À l'aube du troisième millénaire, la démocratie fait face à deux défis différents. D'une part, elle est secouée par le terrorisme qui bafoue les principes et les valeurs démocratiques tout en déstabilisant les institutions et en menaçant les citoyens et même la nation. D'autre part, la démocratie peut être défiée par les dérives d'une lutte contre le terrorisme, non-proportionnelle et même excessive, menée par certains régimes « démocratiques ». Sous prétexte de contrer le terrorisme, la pratique de certains États démocratiques fragilise l'État de droit et révèle des violations des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales. Cette étude se propose de rechercher l'infrastructure légale qui répond à la lutte contre le terrorisme sans nuire aux principes et valeurs démocratiques. Elle met en exergue la contradiction entre les deux concepts : démocratie et terrorisme. Cette étude aborde deux sujets d'actualité qui revêtent une importance particulière. Le premier porte sur la création du Tribunal Spécial pour le Liban [TSL] comme étant la première juridiction internationalisée à juger les actes relevant du terrorisme. Le second présente une étude comparatiste portant sur les « révolutions » survenues dans les pays arabes tout en mettant en évidence la nécessité de l'acheminement vers la démocratie face à la montée du terrorisme dans la région. Cette étude expose de même un panorama de la lutte des États du Proche-Orient contre le terrorisme. Elle projettera les conditions pour sortir d'une démocratie « masquée », éclatée par le terrorisme, à une démocratie « authentique », éclatante par le droit. / On the dawning of the third millennium, democracy is encountering two different challenges. On the one hand, it is shaken by terrorism that flies in the face of the democratic principles and values whilst destabilizing the institutions and threatening citizens touching even the nation itself. Notwithstanding the fact that on the other hand, democracy could be challenged by non-proportional and even excessive measures taken in the context of the fight against terrorism acquitted by certain « democratic » regimes. Thus, under the pretext of countering terrorism, the behavioural pattern of some democratic states undermines the State of law and unveils violations of human rights and fundamental liberties. The current study aspires to investigate the legal infrastructure that conforms to the fight against terrorism away from compromising the principles and values of democracy. For this purpose, the following pages would highlight the dialectic contradiction between two concepts: democracy and terrorism. In fact, the current study treats two hot topics particularly significant. The first of those topics would be the establishment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon [STL] being the first internationalized with jurisdiction over the acts of terrorism. The second of the above-mentioned topics would be a comparative study treating the current « revolutions » occurring within the Arab States, hence highlighting the need to pursue democracy versus the rise of terrorism in the region. Moreover, this study would exhibit a prospect of the fight against terrorism carried out by countries of the Near East. In addition, this study exposes some conditions by which a « disguised » democracy would be avoided, one that is struck by terrorism, towards an « authentic » democracy, striking with rights. / في فجر الالفية الثالثة٬ تواجه الديمقراطية تحديين مختلفين. التحدي الاول يكمن في الارباك الذي يحدثه الارهاب بضربه المبادئ والقيم الديمقراطية معرضا المؤسسات الى الخلل٬ مهددا المواطنين والامة ايضا. التحدي الثاني يتجلى بالانحراف في مكافحة الارهاب احيانا بطرق غير متناسبة لا بل مجحفة. فتحت ستار مكافحة الارهاب يتبين بان ممارسات بعض الدول الديمقراطية يضعف دولة القانون ويظهر انتهاكات لحقوق الانسان وللحريات الاساسية. تعالج هذه الرسالة البحث حول الاسس القانونية التي تتجاوب مع مكافحة الارهاب دون التعرض للمبادئ والقيم الديمقراطية. كما تطرح التناقض الموجود ما بين مفهومي الديمقراطية والارهاب. تتناول هذه الدراسة ايضا موضوعين حاليين ذات اهمية خاصة. يتطرق الاول الى انشاء المحكمة الخاصة بلبنان كأول محكمة ذات طابع دولي تنظر في قضايا الارهاب. فيما الثاني يشمل دراسة مقارنة حول الثورات الحاصلة في الدول العربية٬ تسلط الضوء على أهمية التحول الديمقراطي في مواجهة تصاعد الارهاب في المنطقة. كما وتعرض الرسالة دراسة حول مناهضة دول الشرق الأدنى للارهاب. اخيرا تطرح معايير للخروج من الديمقراطية « المقنعة » التي يفجرها الارهاب نحو ديمقراطية « فعلية » تزخر بالقانون.

