No description available.

Thèse de doctorat réalisée en cotutelle avec la Faculté de droit de l'Université Aix-Marseille 3. / La présente recherche a pour objectif d’expliquer et d’évaluer le processus d’émergence du droit au respect des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones, qui se manifeste devant deux juridictions et une quasi-juridiction : les cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme et le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies, dont les jurisprudences feront l’objet d’une comparaison. Un tel sujet soulève plusieurs questions, dont celles de savoir à quel stade de ce processus nous en sommes, quel est le niveau de juridicité de la norme, mais aussi, quelle est la signification de ce droit, quels en sont les apports et comment se produit sa mise en œuvre. En proposer une interprétation éclairée suppose d’évaluer la référence au concept de mode de vie faite par les requérants, les juges et les experts. Cette démarche implique d’avoir recours à l’interdisciplinarité, plus précisément à certaines études anthropologiques. Cela requiert également un examen du discours des juges, des experts et des requérants pour en observer les convergences et les décalages. Quant aux résultats de recherche, le rôle de plusieurs acteurs au processus d’émergence de la norme nouvelle – les requérants, les juges ou les experts et les États – est souligné. Cela confirme la théorie de la polycentricité en matière de construction de certaines règles de droit international. La juridicité du droit au respect des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones et sa force varient en fonction des systèmes, mais il possède toujours les caractéristiques propres à la norme juridique internationale. Cette dernière consacre un droit spécifique appartenant aux peuples autochtones et tribaux ou aux membres de peuples autochtones et minoritaires. Elle protège un rapport au territoire, soit un mode d’appréhension et d’exploitation, mais aussi de circulation et d’établissement sur celui-ci, ainsi que des activités. Les requérants roms, tribaux ou autochtones participent, bien qu’officieusement, à la définition juridique de leurs modes de vie, puisque les requêtes qu’ils déposent devant les juridictions supranationales constituent le fondement des interprétations judiciaires. Malgré ce processus de codétermination, certains décalages persistent entre les positions des divers acteurs impliqués dans la détermination du sens de la norme. Ils sont liés à l’impossibilité pour les juges d’appliquer au cas d’espèce une protection de leurs modes de vie, à l’éloignement entre la position des requérants et celle de l’État défendeur ou encore à la protection des droits des tiers. Une double surdétermination de la norme est donc constatée, par les conceptions des juges ou des experts, mais aussi par celles des requérants. Elle comporte certains risques d’essentialisation et d’idéalisation des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones, de paternalisme, de victimisation ou de discrimination vis-à-vis des requérants ou de leurs communautés, sachant que ces risques sont tous à même de dénaturer le sens et la portée de la norme. Pour autant, cette dernière est porteuse d’avancées théoriques. Celles-ci ont trait à la coexistence, au sein de territoires identiques, entre groupes aux identités différentes, à l’amélioration de la qualité de vie des requérants et au processus de reconnaissance. La place occupée par la volonté des États, l’importance pour les juges de préserver leur légitimité, de même que le caractère idéaliste ou dogmatique de l’interprétation proposée, en limitent les apports théoriques. Il ressort de cette réflexion que la bonne articulation des divers discours en présence et l’émergence d’une norme efficace tiennent d’abord à l’énonciation et à la clarté des revendications des requérants minoritaires et autochtones. Elles tiennent ensuite à la réceptivité des agents qui les reçoivent – juges et experts – ainsi qu’au contexte politique, social et culturel qui les entourent. Cette analyse met ainsi en évidence l’importance d’exploiter la marge de manœuvre dont dispose chaque acteur du processus d’émergence dans la détermination du sens et de la portée des normes. / This research aims to explain and evaluate the emergence of a right of minorities and indigenous peoples to the respect of their ways of life, appearing before the European court of human rights, the Inter-American court of human rights and the United Nations Human rights Committee. The decisions and communications stemming from these tribunals will be analyzed and compared. This topic raises several questions regarding the legality of this norm, its meaning, effectiveness and limits, but also its implementation. In order to offer an interpretation of the content of that right, we need to evaluate the references made to it by the claimants, the judges and experts, which implicates an interdisciplinary approach focused on anthropological studies of law. This leads us to examine the discourses of judges, experts and claimants, to compare them and to observe their confluences and discrepancies. The results of this study show us that the emergence of this new norm is dependent upon the intervention of several agents – the claimants, the judges, the experts of the Committee and the States. This observation therefore confirms the polycentric process of construction of international legal rules. As to the legality and the effectiveness of the right of minorities and indigenous peoples to their ways of life, they vary according to the legal system, even if this right always corresponds to a legal rule. This rule consecrates a specific right belonging to indigenous and tribal people or to the members of indigenous people and minorities. It protects a relationship to the territory, i.e. a way to comprehend and to exploit it, to circulate on it and to inhabitate it. It also protects some activities. The indigenous, tribal and romas applicants unofficially take part in the legal definition of their ways of life, as the requests they submit to the international tribunals are cornerstones of judicial interpretations. In spite of a process of co-determination of the norm, gaps are observed between the positions of the different actors participating to the determination of the norm. They are either related to the impossibility for some judges to apply the right to a way of life to the case, to the distance between the positions of the claimants and the states, or to the protection of third parties. Consequently, a process of double distortion of the content of the norm appears, due to the judges’ or experts’ conceptions, but also to those of the claimants. It leads to the emergence of several problems, such as essentialism and the idealization of minorities and indigenous ways of life, paternalism, victimization or discrimination towards the claimants or their communities. These problems can alter the meaning and the impact of the norm. Nonetheless, the right to the respect of those ways of life has some theoretical effects related first to the coexistence, on a same piece of land, of different groups possessing diverse identities. They are also related to the improvement of the applicants’ quality of life and to the recognition process. However, the State’s willingness still occupies a large space in international law, as does the importance, for judges, to protect their own legitimacy. Moreover, some decisions seem too ideal or dogmatic. Those factors limit the effect of the norm. Thus, the articulation of judicial discourses and the efficiency of the norm are first contingent to the enunciation and to the clarity of the claimants’ requests. They are dependant of the receptivity of the agents whose role it is to receive them (judges and experts) and to the political, social and cultural context within which they take place. This last factor brings to light the importance for each agent participating to the elaboration of the norm to use, as much as he can, the margins he possesses.

