La double incrimination est une condition « classique » en droit pénal international, que l'on trouve formulée dans les instruments normatifs relatifs à la coopération pénale internationale, ainsi que dans ceux consacrés aux compétences extraterritoriales. Dans ces deux domaines la condition de la double incrimination est considérée comme remplie lorsque les faits en question sont punis par les droits internes des deux États concernés (État requérant et État requis, ou État de poursuite et État de commission). Toutefois, l'application de cette condition n'est pas sans poser de difficultés, aussi bien sur un plan substantiel que sur un plan procédural. Des difficultés qui ont conduit les États européens à la remettre en cause, du moins pour partie ; une remise en cause totale de la double incrimination s'avérant, en l'état, impossible. / Double criminality is a “classic” condition in international criminal law, which is found in normative instruments relating to international cooperation in criminal matters, as well as those relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction. In these two fields, the condition of double criminality is considered fulfilled when the conduct in question is punishable under the domestic law of both states (the requesting state and the requested state, or the prosecuting State and the State in which the act was committed). Moreover, the application of this condition continues to pose difficulties, not only in substance but also in procedure. The difficulties have driven the European states to call the condition into question, at least partially; even though a total removal of the condition in its current state is impossible.

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. D.

A expansão do direito penal pelos direitos humanos tem no direito penal internacional um privilegiado campo de estudo. Entre as tendências expansivas dos direitos humanos, motivadas pela luta contra a impunidade, e a necessária contenção mecanismo punitivo, princípios, estruturas de aplicação e fundamentação entram em choque, quando se pensava que os direitos humanos e o direito penal originaram-se da mesma matriz liberal de contenção do poder estatal. O tema ganha especial impulso diante da perspectiva expansionista por que passa o direito penal na modernidade, dos influxos da globalização. As decisões dos tribunais penais internacionais, de Nuremberg a Haia, dos tribunais de direitos humanos (europeu e interamericano), fornecem um panorama de como essa relação tem sido construída, favorecendo a aplicação da norma punitiva e flexibilizando garantias clássicas penais e processuais penais. A discussão empreendida busca matizar a luta contra a impunidade que seja tributária dos avanços jurídicos do sistema de garantias, também conquistas sociais e políticas para a efetiva proteção dos direitos humanos. Nesse contexto, alerta-se para o fato de que se estaria produzindo um direito especial motivado pela luta contra os mais graves crimes contra a paz e a segurança mundiais. Finalmente, expõe-se as dificuldades de validação do conteúdo preventivo das normas em direito penal internacional, do déficit democrático de sua produção desconectada da base social sobre a qual atua, e do efeito simbólico de seus enunciados à custa das máximas garantias. / The international criminal law features a special condition for the critical analysis of the expansion of criminal law through human rights. Between the expansive tendencies of human rights, motivated by the fight against impunity, and the necessary containment of punitive mechanism, stands the international criminal law, whose principles, implementation structures and grounds clash, despite the fact that human rights and criminal law originated from the same liberal matrix for the containment of state power. The debate gained particular momentum with the expansionist perspective experienced by the criminal law in modern times of globalization inflows. The decisions of international criminal courts, from Nuremberg to The Hague, human rights tribunals (European and Inter-American), provide an overview of how this relationship has been built, favoring the application of criminal provisions and easing criminal and criminal procedural classical guarantees. The discussion undertaken shades the fight against impunity, that shall be paved by the legal achievements for the effective protection of human rights, warning to the fact that it is producing a special law, away from the legal domestic law principles, motivated by the fight against the most serious crimes against peace and world security. Finally, sets up the difficulties in accepting the preventive content of international criminal provisions, the democratic deficit of its production disconnected of the social contexts in which operates, and the symbolic effect of its legal provisions at the expense of the maximum guarantees.