L’entraide policière internationale, en raison de la multiplicité de ses sources et de ses applications, apparaît comme un phénomène pluriel difficile à appréhender. Sa mise en œuvre différenciée dans les différents espaces géographiques et les nombreuses évolutions qu’elle a connues aggravent sa complexité. L’objet de la présente étude est de proposer une grille de lecture dont l’ambition est de donner une vision plus claire et plus cohérente. En définitive, deux types d’entraide se dessinent : l’assistance et la coopération. Ce résultat est révélé par une étude notionnelle et conforté par la modélisation du régime. L’étude de la notion permet de révéler, malgré une définition unitaire, la nature duale de l’entraide policière. Cette dualité se répercute sur le régime puisque deux types distincts apparaissent : l’assistance s’apparente au régime de droit commun et la coopération prend les traits d’un régime spécial. En filigrane, il apparaît que l’entraide policière internationale emprunte à la procédure pénale et au droit international leurs caractères et leurs facteurs d’influence. / Due to the several sources and its implementation, the international mutual help between the polices tends to be a concept difficult to understand. The different ways to set up the cooperation in the different part of the world and the several evolutions known, are increasing the difficulties to understand its complexity. This study wants to show and give a clearer vision of this mutual help. Basically, there are two kinds of mutual helps: the assistance and the cooperation. The result appears after a notional study and is consolidated by the establishment of a framework. Despite a commom definition, the study of the notion reveals a duality in the international mutual help between the polices. This duality has an impact on the legal framework, as two types of frameworks are appearing: the assistance relates on the common law system and the cooperation tends to be a specific framework. Finally, it appears the international mutual helps between the polices borrows from the criminal proceedings and from the international rights their caracteristics and their influences.

Alors que la protection effective des droits et libertés est souvent conçue comme dépendante de leur garantie juridictionnelle, cette dernière implique une transformation de l'équilibre qui s'établit entre le juge, non élu, et le législateur, représentant du peuple souverain. À travers une analyse pratique des effets du travail juridictionnel sur l'activité législative, tels qu'ils se sont déployés aux États-Unis, au Canada et au Royaume-Uni sur les quinze dernières années, il est possible d'évaluer les conséquences de la consécration de certains droits dans un catalogue opposable par le juge au législateur, en matière d'équilibre entre les pouvoirs législatif et juridictionnel. Si ces trois systèmes, aux traditions constitutionnelles éloignées, disposent chacun de mécanismes spécifiques pour assurer le respect des droits consacrés, plusieurs points de convergence peuvent être mis en lumière. Leur étude sera alors l'occasion d'appréhender dans une perspective renouvelée l'équilibre qui s'établit entre les deux institutions. Elle fera progressivement apparaitre l'idée d'une véritable collaboration du législateur et du juge en matière de protection des droits et libertés dans les démocraties contemporaines / Effective human rights protection is often perceived as being dependent upon their judicial enforcement. However, such a mechanism transforms the relationship between unelected judges and electorally accountable legislators. Through an empirical analysis of the effects of judicial review on legislation and legislative decision-making, in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, during the last fifteen years, the actual impact of the entrenchment of human rights in a written bill of rights will be assessed and evaluated. Even though these three countries have different processes to guarantee the respect of entrenched rights, and despite their long-settled and contrasting traditions, their systems are not as conflicting as it is often thought. This study finally leads to a better understanding of the relationship between judges and legislators in contemporary democracies and underlines the idea of a genuine collaboration of powers