No description available.

Trata-se do estudo da casuística internacional sobre as violações cometidas pelos Estados Unidos da América contra o artigo 36 da Convenção de Viena sobre Relações Consulares de 1963. A Corte Internacional de Justiça e a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos interpretam, regulamentam e aprimoram o direito de informação sobre assistência consular para preso estrangeiro, que deixa de ser visto como um direito puramente inter-Estatal por ambos os tribunais. Abordamse questões de Direito Internacional Público, como a força vinculante das decisões da Corte Internacional de Justiça, e sua íntima relação com o direito interno do Estado parte do tratado, inclusive com relação aos Estados terceiros ao litígio internacional, como o Brasil. Em sendo um componente do pacote das garantias do devido processo legal, o prejuízo causado ao réu estrangeiro pela falta de informação sobre o direito de assistência consular pode ensejar o reconhecimento de nulidade processual penal absoluta. / This is the study of international cases relating the violations committed by the United States of America against the article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. The International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have the opportunity to interpret, regulate and enhance the right to information on consular assistance to foreign detainee, who is no longer seen as a purely inter-State law by both Courts. The study addresses issues of Public International Law, as the binding force of decisions of the International Court of Justice, and its close relationship with the Domestic Law of the State party to the treaty, including with respect to third states to the international dispute. Considered a human right, part of the package of guarantees of due process, the demonstrated prejudice caused to the foreign defendant for lack of information about his right to consular assistance may cause the recognition of absolute nullity of criminal procedure.

Le déplacement interne forcé est un phénomène ancien et récurrent dont la communautéinternationale a tardé à se saisir. Ce n’est qu’en 1992 que le Secrétaire général des NationsUnies a nommé un Représentant spécial chargé des personnes déplacées internes. Dès sanomination, ce dernier a entrepris un important travail d’analyse et de compilation des normesinternationales afin d’étudier l’applicabilité de celles-ci aux personnes déplacées internes.L’aboutissement de ce travail a permis l’élaboration et la présentation des « Principesdirecteurs relatifs au déplacement de personnes à l’intérieur de leur propre pays » en 1998.Ces Principes directeurs sont par la suite devenus un cadre de référence pour ledéveloppement d’instruments internationaux conventionnels de portée régionale dont ledernier en date est la Convention de Kampala adoptée en 2009 par l’Union africaine.Cette étude a un double-objet. Tout d’abord, mettre en évidence l’évolution normative qu’aconnue la notion de personne déplacée interne et la protection juridique internationale relativeà cette notion. Ensuite, de se questionner sur l’émergence d’un statut juridique internationalen faveur des déplacés internes à travers l’analyse du concept de responsabilité de protéger etl’examen de l’utilité et de l’intérêt de ce statut juridique international dont l’émergencepourrait être entravée par d’éventuels obstacles juridiques. / Forced internal displacement is an old and recurring phenomenon that the internationalcommunity has been slow to grasp. It was not until 1992 that the United Nations GeneralSecretary appointed a Special Representative on internally displaced persons. Upon hisappointment, the Special Representative undertook a major work of analysis and compilationof international norms in order to study their applicability to internally displaced persons.The culmination of this work has enabled the development and presentation of the “GuidingPrinciples on internal displacement” in 1998. These guidelines have subsequently become animportant framework for the development of international treaties with regional impactwhose latest is the Kampala Convention adopted in 2009 by the African Union.This study has a double-object. First of all, it is to underline the important evolution of thenotion of internally displaced person and of the international legal protection regarding thisnotion.Secondly, it is to question about the emergence of an international legal status dedicated tointernally displaced persons through the analysis of the concept of responsibility to protectand through the review of the usefulness and the significance of this international legal statuswhose emergence could be hampered by possible legal obstacles.

