objet de nombreuses controverses qui ont pour racine la dichotomie existant entre ce qu’elle évoque sur un plan général, et ce qui est fait en son nom. En pratique, l’effectivité est à la fois opposée et intégrée au droit international. De nombreuses règles internationales limitent la reconnaissance de situations ou de pratiques au nom de différentes valeurs. Mais dans certains cas, la prise en compte de ces « effectivités » paraît indispensable à l’effectivité du droit. Le souci d’assurer le respect du droit mène alors parfois les Etats, les juges et les auteurs de doctrine à apprécier les faits au regard de leur seule « effectivité », c’est-à-dire sans égard à certaines règles qui semblent pourtant applicables, ou à certaines représentations juridiques de ces faits. Cette exclusion du droit dans le traitement du fait est cependant toujours partielle, et ses dimensions comme les conséquences juridiques qui en sont tirées varient en fonction de choix politiques. Le recours à la notion d’effectivité en droit international ne peut donc être compris comme le simple « enregistrement » du fait en droit. Dans l’ordre juridique international, « l’effectivité » remplit principalement deux fonctions : en premier lieu, l’effectivité du pouvoir est un critère d’identification des sujets de droit, qui permet de délimiter le champ territorial et personnel de leurs compétences, de les soumettre aux règles internationales et d’engager leur responsabilité de manière pragmatique. En second lieu, l’effectivité des prétentions émises par les Etats sur la scène internationale, et l’effectivité de certains éléments de leur droit interne sont employées comme des conditions de leur opposabilité internationale. Plutôt que la primauté du fait sur le droit, l’étude menée montre le caractère paradoxal des exigences pratiques d’une défense efficace de la sécurité juridique, de la justice et de la paix. / The principle of effectiveness suggests that facts have primacy over law. However the notion of effectiveness is paradoxically featured in international law itself. The meaning of effectiveness is the subject of much controversy due to the dichotomy between what effectiveness means in general and the actions taken to achieve it. The notion of effectiveness is, in practice, both contrary to and included in international law. For moral reasons, many international rules restrict the recognition of effective situations. Yet, in many cases taking effective situations into account is essential for the effectiveness of the law. In order to ensure compliance with the law, the States, judges and scholars may assess the facts as regards their “effectiveness”, without considering the rules which seem however to be applicable or the legal representations of these facts. However law is only partially excluded when dealing with the facts and the way it is done as well as the legal consequences of this exclusion differ according to political choices. That is why the use of the principle of effectiveness in international law cannot be considered as a mere registration of fact. In international law the notion of effectiveness has two main functions. Firstly, the effectiveness of power acts as a way of identifying subjects of international law which makes it possible to define the territorial and personal scope of their jurisdiction, makes them subject to international rules and pragmatically assesses whether they are liable. Secondly, the effectiveness of States' international claims or the effectiveness of some aspects of their national laws are used as conditions to assess their legal effects internationally. This research does not focus on the primacy of fact over law but shows the paradox between the practical requirements of an effective defence of legal certainty, justice and of peace.

This thesis draws on a community-engaged digital-mapping project with the Vancouver Island Coast Salish community of the Stz’uminus First Nation. In this paper, I discuss the ways in which conventional cartographic representations of Indigenous peoples are laden with methodological and visual assumptions that position Indigenous peoples’ perspectives, stories, and experiences within test-, proof-, and boundary-driven legal and Eurocentric contexts. In contrast, I frame this project’s methodology and digital mapping tools as an effort to map a depth of place, the emotional, spiritual, experiential, and kin-based cultural context that is routinely glossed over in conventional mapping practices. I argue elders’ place-based stories, when recorded on video and embedded in a digital map, produce a space for the “unmappable,” that which cannot, or will not, be expressed within the constructs of a static two-dimensional map. This thesis also describes a refusal to steep maps too deeply in cultural context for a public audience. I detail the conversations that emerged in response to a set of deeply spiritual, cultural, and personal stories to mark how the presence of Coast Salish law, customs, power structures, varying intra-community perspectives, and refusal came to bear on the production of “blank space” (interpreted colonially and legally as terra nullius) in this project’s cartographic representation. Finally, I conclude that Coast Salish sharing customs are embedded within networks of Coast Salish customary legal traditions, which fundamentally affects tensions that arise between storytelling and digital mapping technologies, between academic and community accountabilities, and between collective and individual consent. / Graduate / 2019-10-13

It has been 15 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized the Free, Prior and Informed consent Principle, yet it has not been able to function to its fullest potential. This Thesis aims to carry out a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the following three countries of Australia, Canada, and the United States. With the hypothesis, that the underlying factors behind this failure can be attributed to Settler-Colonialism and Global Capitalism. To carry out this study Theoretical Frameworks based on Settler-Colonial studies and a critique of the Stakeholder theory named Critical Stakeholder Analysis (CSA) will be employed. Using the existing body of research in this area of inquiry as a point of departure, this thesis attributes the failure to implement the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent principle to its fullest potential on asymmetrical power dynamics, settler-colonial structures, and profitability.