L’objet de la recherche consiste à mettre en évidence que la prise en compte des violences émeutières requiert une évolution de l’environnement juridique et des méthodes de maintien de la paix publique hérités de notre histoire. Notre dispositif de gestion de l’ordre public est particulièrement adapté au modèle français de manifestation. C’est considérable et exemplaire à beaucoup d’égards mais cela ne peut clore le débat sur les formes de la réaction sociale nécessaires pour répondre aux différentes formes du répertoire de la protestation en particulier à la dynamique complexe des désordres émeutiers.Alors que la manifestation, son encadrement par les forces de sécurité intérieure et son environnement juridique ressortissent à la culture de l’organisation et de l’ordre, les violences émeutières relèvent, quant à elles, de comportements colériques naturels. Elles constituent un objet et un enjeu différents que traduisent notamment la récurrence des crises en milieu urbain et la difficulté d’y faire face de façon satisfaisante.Sur le plan opérationnel comme sur le plan juridique, l’éventail de la réponse aux désordres est particulièrement large, mais il traduit également un double embarras :• Les violences émeutières sont le plus souvent des violences d’expression. Qu’ils en soient conscients ou non, face à ces comportements, le juge et le politique se sont montrés fréquemment indulgents dans un contexte juridique où la liberté d’expression est un droit fondamental et la manifestation une conquête sans équivalent dans notre pays. Les réponses sociale et judiciaire se caractérisent donc par une mansuétude parfois légitime, parfois inadaptée mais souvent mal comprise.• Les modes d’action policiers et les outils du Droit façonnés par l’environnement juridique et la culture de la manifestation, peuvent se révéler inadaptés pour répondre aux émeutes urbaines et conduire à des évolutions aussi variées qu’inappropriées comme la banalisation du recours à des régimes juridiques d’exception et la sédimentation d’une culture d’affrontement entre police et population.Le concept retentissement / identification et l’analyse des colères rebelles et insoumises ouvrent la voie à une adaptation du droit et de la réponse sociale conciliant le respect des droits fondamentaux et le maintien de la paix publique dans l’espace urbain. Tel est l’enjeu de la dialectique « Libertés - Droit - désordres ». / The object of the research is to highlight that rioting violence cannot be dealt with without an evolution of the legal framework and public-order policing inherited from our History. Our way to manage public-order policing is particularly suitable to our French traditional demonstration pattern. It is significant and exemplary in many respects but that alone cannot close the debate about the forms of social reaction that would be necessary to answer the various forms of the repertoire of protest especially the complex dynamics of rioting disorders.Even though the demonstration, its framing by the police and its legal framework are both an order issue and a cultural issue, rioting acts of violence are a natural irascible behaviour of the human nature. Riots are an object and an issue which translate into in recurring urban crises and the difficulty to satisfactorily deal with them.From an operational point of view and from a judicial one, there is a wide range of answers to the disorders but this results in a double embarrassment:• Riots are very often a means of expression. Consciously or not, the judge and the policy-maker have frequently been indulgent with these behaviours in a legal context in which freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and demonstrating a conquest without equivalent in our country. Social and judicial answers are characterized by indulgence, sometimes legitimate, sometimes inadequate and often ill-understood.• Policing and the tools of the law that were shaped by the legal framework and the culture of demonstration can prove to be inadequate to cope with urban riots and they can result in various as well as inappropriate answers like the trivialization of emergency legal schemes and the sedimentation of a culture of clash between people and the police.The repercussion and identification concept and the analysis of the rebel and unsubdued bouts of anger pave the way to an adaptation of the law and the social response aiming at balancing both the expression of the basic rights and the preservation of public peace in urban areas. This is what is at stake with the dialectics « Liberties – Law – Disorder ».

v anglickém jazyce - English abstract Protection of Right to Fair Trial in Relation to Preliminary Ruling Proceedings Right to fair trial is one of fundamental human rights, which enables individuals to effectively invoke their rights and freedoms before a lawful, impartial and independent court. In Europe, the protection of this right is guaranteed at a multi-layer level, whose layers interact: first layer is formed by constitutional orders of individual States, second layer by institutions of European Union, in particular the Court of Justice of the European Union, and a third one, that of the European Court for Human Rights. In the European Union, the Treaties have introduced the mechanism of preliminary ruling with the aim of preserving unity within the Union and of ensuring coherent interpretation and application of European law by the courts of the Member States. Preliminary ruling proceedings ensure effective cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Art. 267 TFEU provides for an obligation to request a preliminary ruling for national courts of last instance (if none of the CILFIT case law conditions is met). Breach of this obligation may entail violation of right to fair trial at all three layers of human rights protection in Europe. Each European...

