This thesis argues that international copyright law should play a stronger role in the implementation of authors’ and users’ international human rights. In international human rights law, authors’ and users’ human rights are two sides of the same coin: both derive from human dignity and contribute to the development of the human personality. Authors have a set of moral and material interests that entitle them, as a minimum, to an adequate standard of living, to be (or not to be) associated with their intellectual works, and to object to any distortion or mutilation of those works. These entitlements receive a viable back up protection from authors’ human rights to freedom of expression and property. At the same time, users have human rights in culture, arts, and science that entitle them to access, use, and share intellectual works. Also, their human rights to freedom of expression and education reinforce these entitlements. Authors’ and users’ human rights are reciprocal, mutually-reinforcing, and mutually-limiting. Thus, their balanced implementation—by means of legislation or adjudication—depends on three rules: authors’ and users’ human rights are limited, they are not hierarchal, and they are interdependent on and indivisible from other human rights and freedoms. On the other hand, despite its practicality and predominance, the exclusive-right system of international copyright law does not necessarily enable authors to achieve an adequate standard of living, and TRIPS has explicitly overlooked their moral interests. Similarly important, the nature and nurture of international copyright law do not give due weight to users’ human rights. International copyright law includes very few mandatory exceptions and limitations, which are supposed to address users’ rights by granting them some liberties or immunities when using intellectual works, but states’ ability to devise new exceptions and limitations is curtailed by the three-step test. Overall, international copyright law fails to meet the balance requirements of international human rights law since it creates a set of hierarchies between the rights it regulates, sometimes fails to recognize the limited nature of authors’ rights, and is inattentive of copyright’s impact on the whole corpus of international human rights. The thesis suggests that international copyright law should become clearer— and more interested—in implementing the international human rights of authors and users of intellectual works. It can do so by incorporating as an objective the implementation of authors’ and users’ human rights in a balanced manner. This objective can function as a ground rule on which further measures necessary for the implementation of authors’ and users’ human rights may rely. In addition, it can provide normative support to some scholars’ proposals for reforming international copyright law. The new objective of international copyright law may become part of the regime through amending TRIPS, interpreting its provisions by the WTO panels and Appellate Body, or establishing a new international copyright instrument.

1 H. Summary The Users' Rights in the Information Society Dissertation thesis "The Users' Rights in the Information Society" focuses on the copyright exceptions and limitations (hereinafter referred to as copyright limitations) as an area which, in addition to the licensed use, affects users of copyrighted works in the most direct way. The term "users" is understood in the concept of this work, in accordance with foreign and Czech scientific literature, in a broad sense, covering also consumers of copyrighted works or users of digital content on the Internet. In the context of copyright limitations users are allowed to use copyrighted works on a non-contractual basis, without the consent of the author, either for free or in the form of a paid statutory license. Copyright limitations include a wide range of uses reaching from the quotations through the use for a private purpose to the so-called news reporting and governmental statutory limitations. The concept of users' rights (despite - as seen from a certain angle - its actual existence) has not been so far defined in the legal literature in a consistent manner. However it attracts an exceptional academic attention for its conceptual and strategic importance. The concept of users' rights represents - rather than a framework of real subjective rights - a...

