Véritable dogme en droit interne et s’imposant comme un standard dans l’ordre juridique international, le concept d’« État de droit » est dépourvu d’une signification clairement déterminée. Différentes conceptions sont admises et dépendent des acceptions de l’État en question, d’une garantie hic et nunc de certains droits ainsi que d’une volonté politique des gouvernants. L’objet de cette recherche s’attache au droit administratif, précisément au rôle du juge administratif, comme vecteur de soumission de l’autorité de l’État afin de promouvoir les droits et libertés fondamentales des administrés en France. Si rien ne présageait une telle évolution au nom de la raison d’État, le Conseil d’État, par une pensée politique (néo)libérale, s’est imposé comme l’institution juridictionnelle majeure dans la construction du concept d’État de droit administratif. Au moyen d’une interprétation formelle et substantielle du principe de légalité, l’État de droit administratif légitime l’action publique des gouvernants tout en garantissant la sécurité juridique des administrés. Cette liaison de l’État et du droit administratif relève d’une construction inépuisable, appréhendée par l’État de contentieux qui s’analyse comme le kaléidoscope des faits sociaux. Ce dernier résulte d’une politique de la force, d’un conflit positif entre les Hommes, les institutions, les normes ou les pouvoirs institués. Ainsi, en conciliant l’Autorité et la Liberté, le concept d’État de droit administratif révèle le degré d’assujettissement de l’administration au droit administratif. Le développement objectif du concept d’État de droit administratif est bâti par l’État de justice et protégé par l’État légal, au profit d’une justice administrative garante des valeurs républicaines de l’État. Le perfectionnement de l’État de droit administratif par l’État de contentieux est agencé par l’État démocratique et régulé par l’État global, en libérant l’administré de toute servitude de la part de l’administration. L’illibéralisme administratif s’estompe au profit d’une société de(s) droit(s), d’une juridicisation et d’un normativisme absolus, au détriment de l’État. / The Rule of law concept is a real domestic law dogma and has established itself as a norm in the international judicial order. It is beneft of a clearly defined signification. Different concepts are accepted and depend on the agreements of the state, on a hic et nunc warranty of some rights as well as the rulers political will. This study aims to consider the administrative law, and more specifically the administrative judge’s role, as a means of control over the authority of the state so as to promote the rights and fundamental freedoms of the constituents in France. Even if nothing could portend such an evolution on the account of the state, the Conseil d’État, through a (neo)liberal political influence, became major judicial institution which builds the concept of domestic rule. The administrative juridiction legitimizes the public action of the governments while ensuring the legal security of the constituents through a formal and substantive interpretation of the principle of legality. This relation on between the state and the administrative law state of litigation which can be analyzed as a kaleidoscope of social facts. This stems from a power policy, of a positive conflict between men, the institutions, the normes or the instituted powers. Therefore, by accommodating authority and freedom, the administrative jurisdiction exposes the extent to which the administration is subjected to the administrative law. The objective construction of the administrative Rule of law allows the setting up of an administrative justice, which guarantees the republican values of the State thanks to legal Justice and Legal State. The upgrading of the administrative Rule of law by the democracy provide some freedom to the people vis-à-vis the state. The lack of liberalism fades away in favour of a litigious society, juridification and normatism to the detriment of the state.

De nos jours, la restructuration est une réalité incontournable qui contribue audéveloppement et à la compétitivité des sociétés in bonis. En général, elle résulte d’une décisionprise par les dirigeants sociaux. Toutefois, sa réalisation peut contrevenir à l’exécution des droits descréanciers antérieurs des sociétés concernées par l’opération. Pour préserver leurs droits, cescréanciers disposent de nombreuses mesures de protection issues aussi bien du droit commun quedu droit spécial. L’identification du fondement de cette protection, à savoir la force obligatoire desengagements pris avant la restructuration de la société débitrice, permet de vérifier l’efficacité decette protection. / Restructuring is a reality that contributes to the development and competitiveness ofcompanies in bonuses. It usually results from a decision taken by the companies executives. Itsimplementation, however, may undermine the enforcement of former creditors’ rights by thecompanies involved in the transaction. To preserve their claims, those creditors have manysafeguards from both the common law and the special law. The identification of the basis of suchprotection, namely the binding commitments made before the restructuring of the debtorcompanies, enable the verification of this protection’s effectiveness.

This thesis is a study of British colonial policy in southern Afiica in the 1 gill centwy. More specifically it looks at how British imperial policy, in the period 1875 to 1881, played itself out in two British colonies in southern Africa, Wlder the direction of a British imperial agent, William Owen Lanyon. It sets Lanyon in the context of the frontiers and attempts to link the histories of the people who lived there, the Africans, Boers and British settlers on the one han~ and the histories of colonial policy on the other. In doing so it also unravels the relationship between Lanyon and his superiors in London and those in southern Africa. In 1875 Owen Lanyon arrived in Griqualand West, where his brief was to help promote a confederation policy in southern Africa. Because of the discovery of diamonds some years earlier, Lanyon's administration had to take account of the rising mining industry and the aggressive new capitalist economy. He also had to deal with Griqua and Tlhaping resistance to colonialism. Lanyon was transferred to the Transvaal in 1879, where he was confronted by another community that was dissatisfied with British rule: the Transvaal Boers. Indeed, in Pretoria he was faced with an extremely difficult situation, which he handled very poorly. Boer resistance to imperial rule eventually came to a head when war broke out and Lanyon and his officials were among those besieged in Pretoria. In February 1881 imperial troops suffered defeat at the hands of Boer commandos at Majuba and Lanyon was recalled to Britain. In both colonies Lanyon was caught up in the struggle between the imperial power and the local people and, seen in a larger context, in the conflict for white control over the land and labour of Africans and that between the old pre-mineral South Africa and the new capitalist order. He made a crucial contribution to developments in the sub-continent and it is remarkable that his role in southern Africa has thus far been neglected. / History / D.Litt. et Phil. (History)

This thesis is a study of British colonial policy in southern Afiica in the 1 gill centwy. More specifically it looks at how British imperial policy, in the period 1875 to 1881, played itself out in two British colonies in southern Africa, Wlder the direction of a British imperial agent, William Owen Lanyon. It sets Lanyon in the context of the frontiers and attempts to link the histories of the people who lived there, the Africans, Boers and British settlers on the one han~ and the histories of colonial policy on the other. In doing so it also unravels the relationship between Lanyon and his superiors in London and those in southern Africa. In 1875 Owen Lanyon arrived in Griqualand West, where his brief was to help promote a confederation policy in southern Africa. Because of the discovery of diamonds some years earlier, Lanyon's administration had to take account of the rising mining industry and the aggressive new capitalist economy. He also had to deal with Griqua and Tlhaping resistance to colonialism. Lanyon was transferred to the Transvaal in 1879, where he was confronted by another community that was dissatisfied with British rule: the Transvaal Boers. Indeed, in Pretoria he was faced with an extremely difficult situation, which he handled very poorly. Boer resistance to imperial rule eventually came to a head when war broke out and Lanyon and his officials were among those besieged in Pretoria. In February 1881 imperial troops suffered defeat at the hands of Boer commandos at Majuba and Lanyon was recalled to Britain. In both colonies Lanyon was caught up in the struggle between the imperial power and the local people and, seen in a larger context, in the conflict for white control over the land and labour of Africans and that between the old pre-mineral South Africa and the new capitalist order. He made a crucial contribution to developments in the sub-continent and it is remarkable that his role in southern Africa has thus far been neglected. / History / D.Litt. et Phil. (History)