L’immunité de juridiction des organisations internationales exclue – en principe – toute possibilité pour un agent international de se tourner vers le juge national en cas de litige avec son organisation. Ainsi, la question se pose de la garantie par le droit international du droit à un recours effectif des agents. Bien que chaque organisation internationale soit créatrice de son propre ordre juridique partiel, de multiples principes généraux identifiés par les différents tribunaux administratifs internationaux établissent un droit des agents internationaux à un recours effectif. Toutefois, dans la pratique, les parties prenantes dotées du pouvoir décisionnel ne tirent pas toujours toutes les conséquences de ces normes pour offrir aux agents les garanties nécessaires en vue d’assurer l’effectivité des voies de recours. Il en résulte une fragilité de ce droit, qui n’est pas sans répercussion sur le respect de l’état de droit au sein des organisations internationales. / International organizations’ immunity from jurisdiction prevents – in principle – an international agent from access to national courts in case of a conflict with his organization. Therefore, the question arises whether agents have a right to an effective remedy under international law. Despite the fact that each international organization creates its own partial legal order, various general principles identified by different international administrative tribunals establish, taken as a whole, the right of international agents to an effective remedy. However, in practice, the key stakeholders having decision-making power do not draw all necessary conclusions from these rules which would provide agents with the required guarantees for ensuring effectiveness of the legal remedies. This emphasizes the fragility of this right – a fragility which is not without consequences on the rule of law in international organizations.

Submitted by Rosina Valeria Lanzellotti Mattiussi Teixeira (rosina.teixeira@unisantos.br) on 2017-02-21T16:16:25Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Camila Marques Gilberto.pdf: 1029531 bytes, checksum: 2d61de2b9dad88156cc0a9e0a886328b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-21T16:16:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Camila Marques Gilberto.pdf: 1029531 bytes, checksum: 2d61de2b9dad88156cc0a9e0a886328b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-12 / This study deals with the evolution of the refugee concept and its growing dialogue with the International Human Rights Law. International Refugee Law stems from the Second World War and seeks to protect more and more individuals whose human rights are systematically violated (civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights), and due to those violations are forced to leave their countries in search of international protection. More than identifying an individual in a situation of vulnerability, it is necessary to recognize him as a refugee and to allow him access to a system of rights. In this perspective, the concept of refugee remains vital for the system of protection resulting in constant conceptual expansion through interpretations in light of International Human Rights Law. Therefore, this work has the specific objective of analyzing the concept established by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the regional advances that have broadened the scope of the universal definition, especially in the regional context of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The protection approach used in the context of the Americas is analyzed in the light of the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, the American Convention of Human Rights, and other universal protection instruments. The progress observed regionally is translated into a recent precedent of the Inter-American System, Pacheco Tineo vs. Plurinational State of Bolivia. The rights ensured in this case demonstrate that the region is moving towards the consolidation of a refugee protection system that is based on the analysis of demands in light of International Human Rights Law. Although the case has not brought conceptual advances, it has brought a series of procedural advances that result in the recognition and protection sought by individuals in situations of extreme vulnerability. The methodology used in this study is based on descriptive and normative approaches, based on bibliographical, documentary and jurisprudential research. The analysis uses reference works on International Human Rights Law, International Refugee Law and on the Inter-American Human Rights System. The method used is a deductive approach, starting with the construction of the concept of refugee throughout the twentieth century and analyzing the complementarity of the human protection aspects represented in the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. / O presente trabalho trata da evolução do conceito de refugiado e sua crescente interlocução com o Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. O Direito Internacional dos Refugiados tem origem após a Segunda Guerra Mundial e busca proteger cada vez mais indivíduos que, por terem seus direitos humanos (direitos civis e políticos e direitos econômicos, sociais e culturais) sistematicamente violados, são obrigados a deixar seus países em busca de proteção internacional em outro local. Mais do que identificar um indivíduo em situação de vulnerabilidade, é necessário reconhecê-lo enquanto refugiado e permitir a ele acesso a um sistema de direitos. Assim, o conceito de refugiado segue vital para o sistema de proteção resultando em constante expansão conceitual por via de interpretações à luz do Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. Nesta perspectiva, este trabalho tem como objetivo específico analisar o conceito estabelecido pela Convenção de 1951 Relativa ao Status dos Refugiados e os avanços regionais que ampliaram o alcance da definição universal, especialmente no contexto regional do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. A abordagem de proteção utilizada no contexto das Américas é analisada à luz da Declaração de Cartagena de 1984, da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos e demais instrumentos universais de proteção. Os avanços observados regionalmente são traduzidos em precedente recente do Sistema Interamericano, o Caso Família Pacheco Tineo vs. Estado Plurinacional da Bolívia. Os direitos assegurados, neste caso, demonstram que a região caminha para a consolidação de um sistema de proteção ao refugiado que prima pela análise de demandas à luz do Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. Muito embora o caso não tenha trazido avanços conceituais, trouxe uma série de avanços procedimentais que resultam no reconhecimento e proteção almejados por indivíduos em situação de extrema vulnerabilidade. A metodologia empregada no presente trabalho é de abordagens descritivas e normativas, com base em pesquisa bibliográfica, documental e jurisprudencial. O trabalho utiliza obras de referência sobre o Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, Direito Internacional dos Refugiados e sobre o Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. O método utilizado é de abordagem dedutivo, pelo qual parte-se da construção do conceito de refugiado ao longo do século XX e da análise da complementaridade das vertentes de proteção da pessoa humana representadas no julgamento proferido pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos.