Les crimes contre l’humanité, les crimes contre la paix, les crimes de guerre, le génocide constituant le noyau dur des crimes internationaux représentent les actes qui causent les dommages les plus graves à la sécurité humaine et internationale. Ils sont codifiés dans les statuts des tribunaux pénaux internationaux. Les crimes transnationaux ou les crimes de traités ne sont pas codifiés dans ces statuts ou sont codifiés d’une manière assez limitée. L’apartheid, la torture, l’esclavage, la piraterie maritime, le terrorisme sont les exemples de ces crimes. Selon les règles de transformation du système international de Morton Kaplan, une variable du système international cause des transformations ou joue un rôle dans l’essor des systèmes internationaux. Le noyau dur des crimes internationaux est abordé dans notre travail comme l’une de ces variables du système. Dans ce but, le système bipolaire (1945- 1991), le nouvel ordre mondial (1991-2001) et le nouveau système depuis les attentats de 11 septembre 2001 ont été analysés. Les Tribunaux Internationaux de Nuremberg, de Tokyo, pour l’Ex-Yougoslavie, pour le Rwanda et la CPI sont devenus les études de cas. / Crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, war crimes and genocide constitute the hard core of most threatful acts to human and international security. They have been codified through the statutes of international criminal tribunals. Transnational crimes or treaty crimes are not codified in these statutes or they are narrowly codified. Examples of such crimes include the apartheid, torture, slavery, maritime piracy, and terrorism. According to the rules of international system transformation as defined by Morton Kaplan, one variable of the international system entails transformations and plays a role in the emergence of international systems. In this study, the hard core of international crimes is considered as one of the variables of the system. Thus, the bipolar system (1945-1991), the new world order (1991- 2001) and the new system after September 11 attacks are analysed. International Tribunals such as Nuremberg, Tokyo, for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the International Penal Court constitute case studies.

L’application de la compétence internationale pénale dans l'affaire Pinochet à laissé un précédent important dans le domaine de la lutte contre l'impunité, comme le démontre la procédure mise en œuvre par l'Audiencia Nacional d'Espagne, ainsi que par la Cour d'Assises de Paris avec application du principe de la personnalité passive. En effet, avec le mandat d’arrêt international aux fins d'extradition émis par les autorités judiciaires espagnols, qui a permis l'arrestation de Pinochet à Londres, la négation de son immunité par la chambre des Lords et le jugement par défaut en France de son administration militaire, le droit international connait un avant et in après. Le droit international pénal est ainsi mis en exergue en tant que fondement juridique de la compétence extra-territoriale des Etats. Il permet d'utiliser tant le principe de la compétence universelle que celui. Il permet d'utiliser tant le principe de la compétence universelle que celui de la personnalité passive, toutes deux appliquées, dans cette affaire précise, dans le but d'exercer une justice internationale. / The application of the criminal international jurisdiction in the Pinochet case left an important precedent in the area of the fight against impunity, as shown by the procedure brought into play by the Spanish Audiencia Nacional and also by the Cour d'Assises of Paris, with the enforcement of the passive personality principle. Actually, with the international arrest warrant for extradition issued by the Spanish judicial authorities, which made possible the arrest of Pinochet in London; the denial of his immunity by the House of Lords and the judgment in absentia in France of his military organization, the international law has a before and an after. The international criminal law is under lined as the juridical foundation of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the legal authorities of a state. It allows the application as well of the universal jurisdiction principle as of the passible personality principle, both used, in this precise case, with the objective to exercise an international justice.

À ce moment charnière où les T.P.I. accomplissent leurs Stratégies d’achèvement et où la C.P.I. va rendre son premier jugement, il est essentiel de faire un point sur le droit international pénal et particulièrement sur les statuts de victime selon ce droit. En effet, ceux-ci symbolisent les tenants et aboutissants de l’ensemble du droit international pénal. Tantôt oubliée, tantôt sacralisée, la victime ne laisse pas indifférent, et encore moins lorsqu’elle a subi un crime international. Sa reconnaissance a d’ailleurs bouleversé l’économie générale du droit international pénal qui lui accorde une place de plus en plus grande. Une étude approfondie des droits des différentes juridictions permet de constater qu’il n’y a pas un mais plusieurs statuts de victime. La pluralité de ces statuts réside dans l’existence de plusieurs qualités juridiques de victime et de plusieurs régimes juridiques applicables à celle-ci. L’analyse des différents facteurs de cette pluralité donne lieu de voir qu’elle est une force et non une faiblesse du droit international pénal. Elle est la voie médiane entre le rejet de la considération des victimes comme une masse informe et leur impossible prise en compte individuelle. Mais, comme pour le statut du particulier en droit international public général, l’équilibre est parfois difficile à trouver et les statuts sont perfectibles. C’est pourquoi, des propositions d’enrichissements des statuts de victime sont faites et, pour chacune d’entre elles, il est observé si elle est réalisable et souhaitable. Un système de justice pénale internationale serait en construction. La victime pourrait finir par trouver une place en son sein qui satisferait l’ensemble des protagonistes de la répression des crimes internationaux, y compris et surtout, les États. / While the ICT carry out their Completion Strategies, the ICC will soon pronounce its first decision. At this point, itis important to assess international criminal law and especially victim’s status according to this law. Actually, theysymbolise the ins and outs of international criminal law. Once forgotten, once sacralised, the victim never leavesus indifferent, above all a victim of international crimes. His or her recognition has deeply altered internationalcriminal law, which now gives him or her an increasing place. Studying the laws of the international criminal courtsshows that there is not one status but several status of victim. This plurality comes from the fact that there areseveral legal characterisations of victim and several legal conditions. The analysis of the different factors leadingto this multiplicity of legal status enables us to envision this legal diversity as a power of international criminal law,rather than one of its weaknesses. It is the middle way between considering victims as a shapeless, undefinedand undifferentiated crowd and considering each victim individually. But, as with the status of private persons ininternational public law, reaching and keeping a well-balanced status is difficult ; and these are perfectible andcan be improved. This is the reason why some suggestions for the enrichment of the different status are madeand, for each of them, there is a thorough questioning and analysis of whether it is feasible and desirable. As aninternational criminal justice system is under construction, the victim could find a place in it which would satisfy allthe protagonists of the legal proceedings against international crimes, including and particularly States.