Cotutelle France-Québec / La médiation présente un fort potentiel dans la régulation des rapports entre patients et professionnels de santé et de nombreux bénéfices dans le domaine de la santé lequel se prête aisément à la mise en œuvre des modes amiables de règlement des différends. L’utilisation marginale de la médiation en santé invite alors à considérer les facteurs juridiques susceptibles de l’expliquer. Ce travail visait donc à déterminer, le cadre juridique optimal susceptible de favoriser le recours – ou promouvoir le développement – de la médiation extrajudiciaire dans les différends nés de la relation de soin. L’hypothèse étant que la faible efficacité incitative des législations applicables à la médiation en santé représente un facteur dissuasif à son utilisation, cette efficacité étant tributaire du degré d’adaptation de ces législations à la nature spécifique des différends en santé. Le travail s’appuie sur une analyse comparative franco-québécoise, le Québec et la France étant tous deux au diapason s’agissant d’encourager le recours à la médiation. Un cadre d’analyse pour juger de l’adéquation des législations québécoise et française applicables à la médiation en santé aux différends nés de la relation de soin a d’abord été dégagé de l’étude de la singularité de ces différends. La comparaison des corpus juridiques québécois et français a ensuite montré des différences dans l’appréhension de la médiation mais également des similarités notamment s’agissant des difficultés concernant son implantation dans le champ de la santé. Les démarches faites pour les surmonter à la fois se rejoignent et diffèrent puisqu’elles dépendent de deux paramètres : assurer un environnement favorable au recours et structurer les conditions de la fonction de médiation. Ainsi, l’environnement juridique, à la fois conceptuel et axé sur l’information, l’accompagnement et l’accessibilité des justiciables, et la formation des acteurs de la médiation en santé sont donc cruciaux pour son avenir dans le champ de la santé. En prenant appui sur les forces des cadres juridiques québécois et français, le modèle de référence de la médiation en santé proposé s’inscrit, d’abord, dans un cadre global plus large visant à insuffler une véritable culture de médiation. Ensuite, il repose sur une approche pragmatique et donc sur une conception de la médiation en santé « hybride » qui se détache de la définition communément adoptée par la doctrine. Ce cadre de référence propose de renouveler le champ d’application de la médiation par une approche centrée sur le concept de qualité et de sécurité de soins. Le potentiel de la médiation dans l’amélioration de la qualité et de la sécurité de soins est sûrement l’élément clé qui fonde la spécificité de cette médiation et sur lequel il conviendrait de davantage insister en tant que finalité explicite de cette médiation. La médiation en santé pourrait ainsi bénéficier d’un ancrage pérenne et s’insérer plus aisément dans le répertoire des pratiques institutionnelles. Par ailleurs, en tant qu’instrument au service de l’amélioration de la qualité de soins et de prévention des erreurs médicales, la médiation n’est plus seulement un instrument « curatif » de gestion de crise. Elle offre plutôt un panel d’options permettant de répondre à l’extrême diversité des besoins des parties au différend né de la relation de soin. Au travers de cette étude, nous montrons in fine l’existence d’un besoin accru de médiation au sein des deux systèmes de santé et de quelle manière le droit peut constituer un moteur essentiel pour promouvoir un certain modèle de médiation en santé et favoriser ou non son recours. / Mediation has great potential in the regulation of relations between patients and health professionals and many benefits in the health field, which lends itself easily to the implementation of alternative dispute resolution methods. The marginal use of mediation in the health field invites us to consider the legal factors that could explain it. The aim of this work was therefore to determine the optimal legal framework likely to encourage the use - or promote the development - of extrajudicial mediation in disputes arising from the care relationship. The hypothesis being that the low incentive efficiency of the legislations applicable to mediation in health represents a dissuasive factor to its use, this effectiveness being dependent on the degree of adaptation of these legislations to the specific nature of the disputes in health. The work is based on a comparative Franco-Quebec analysis, with both Quebec and France being in tune in terms of encouraging the use of mediation. An analytical framework for judging the adequacy of the Quebec and French legislation applicable to mediation in the health sector to disputes arising from the health care relationship was first identified by studying the singularity of these disputes. The comparison of the Quebec and French legal corpora then showed differences in the apprehension of mediation but also similarities, in particular with regard to the difficulties concerning its implementation in the health field. The steps taken to overcome them are both similar and different since they depend on two parameters: ensuring an environment favourable to recourse and structuring the conditions of the mediation function. Thus, the legal environment, both conceptual and focused on information, support and accessibility of litigants, and the training of the actors of mediation in health are crucial for its future in the health field. By building on the strengths of the Quebec and French legal frameworks, the proposed reference model for mediation in health is, first, part of a broader global framework aimed at instilling a true mediation culture. Secondly, it is based on a pragmatic approach and therefore on a conception of « hybrid » mediation in health care that is different from the definition commonly adopted by the doctrine. This reference framework proposes to renew the field of application of mediation by an approach centred on the concept of quality and safety of care. The potential of mediation in the improvement of the quality and safety of care is surely the key element that founds the specificity of this mediation and on which it would be advisable to insist more as an explicit purpose of this mediation. Mediation in health care could thus benefit from a perennial anchoring and be more easily inserted in the repertoire of institutional practices. Moreover, as an instrument for improving the quality of care and preventing medical errors, mediation is no longer just a "curative" instrument for crisis management. Rather, it offers a range of options to meet the extremely diverse needs of the parties to the dispute arising from the care relationship. Through this study, we show in fine the existence of an increased need for mediation within the two health systems and how the law can constitute an essential driving force to promote a certain model of mediation in health and to promote or not its recourse.