La dialectique de l’ordre public et des libertés sillonne la pensée juridique depuis le XVIIIème siècle. Généré par de nouvelles formes de délinquance et de criminalité, le renforcement des exigences de l’ordre public impose de s’interroger sur la limitation des droits fondamentaux constitutionnels. En dépit de la place névralgique qu’il occupe entre ordre public et libertés, le processus de limitation demeure indéterminé en droit français. Cette recherche, organisée autour de la détermination des limites aux droits garantis, de l’identification des « limites aux limites » aux droits fondamentaux, puis de la redéfinition des droits fondamentaux par les limites, permet de préciser ce mécanisme, mais aussi de cerner les restrictions apportées à l’exercice des droits et libertés. L’autolimitation du Conseil constitutionnel marque un infléchissement progressif de la protection des droits fondamentaux. Ce constat invite à réfléchir sur l’encadrement supra-législatif de la limitation des droits garantis, et conduit à se positionner en faveur de l’insertion d’une clause de limitation des droits fondamentaux dans la Constitution. / The dialectics of public order and freedoms has been traveling throughout legal thought since the 18th century. Sparked by new forms of delinquency and criminality, the strengthening of public order requirements leads to questioning the limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. Despite its crucible place between public order and freedoms, the limitation process remains undetermined in French law. This research, which aims at determining the limitations to protected rights, identifying the limitations to those limitations themselves, and then redefining fundamental rights through those limitations, not only helps to specify this mechanism, but also to identify the restrictions brought to the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. The Conseil constitutionnel self-restraint reveals a gradual shift in the protection of fundamental rights. Acknowledging the former leads to considering a supra legislative framework to the limitations to protected rights, and advocating in favor of the constitutional entrenchment of such a clause.

Depuis l’arrêt Dagenais c. Radio-Canada, rendu en 1994, la Cour suprême du Canada n’a jamais remis en cause le principe selon lequel il ne doit exister aucune hiérarchie juridique entre les droits et libertés protégés par les chartes canadienne et québécoise. Or, une revue attentive de la jurisprudence canadienne en matière de protection des convictions religieuses nous a permis d’identifier une certaine réticence sinon un « certain malaise »  des institutions judiciaires lorsqu’elles doivent déterminer des limites claires au-delà desquelles les revendications fondées sur les convictions religieuses ne peuvent plus bénéficier d’une protection constitutionnelle ou quasi-constitutionnelle. Cette « réticence judiciaire » étant toute particulière aux dispositions protégeant les convictions religieuses au Canada, il nous a semblé plausible que ses impacts juridiques soient symptomatiques de l’établissement implicite – mais bien réel – d’une hiérarchie juridique matérielle (ou systémique) entre les différents droits fondamentaux protégés par les chartes canadienne et québécoise. En nous fondant sur un cadre d’analyse théorique inspiré par les travaux du professeur Rik Torfs, de l’Université catholique de Louvain en Belgique, et au moyen d’une étude focalisée sur le contexte des relations de travail, nous entendons démontrer que l’état actuel du droit canadien et québécois concernant les revendications fondées sur les différentes croyances et coutumes religieuses témoigne de l’application d’un modèle hiérarchique (le « modèle de confiance ») qui assigne aux dispositions concernant la protection des convictions religieuses individuelles une place parmi les plus élevées de cette même hiérarchie. Nous espérons ainsi contribuer de manière significative à la théorie du droit par l’atteinte de trois objectifs principaux : (1) Établir et mettre en œuvre une méthode permettant d’identifier une hiérarchie matérielle entre deux ensembles de droits fondamentaux ; (2) Mettre à jour l’étroite relation susceptible d’exister entre les différents modèles nationaux de gestion du pluralisme religieux et le concept de hiérarchie matérielle entre droits fondamentaux ; et (3) Établir l’existence d’une hiérarchie matérielle entre droits fondamentaux de nature constitutionnelle au Canada, par l’entremise de la démonstration du déséquilibre hiérarchique favorisant les dispositions