La sanction internationale de la violation des droits de l'homme peine à atteindre les objectifs qui lui sont assignés. Les sanctions non juridictionnelles mises en place au sein du système de la Charte des Nations unies sont le régime de droit commun, mais leur efficacité reste limitée pour la victime. Les Comités créés pour veiller à l'application des conventions relatives aux droits de l'homme prennent de simples recommandations à l'issue de l'examen des communications individuelles et sont incompétents pour connaître des violations graves. À défaut de mécanisme de sanction des violations graves, le Conseil de sécurité a étendu l'application des mesures collectives aux droits de l'homme. Le recours ainsi fait au Chapitre VII est confronté aux difficultés opérationnelles qui en limitent la portée. Face à ces difficultés, le Conseil de sécurité a diversifié ses sanctions. Toutefois, qu'elles soient des sanctions ciblées ou des mesures juridictionnelles comme la création de juridictions pénales ou la saisine de la Cour pénale internationale, les mesures collectives sont axées sur l'individu et non l'État. Bien que ce dernier soit le titulaire des obligations internationales en la matière, il est à l'abri de toute sanction contraignante, qu'elle soit collective ou pénale. L'absence de sanction efficace à l'encontre de l'État et la garantie insuffisante des droits de la victime impose une réforme du contentieux international des droits de l'homme. Au-delà du renforcement des mécanismes des organes de traités, la création d'une juridiction universelle chargée de sanctionner la violation des droits de l'homme au sein du système des Nations unies doit être envisagée. / The goal of effectively addressing human rights violations by imposing international sanctions has been hardly achieved. Under the UN Charter, even though non-judicial sanctions are applied as the common system, they are not effective enough in addressing the victim's needs. Committees established to monitor the application of human rights Conventions, while considering individual communications, can only make recommendations, as they are not even competent to handle serious human rights violations. In the absence of an effective mechanism to deal with serious human rights violations, the Security Council has extended the application of collective measures under Chapter VII of the Charter to human rights, resulting into operational difficulties limiting its scope. Therefore, the Security Council has diversified its sanctions in order to address these challenges. However, the collective measures, either targeted sanctions or judicial measures e.g. the establishment of criminal courts or referral to the International Criminal Court, only focus on the individual rather than the State. Although the State is the duty bearer under the international human rights obligations, it is not subject to binding sanctions, whether collective or criminal. The lack of effective sanctions against State and the insufficient guarantee for protection of the victim's rights call for a reform of the international human rights litigation. In addition to strengthening the treaty body system, it is worth considering the establishment of a World Court within the UN system to impose enforceable sanctions on States in case of human rights violation.