Existing research on states and human rights focuses primarily on international treaty ratification, post-treaty rating systems, and ad hoc reports on adherence in individual countries. Additionally, the literature is characterized by disproportionate attention to certain rights to the neglect of others, thereby painting an incomplete and potentially inaccurate picture of a state’s practice and implementation of human rights. Consequently, the extant literature too frequently disregards key domestic and international factors as determinants of cross-national variation in the implementation and protection of human rights, and it instead generates paradoxical claims about human rights and state behavior. With Europe as its empirical focus, this study tests one assertion that state strength relative to societal actors impacts the frequency of cases heard at the European Court of Human Rights. Findings suggest that state strength indeed plays a role in the overall number of cases from member states in the European human rights system.

La présente recherche a pour objectif d’expliquer et d’évaluer le processus d’émergence du droit au respect des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones, qui se manifeste devant deux juridictions et une quasi-juridiction : les cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme et le Comité des droits de l’homme des Nations Unies, dont les jurisprudences feront l’objet d’une comparaison. Un tel sujet soulève plusieurs questions, dont celles de savoir à quel stade de ce processus nous en sommes, quel est le niveau de juridicité de la norme, mais aussi, quelle est la signification de ce droit, quels en sont les apports et comment se produit sa mise en œuvre. En proposer une interprétation éclairée suppose d’évaluer la référence au concept de mode de vie faite par les requérants, les juges et les experts. Cette démarche implique d’avoir recours à l’interdisciplinarité, plus précisément à certaines études anthropologiques. Cela requiert également un examen du discours des juges, des experts et des requérants pour en observer les convergences et les décalages. Quant aux résultats de recherche, le rôle de plusieurs acteurs au processus d’émergence de la norme nouvelle – les requérants, les juges ou les experts et les États – est souligné. Cela confirme la théorie de la polycentricité en matière de construction de certaines règles de droit international. La juridicité du droit au respect des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones et sa force varient en fonction des systèmes, mais il possède toujours les caractéristiques propres à la norme juridique internationale. Cette dernière consacre un droit spécifique appartenant aux peuples autochtones et tribaux ou aux membres de peuples autochtones et minoritaires. Elle protège un rapport au territoire, soit un mode d’appréhension et d’exploitation, mais aussi de circulation et d’établissement sur celui-ci, ainsi que des activités. Les requérants roms, tribaux ou autochtones participent, bien qu’officieusement, à la définition juridique de leurs modes de vie, puisque les requêtes qu’ils déposent devant les juridictions supranationales constituent le fondement des interprétations judiciaires. Malgré ce processus de codétermination, certains décalages persistent entre les positions des divers acteurs impliqués dans la détermination du sens de la norme. Ils sont liés à l’impossibilité pour les juges d’appliquer au cas d’espèce une protection de leurs modes de vie, à l’éloignement entre la position des requérants et celle de l’État défendeur ou encore à la protection des droits des tiers. Une double surdétermination de la norme est donc constatée, par les conceptions des juges ou des experts, mais aussi par celles des requérants. Elle comporte certains risques d’essentialisation et d’idéalisation des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones, de paternalisme, de victimisation ou de discrimination vis-à-vis des requérants ou de leurs communautés, sachant que ces risques sont tous à même de dénaturer le sens et la portée de la norme. Pour autant, cette dernière est porteuse d’avancées théoriques. Celles-ci ont trait à la coexistence, au sein de territoires identiques, entre groupes aux identités différentes, à l’amélioration de la qualité de vie des requérants et au processus de reconnaissance. La place occupée par la volonté des États, l’importance pour les juges de préserver leur légitimité, de même que le caractère idéaliste ou dogmatique de l’interprétation proposée, en limitent les apports