protégeant les convictions religieuses au sein du plus large ensemble des droits et libertés de nature constitutionnelle au Canada / Since Dagenais c. Radio-Canada, rendered in 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada has never questioned the principle of “no legal hierarchy between the different Human Rights protected by the Canadian and Quebec charters. However, a careful review of Canadian jurisprudence on the protection of religious beliefs permits to detect a certain reluctance  if not a "discomfort"  of judicial institutions when they must identify clear boundaries beyond which the claims based on religious beliefs can not be constitutionnaly (or quasi-constitutionnaly) protected. This "judicial reluctance" being particular to provisions protecting religious convictions in Canada, it seemed possible to us that its impacts may be symptomatic of the implicit - but real - establishment a legal hierarchy between the various Human Rights protected by the Canadian and Quebec charters. Based on a theoretical framework inspired by the work of Rik Torfs, Professor in the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, and through a study focused on the context of labor relations, we intend to demonstrate that the current state of Canadian and Quebec law on claims based on different religious beliefs and customs underlies the application of a hierarchical model (the "trust model") which assigns to the provisions protecting individual religious beliefs a place among the highest in the same hierarchy. In doing so, we hope to contribute significantly to the theory of law by achieving three main objectives : (1) To establish and implement a method permitting to identify a material hierarchy between two sets of fundamental rights, (2) To expose the close relationship that may exist between the different national models of management of religious pluralism and the concept of material hierarchy among human rights, and (3) To establish the existence of a material hierarchy between constitutional Human rights in Canada through the demonstration of hierarchical imbalance favoring the provisions protecting religious beliefs within the broader set of constitutionnal Human Rights in Canada

Lobbying should be strictly regulated – that is the major finding of this thesis. The thesis presents many reasons to enact stricter regulations. The principle one being that, as lightly regulated as it is, lobbying is corroding democracy in both Canada and the United States. The thesis opens with a deep investigation of how lobbying works in both countries. There are examples taken from the literature, as well as original qualitative interviews of Canadian lobbyists, former politicians, and officials. Together, these make it clear that there is an intimate relationship between lobbying and campaign financing. The link between the two is sufficiently tight that lobbying and campaign financing should be considered mirrors of each other for the purposes of regulatory design and constitutional jurisprudence. They both have large impacts on government decision-making. Left lightly regulated, lobbying and campaign financing erode the processes of democracy, damage policy-making, and feed an inequality spiral into plutocracy. These have become major challenges of our time. The thesis examines the lobbying regulations currently in place. It finds the regulatory systems of both countries wanting. Since stricter regulation is required to protect democracy and equality, the thesis considers what constitutional constraints, if any, would stand in the way. This, primarily, is a study of how proposed stronger lobbying regulations would interact with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2 (free expression and association rights) and s. 3 (democratic rights). The principal findings are that legislation which restricted lobbying as proposed would probably be upheld by the Canadian court, but struck down by the American court, due to differences in their constitutional jurisprudence. The thesis contends that robust lobbying regulations would align with Canadian Charter values, provide benefits to democracy, improve government decision-making, increase equality, and create more room for citizen voices. The thesis concludes with a set of proposed principles for lobbying reform and an evaluation of two specific reforms: limits on business lobbying and funding for citizen groups. Although the thesis focuses on Canadian and American lobbying regulations, its lessons are broadly applicable to any jurisdiction that is considering regulating lobbying.

