ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis was to explore the origins, formulation, course and outcome of the Intergovernmental Committee for Political Refugees meeting (better known as the Evian Conference) of July 1938. Special emphasis was placed on contemporary and later historical assessments of this assembly which represented the first international cooperative attempt to solve an acute refugee crisis. A general review followed by a more detailed evaluation was made of existing official and un-official accounts of the meeting utilizing both public records, private diaries, books, newspapers, journals and other periodicals for the period of January 1, 1938 through December 31, 1939. This data was supplemented by later recollections of conference participants as well as post-Holocaust historical scholarship. Various appraisals have been made of the motivations behind the summit and its ultimate success or failure. Franklin Roosevelt has particularly come under criticism by scholars who believed that his Administration had "abandoned" the Jews to their fate. The President's supporters, on the other hand, declared that FDR did everything possible given the existing political, economic and social conditions of the late 1930's. It is my conclusion that although Roosevelt may have been sympathetic to the plight of Central European Jewish refugees their resettlement and ultimate destiny merited a lower priority given his focus upon rebuilding the national economy and defense. The President clearly recognized the looming threat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan but was unwilling to expend political capital on an issue that faced domestic and political opposition. I further maintain that the conference was set up to fail while providing propaganda value for the participating democracies. The hypocritical rhetoric and actions of the delegates and the ineffectiveness of the conference's sole creation, the Intergovernmental Committee for Political Refugees, was clearly recognized by Nazi Germany and ultimately influenced its anti-Jewish policies. Thus, it is not a coincidence that the pogrom of November 1938, Kristallnacht, occurred only four months later. The avoidance of dealing with the Jewish refugee problem was further highlighted in the futile Wagner-Rogers Bill of 1939, the Hennings bill of 1940 and especially the Bermuda Conference of 1943, a time in which the details of mass murder of Jews and other groups was already well known within official circles. Further work needs to be done on the diverse responses of the Jewish community both within the United States and abroad to the peril facing their co-religionists.

Centrée sur le droit pénal face à la migration transfrontière, la présente étude prend le parti d’intégrer en son sein deux formes de migration spécifiques : la migration irrégulière et la migration pour motif terroriste. Elle choisit également de faire du droit pénal son objet central. Ce choix conduit naturellement à renverser les perspectives initiales et à envisager, non les effets du droit pénal sur la migration transfrontière, mais l’inverse : les incidences de la migration transfrontière sur le droit pénal. À cet égard, migration irrégulière et migration pour motif terroriste ont en commun d’ébranler le droit pénal. Face à la migration irrégulière, le droit pénal subit une instrumentalisation : sa mobilisation n’est effectuée que dans une finalité administrative d’éloignement de la migration présente à la frontière (particulièrement dans les zones d’attente et frontalières). Plus encore, la politique de prévention contre l’immigration irrégulière développée à l’échelle de l’Union européenne a entraîné un véritable enchevêtrement de normes pénales, agissant dans de multiples espaces géographiques, dont certaines sont détournées afin d’entraver la migration en mer, et d’autres créées pour l’empêcher de se former sur terre, au sein des États tiers de départ. À l’inverse, le droit pénal apparaît absent face à la migration pour motif terroriste. Alors qu’il pourrait se saisir de ce phénomène, il semble au contraire dépassé par la montée en puissance de mesures de police administrative. De nature à anticiper d’une manière quasiment prédictive le risque terroriste porté par la migration transfrontière, ces mesures entraînent l’obsolescence du droit pénal. Penser le droit pénal face à la migration transfrontière permet enfin de révéler que la migration irrégulière et la migration pour motif terroriste sont liées par le droit, en étant envisagées sous le prisme du risque qu’elles portent en elle. / This study focuses on the link between criminal law and crossborder migration and will address two specific forms of migration : irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose. The main focus of this study is criminal law. This choice has resulted in a reversal of the original focus ; that is to say the effects of crossborder migration on criminal law as opposed to the effects of criminal law on crossborder migration. Both irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose undermine criminal law. With respect to irregular migration, criminal law is used as an administrative instrument to repel migrants from national borders particularly those in waiting zones and crossborder zones. Prevention policies against irregular migration implemented at the EU level have resulted in an entanglement of criminal norms, in various geographic areas, some of them were diverted to prevent migration by sea and other were created to stop migrants trying to enter by land via third countries. On the contrary, criminal law seems absent with regards to migration with a terrorist purpose. While it could effectively tackle this phenomenon, it seems overwhelmed by the rise of administrative police measures. These measures are able to anticipate in a quasi-predictive manner the risk of terrorism via crossborder migration and they in fact render criminal law ineffective. Thinking criminal law in the face of crossborder migration has allowed to reveal that irregular migration and migration with a terrorist purpose are legally contected, when they are considered through the prism of the risk conveyed.