théoriques. Il ressort de cette réflexion que la bonne articulation des divers discours en présence et l’émergence d’une norme efficace tiennent d’abord à l’énonciation et à la clarté des revendications des requérants minoritaires et autochtones. Elles tiennent ensuite à la réceptivité des agents qui les reçoivent – juges et experts – ainsi qu’au contexte politique, social et culturel qui les entourent. Cette analyse met ainsi en évidence l’importance d’exploiter la marge de manœuvre dont dispose chaque acteur du processus d’émergence dans la détermination du sens et de la portée des normes. / This research aims to explain and evaluate the emergence of a right of minorities and indigenous peoples to the respect of their ways of life, appearing before the European court of human rights, the Inter-American court of human rights and the United Nations Human rights Committee. The decisions and communications stemming from these tribunals will be analyzed and compared. This topic raises several questions regarding the legality of this norm, its meaning, effectiveness and limits, but also its implementation. In order to offer an interpretation of the content of that right, we need to evaluate the references made to it by the claimants, the judges and experts, which implicates an interdisciplinary approach focused on anthropological studies of law. This leads us to examine the discourses of judges, experts and claimants, to compare them and to observe their confluences and discrepancies. The results of this study show us that the emergence of this new norm is dependent upon the intervention of several agents – the claimants, the judges, the experts of the Committee and the States. This observation therefore confirms the polycentric process of construction of international legal rules. As to the legality and the effectiveness of the right of minorities and indigenous peoples to their ways of life, they vary according to the legal system, even if this right always corresponds to a legal rule. This rule consecrates a specific right belonging to indigenous and tribal people or to the members of indigenous people and minorities. It protects a relationship to the territory, i.e. a way to comprehend and to exploit it, to circulate on it and to inhabitate it. It also protects some activities. The indigenous, tribal and romas applicants unofficially take part in the legal definition of their ways of life, as the requests they submit to the international tribunals are cornerstones of judicial interpretations. In spite of a process of co-determination of the norm, gaps are observed between the positions of the different actors participating to the determination of the norm. They are either related to the impossibility for some judges to apply the right to a way of life to the case, to the distance between the positions of the claimants and the states, or to the protection of third parties. Consequently, a process of double distortion of the content of the norm appears, due to the judges’ or experts’ conceptions, but also to those of the claimants. It leads to the emergence of several problems, such as essentialism and the idealization of minorities and indigenous ways of life, paternalism, victimization or discrimination towards the claimants or their communities. These problems can alter the meaning and the impact of the norm. Nonetheless, the right to the respect of those ways of life has some theoretical effects related first to the coexistence, on a same piece of land, of different groups possessing diverse identities. They are also related to the improvement of the applicants’ quality of life and to the recognition process. However, the State’s willingness still occupies a large space in international law, as does the importance, for judges, to protect their own legitimacy. Moreover, some decisions seem too ideal or dogmatic. Those factors limit the effect of the norm. Thus, the articulation of judicial discourses and the efficiency of the norm are first contingent to the enunciation and to the clarity of the claimants’ requests. They are dependant of the receptivity of the agents whose role it is to receive them (judges and experts) and to the political, social and cultural context within which they take place. This last factor brings to light the importance for each agent participating to the elaboration of the norm to use, as much as he can, the margins he possesses. / Thèse de doctorat réalisée en cotutelle avec la Faculté de droit de l'Université Aix-Marseille 3.

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.