This thesis is an examination of whether the “egalitarian model” for political finance that has been established by the Supreme Court of Canada, other Canadian courts and legal scholars and commentators is actually egalitarian and has been applied consistently (in Chapter 2), and whether Canada’s political finance system measures up to the Court’s model (in Chapters 3 and 4), and how it could be changed to comply with a more egalitarian model that would also be ethical in terms of preventing even the appearance of a conflict of interest (in Chapters 6 and 7). Chapter 1 sets out a general theoretical framework for evaluating the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, and I develop and set out a more egalitarian model in Chapter 5. In the Chapter 8 conclusion, I summarize the findings and propose structural and positive Charter rights court cases as a way forward, given that the platforms federal politicians and political parties from the past few elections, and the reports of parliamentary committees, have not called for the most of the changes I propose are needed to make the system more egalitarian. The thesis addresses political finance broadly defined as money, property, use of property, gifts, services, favours and other benefits and advantages provided to nomination contestants, election candidates and political party leadership contestants, electoral district associations, political parties, politicians and their staff during election campaign periods and also during the time period between elections, including support provided by “third-party” interest groups, lobbyists and other individuals, and by media outlets. In Chapter 3, I examine the rules that apply to each of these political actors in the areas of registration, donations and loans, spending, public subsidies and disclosure (including auditing), including a separate section on the role of media and social media. Given that political systems include providers (whether as contractors or donors) of money, property and the use of property (including gifts and other benefits and advantages), and services (including favours) to politicians, and given that providers could be lobbyists, I also examine in Chapter 4 the rules concerning gifts, favours and other benefits and relations between voters, lobbyists and politicians, and concerning the conflicts of interest that can be caused by these activities. Other than disclosure and auditing, I do not cover enforcement measures or systems in any of the areas. However, I do note at various points in the thesis that, as several studies and history have shown clearly, effective enforcement measures, policies and practices are key to ensure compliance with such rules. The main contentions that I make are: that the key principles of the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model have not been consistently upheld by the Court and other Canadian courts, that Canada’ federal political finance system does not fulfill the Court’s egalitarian model, and that several changes are needed to make the model and the system more egalitarian, only a few of which have been addressed by Canadian courts and scholars to date. These contentions counter the claim made in the Court’s rulings, and by many scholars and commentators, that Canada’s political finance system has developed and is based on an egalitarian model. In Chapters 5 through 7, I develop a more egalitarian model and set out specific proposed changes to make Canada’s systems more egalitarian, both in theory and in practice, within the framework of a democratic good government political system (meaning a system with separation of powers, elections, human rights protections, rule of law etc.) and a mixed market economy with both public sector institutions and private sector businesses, unions and other organizations (cooperatives, non-profit, religious organizations etc.). Both the model and many of the specific proposed measures should also be applicable in other jurisdictions with different political systems and economic systems. The framework of 19 standards for a more egalitarian model that I develop in Chapter 5 is based mainly on John Rawls’ theory of justice, but modified and expanded to incorporate critiques of Rawls’ theory, other legal principles and democratic good government theories, international standards, government ethics case law, behavioural psychology studies, and evidence of the public’s expectations. The 201 proposals I make in Chapters 6 and 7 for specific changes to the rules of Canada’s current federal political finance system (again, broadly defined), are based on the model, measures from various jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere, and international standards. I am not claiming that these changes would definitely result in “better” or more “public interest” policy-making decisions, however that would be determined. I am only contending that the framework I develop is more egalitarian than the Supreme Court’s model, and that the rule changes I suggest would make the political finance, gifts, favours, conflict of interest and lobbying systems align with the more egalitarian model I propose. I primarily use the doctrinal research methodology by examining scholarly research and, given I also examine aspects of the laws of Canadian provinces and municipalities, and other countries, I also deploy some aspects of the comparative methodology (most fully when comparing Canada’s federal rules to Quebec’s rules, and somewhat when comparing Canada’s rules to the U.S. and U.K. rules). The research results from these sources inform the conclusions I set out in my thesis. The thesis advances knowledge in the following areas: 1. It is the first complete evaluation of the federal Canadian political finance, gifts-favours-benefits, conflict of interest and lobbying rules and systems in their current state as of May 2023, based on the findings of extensive new research into key parts of these systems; 2. It sets out the first comprehensive analysis of how the Supreme Court of Canada’s egalitarian model has been applied by the Court and other courts inconsistently, in ways that do not comply with the model; 3. It sets out the first analysis of how Canada’s political finance statutory rules, again defined broadly to include rules that apply to donations, loans, gifts, services, favours and other benefits, lobbying and conflicts of interest, do not comply with the Supreme Court’s egalitarian model, based in part on new statistical research set out in 28 charts, and; 4. It sets out a new theoretical framework based on 19 standards, and a comprehensive set of 201 innovative proposals for changes to make Canada’s political finance rules (again defined broadly) more egalitarian, and more ethical in terms of preventing conflicts of interest. Five comprehensive studies of key parts of the political finance, ethics and lobbying systems are also proposed to gather key information needed to inform the design of some of the 201 proposed changes. Eight structural and positive Charter rights cases are also proposed to challenge current rules that do not comply with the egalitarian model.