La responsabilité de protéger a été élaborée en 2001 par la Commission internationale de l’intervention et de la souveraineté des États. Le concept se voulait une réponse aux controverses suscitées par les interventions armées à des fins humanitaires menées dans les années 1990. Il cherchait à concilier l’intervention à des fins humanitaires et le principe de souveraineté afin d’assurer la protection universelle des populations civiles, notamment par les actions du Conseil de sécurité, tout en respectant les principes qui constituent les fondements de la société internationale basée sur la Charte des Nations Unies. Avec son entérinement par les 191 États membres des Nations Unies lors du Sommet mondial de 2005, la responsabilité de protéger est devenue un sujet incontournable du discours international. En 2011, la mise en œuvre de la responsabilité de protéger par le Conseil de sécurité durant la guerre civile en Libye et la crise postélectorale en Côte d’Ivoire a mis le concept au premier plan de l’actualité internationale. Notre mémoire cherche à déterminer les répercussions juridiques qu’a eues la responsabilité de protéger sur le principe de la souveraineté étatique et sur le fonctionnement institutionnel du Conseil de sécurité. / The Responsibility to Protect was elaborated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty following the controversies surrounding humanitarian interventions lead during the 1990s. The Responsibility to Protect aimed at reconciling intervention for human protection purposes and sovereignty in order to ensure the universal protection of civilian populations, notably through the Security Council, while respecting the principles constituting the foundation of the international society based on the Charter of the United Nations. Since its acceptance by the 191 Member States of the United Nations during the 2005 World Summit, the concept has become a subject of first importance at the international stage. The implementation of the Responsibility to Protect by the Security Council in 2011 during the Civil War in Libya and the post-electoral crisis in Ivory Coast has put the concept on the headlines of the international news. Our thesis aims at determining the juridical repercussions that the Responsibility to Protect had on the State Sovereignty principle and on the institutional functioning of the Security Council.

Academic literature and the media offer a variety of monikers for emerging states like Brazil, India and China, most prominently, ‘emerging powers’ and ‘emerging markets’. This article argues the terms used to describe these states create assumptions about their behaviour in global governance (GG). In order to accurately assess the impact of emerging states on international institutions, it is necessary to more systematically examine their current participation in GG. Does the use of power and economic interests in GG negotiations distinguish emerging states from traditional powers, as the ‘emerging’ part of these terms suggests? And can the content of GG negotiations predict the dominance of each factor, as implied by the ‘power/market’ part? This article tackles these questions by comparing the behaviour of one emerging state (India) and one traditional power (the United States) in negotiations at the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations Security Council. The results demonstrate that, while there is clearly something distinctive about at least India’s participation in GG, focussing on power or economic interests alone is insufficient to explain that distinctiveness or its implications for relations between rising and traditional powers in GG.

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des Études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de LL.M. en Maîtrise en droit Option recherche" / Le crime d'agression se veut etre un des quatre crimes internationaux sous la juridiction de la CPI. Lorsque les delegues a la Conference de Rome n'eurent point atteint de consensus sur une definition du crime, celui-ci resta, depuis, indefini en droit. En consequence, la CPI n'aura juridiction pour entendre des causes portant sur le crime d'agression qu'une fois la definition sera adoptee par l'Assemblee des Etats Parties au plus tot en 2009. Ce memoire traite trois problematiques liees au crime d'agression : la question de la responsabilite penale individuelle, le role du Conseil de securite de l'ONU, et les parametres du crime en tant que tel. La responsabilite penale individuelle est analysee, inter alia, du point de vue du principe des sources du droit international. Quant al'eventuelle implication du Conseil de securite dans le champ de competence de la CPI sur le crime d'agression, l'auteure soutient tel que suit: Si le Conseil de securite se voit accorde un pouvoir plus large que celui dont il est presentement dote en vertu des articles 13(b) et 16 du Statut de Rome, chaque membre permanent aura un veto sur toute situation d'agression qui serait autrement portee devant la Cour. Ceci aura pour consequence de politiser la CPI en ce qui a trait au crime et rendra hypothethique toute definition eventuelle. Si la definition est bien con9ue et redigee, on fait valoir, qu'il n' est point necessaire de limiter davantage la competence de la CPI. Les parametres de la definition du crime proposes par l'auteure sont etablis selon les conclusions d'une analyse des notions composantes de l'agression. L'essentiel du concept se veut un recours illegal et non-necessaire qui constitue une rupture ala paix. Amoins qu'il ne soit exerce en « legitime defence» ou en vertu d'un mandat du Chapitre VII, Ie recours ala force constitue prima facie une agression et s'il est suffisamment grave, il s'agira d'un crime d'agression. Ce memoire termine avec un projet de definition du crime d'agression en vue d'avancer Ie discours vers un consensus sur ces problematiques majeures. Non seulement est-il possible d'arriver aun consensus sur la definition, croit l'auteure, mais nous sommes plus que jamais al'aube d'y parvenir. / The crime of aggression is one of the four international crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC. When delegates at the Rome Conference were unable to agree on the content of a definition, the crime was left undefined. As a result, the ICC can only begin prosecuting individuals for the crime of aggression once a definition is adopted by the Assembly of States Parties in 2009, at the earliest. This thesis examines three issues associated with the crime of aggression: the question of individual criminal responsibility, the role of the UN Security Council and the general scope of the definition of the crime of aggression itself Individual criminal liability is reviewed, inter alia, from the perspective of international sources doctrine. Regarding the role of the Security Council in relation to the crime of aggression, the author concludes: if the Security Council is vested with more powers than it already has under Articles 13(b) and 16 of the Rome Statute, each permanent member will have a veto over any situation of aggression that might otherwise be brought before the Court. This would result in a complete politicization of the ICC and render moot any future definition of the crime of aggression. If a definition for the crime of aggression is properly conceived and constructed, it is argued, there is no need to further limit the Court's exercise of jurisdiction. The author proposes general parameters for the scope ofthe definition based on conclusions reached in the analysis of the conceptual components of aggression. At its essence, the act of aggression is the unnecessary, unlawful use of force which constitutes a breach ofthe peace. Unless employed in "self-defence" or under a Chapter VII mandate, the use offorce constitutes prima facie an act of aggression, and if it is sufficiently grave, a crime ofaggression. This thesis concludes with a working definition ofthe crime of aggression to promote dialogue and ultimately a consensus on these core issues. Not only is a definition is within reach, the author believes, we are closer to it than we ever have been before.