Lorsque des allégations de violations du droit international des droits de l’homme (DIDH) ou du droit international humanitaire (DIH) sont rapportées dans un pays, une meilleure compréhension des faits et de la situation est souvent nécessaire afin que l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU) puisse répondre de manière appropriée. A cette fin, les organes de l’ONU y compris l’Assemblée générale, le Conseil de sécurité, le Secrétaire général, le Conseil des droits de l’homme et même le Haut-Commissariat aux droits de l’homme peuvent créer des missions d’établissement des faits. Ces missions sont des organes interétatiques ad hoc créés en réponse à des violations graves et massives DIDH et du DIH. Leurs fonctions principales sont le plus souvent d’établir les faits, de les qualifier en droit et de faire des recommandations pour mettre fin à ces violations et y remédier. Le recours à ces missions, parfois appelées commissions d’enquête, n’a cessé de croître ces vingt dernières années, en particulier lorsque des violations du DIDH et du DIH, pouvant constituer des crimes internationaux, sont alléguées. A cet égard, la théorie de la justice transitionnelle et la doctrine de la responsabilité de protéger ont ouvert de nouvelles perspectives pour l’établissement des faits. Ceci explique que les objectifs et les fonctions des missions d’établissement des faits se sont diversifiés. Cependant, les Etats et une partie de la doctrine remettent en cause le caractère ad hoc du mode de création de ces missions, de leur mandat, et de leurs méthodes de travail. Nous étudierons cette tension entre uniformité et diversité afin de proposer des solutions adaptées permettant de remédier aux problèmes dénoncés par la doctrine et de maximiser l’impact de ces missions sur de la réponse des parties prenantes notamment l’État concerné et l’ONU. / To respond appropriately to violations of human rights and humanitarian law, the United Nations requires an in-depth knowledge of the facts alleged and a better understanding of the relevant situation on the ground. To this end, United Nations organs including the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Secretary General, the Human Rights Council and even the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights may create fact-finding missions. These missions are collegial ad hoc bodies created in response to human rights and humanitarian law violations that are particularly grave. Their functions generally include establishing the facts, conducting a legal appraisal of facts, and making recommendations for the cessation of violations and for their remedy. In the past twenty years, United Nations organs have increasingly resorted to these missions – often referred to as commissions of inquiry – in particular when violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law may amount to international crimes. In this respect, transitional justice theory and the doctrine of the responsibility to protect provide new perspectives for fact-finding. The objectives and functions of these missions have therefore diversified. However, some states and scholars criticize the ad hoc creation of the missions, their often politicized mandate, and their methods of work. We will elaborate on this tension between uniformity and diversity and propose some solutions. These proposals will aim at addressing the issues raised by scholars as well as maximizing the missions’ impact on stakeholders’ response to the situation.

Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M.

A expansão do direito penal pelos direitos humanos tem no direito penal internacional um privilegiado campo de estudo. Entre as tendências expansivas dos direitos humanos, motivadas pela luta contra a impunidade, e a necessária contenção mecanismo punitivo, princípios, estruturas de aplicação e fundamentação entram em choque, quando se pensava que os direitos humanos e o direito penal originaram-se da mesma matriz liberal de contenção do poder estatal. O tema ganha especial impulso diante da perspectiva expansionista por que passa o direito penal na modernidade, dos influxos da globalização. As decisões dos tribunais penais internacionais, de Nuremberg a Haia, dos tribunais de direitos humanos (europeu e interamericano), fornecem um panorama de como essa relação tem sido construída, favorecendo a aplicação da norma punitiva e flexibilizando garantias clássicas penais e processuais penais. A discussão empreendida busca matizar a luta contra a impunidade que seja tributária dos avanços jurídicos do sistema de garantias, também conquistas sociais e políticas para a efetiva proteção dos direitos humanos. Nesse contexto, alerta-se para o fato de que se estaria produzindo um direito especial motivado pela luta contra os mais graves crimes contra a paz e a segurança mundiais. Finalmente, expõe-se as dificuldades de validação do conteúdo preventivo das normas em direito penal internacional, do déficit democrático de sua produção desconectada da base social sobre a qual atua, e do efeito simbólico de seus enunciados à custa das máximas garantias. / The international criminal law features a special condition for the critical analysis of the expansion of criminal law through human rights. Between the expansive tendencies of human rights, motivated by the fight against impunity, and the necessary containment of punitive mechanism, stands the international criminal law, whose principles, implementation structures and grounds clash, despite the fact that human rights and criminal law originated from the same liberal matrix for the containment of state power. The debate gained particular momentum with the expansionist perspective experienced by the criminal law in modern times of globalization inflows. The decisions of international criminal courts, from Nuremberg to The Hague, human rights tribunals (European and Inter-American), provide an overview of how this relationship has been built, favoring the application of criminal provisions and easing criminal and criminal procedural classical guarantees. The discussion undertaken shades the fight against impunity, that shall be paved by the legal achievements for the effective protection of human rights, warning to the fact that it is producing a special law, away from the legal domestic law principles, motivated by the fight against the most serious crimes against peace and world security. Finally, sets up the difficulties in accepting the preventive content of international criminal provisions, the democratic deficit of its production disconnected of the social contexts in which operates, and the symbolic effect of its legal provisions at the expense of the maximum guarantees.