Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:54:13.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Kandyrine de Brito Paiva”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eirik Bjorge
Eirik Bjorge*
Affiliation:
Institut d’études politiques, Paris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

French Conseil d’Étatconflict of treaty normsexistence of jus cogensEuropean Convention on Human RightsFranco-Russian loansdiscrimination
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 353 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Conseil d’État [CE Ass.] [highest administrative court] Dec. 23, 2011, No. 303678, 28 Revue Française De Droit Administratif [RFDA] 17 (2012) (conclusions J. Boucher, id. at 1), available at http://www.conseil-etat.fr/node.php?articleid=2536 (“Kandyrine de Brito Paiva”) [hereinafter Judgment]. Translations from the French are by the author. As the paragraphs of the judgment ate not numbered, the quotations from it are not pin pointed here.

2 See the analysis in Domino, Xavier & Bretonneau, Aurélie, Le juge administratif, arbitre international?, 68 L’actualité Juridique, Droit Administratif 201, 204 (2012)Google Scholar.

3 Accord sur le règlement définitif des créances réciproques financières et réelles apparues antérieurement au 9 mai 1945, Fr.-Russ., May 27, 1997, No. 19970089, published under Decree No. 98-366 (May 6,1998), J.O., May 15, 1998, p. 7378.

4 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS No. 5, 213 UNTS 222.

5 Judgment (citing the opinion below, No. 03PA04248 (Cour administrative d’appel, Paris, Oct. 18, 2006), at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/(follow hyperlink “administrative” under “Jurisprudence”)).

6 See CE Dec. 18, 1998, Recueil des décisions du Conseil d’État [Ree. Lebon] 483 (“SARL du parc d’activités de Blotzheim et SCI Haselaecker”); CE July 8, 2002, Ree. Lebon 260 (“Commune de Porta”); No. 327663 (Conseil d’État July 9, 2010) (“Fédération nationale de la libre pensée”).

7 Const. Art. 55. See generally Bernard Stirn, Les Sources Constitutionnelles Du Droit Administratif: Introduction Au Droit Public 26-27 (2011).

8 This is in part the wording used by the European Court of Human Rights in its famous ruling on discrimination in Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium, 6 Em. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 1(B) (10) (1968) (“si la distinction manque de justification objectif et raisonnable”).

9 See, e.g., Stirn, Bernard, Les Libertés En Questions (7th éd. 2010)Google Scholar; Abraham, Ronny, Le juge adminis tratifet le droit international et européen: le dialogue des juges, in Regards De La Communauté Juridique Suf Le Contentieuxadministratif: Hommage À Daniel Chabanol 33, 36 (Bonnet, Baptiste ed., 2009)Google Scholar; Andenas, Mads & Bjorge, Eirik, Juge national et interprétation évolutive de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme 2011 Revue De Droit Public 997 Google Scholar.

10 Guyomar, Mattias, Le dialogue des jurisprudences entre le Conseil d’État et la Cour de Strasbourg: appropriation anticipation, émancipation, in La Conscience Des Droits: MÉlanges En L’Honneur De Jean-Paul Costa 311, 313 (2011)Google Scholar.

11 Cassin, René, Préface to Letourneur, M. & Méric, J., Conseil D’état Et Juridictions Administratives 4 (1955)Google Scholar.

12 Cassin, René, Préface to Velu, Jacques, Le Droit Au Respect De La Vie Privée 6 (1974)Google Scholar.

13 Jean-Marc Sauvé, Le système européen des droits est notre bien commun, Le Monde. Fr, Feb. 27, 2012 at http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2012/02/27/jean-marc-sauve-le-systeme-europeen-des-droits-est-notre bien-cornrnun_1648859_3224.html.

14 See, e.g., Guillaume, Gilbert, Les traités devant les formations administratives du Conseil d’Etat, in L’état Di Droit: Hommage ä Guy Braibant 353 (1996)Google Scholar.

15 CE Oct. 27, 1978, Ree. Lebon 395 (“Debout”).

16 Ordonnance of July 18, 2011, by which the president of the Section du contentieux of the Conseil d’État, Bernard Stirn, was acting in conformity with Article R. 625-3 of the Code of Administrative Justice.

17 Guillaume, Gilbert, Avis d’amicus curiae, 28 RFDA 19 Google Scholar, 20, para. 10.

18 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 53, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

19 See von Verdross, Alfred, Forbidden Treaties in International Law: Comments on Professor Garner’s Report on “The Law of Treaties, 31 AJIL 571 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 For a clear analysis of the French position, see Helene Fabri, Ruiz, La France et L• Convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités: éléments de réflexion pour une éventuelle ratification, in La France Et Le Droit International 137 (Cahin, Gérard, Poirat, Florence, & Szurek, Sandra eds., 2007)Google Scholar.

21 Guillaume, supra note 17, at 20, para. 11.

22 Conseil D’État, Rapport Public 2003, Études et Documents No. 54, at 57-58 (2003).

23 Stirn, supra note 9, at 88; Andenas, Mads, The Centre Reasserting Itself: From Fragmentation to Tranformation of International Law, in Liber Amicorum Par Hallström (forthcoming 2012)Google Scholar; Andenas, Mads, International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), 60 Int’l. & Comp. L. Q. 810, 818 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Guillaume, supra note 17, at 20, para. 11. But see Cour de cassation [supreme court for judicial matters] le civ., Mar. 9, 2011, Bull. civ. I, No. 49, p. 49 (“La Réunion aérienne c. Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire et socia liste”) (making explicit reference to jus cogens norms).

25 Daillier, Patrick, Forteau, Mathias, & Pellet, Alain, Droit International Public 363 (8th éd. 2009)Google Scholar.

26 Guillaume’s view may be contrasted with the prescience of another international judge, Walther Schücking, who pointed out the existence and importance of jus cogens norms in international law in 1934. Oscar Chinn, 1934 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 63, at 150 (Schücking, J., sep. op.) (“The Court would never, for instance, apply a convention the terms of which were contrary to public morality.”); see also Nájera (Fr.) v. Mexico, 5 R.I.A.A. 466, 470-72 (1928) (holding that “les Parties contractantes sont, l’une et l’autre, liées par la même règle de droit imperative {jus cogens), qui prévaut sur leur liberté d’agir en matière des traités internationaux”).

27 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 2006 ICJ Rep. 6, 32, para. 64 (Feb. 3); Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Ger. v. It.: Greece Intervening), paras. 92-97 (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 3, 2012).

28 Guillaume, supra note 17, at 20, para. 13.

29 See, e.g., Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1924 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 2, at 30-31.

30 See Sinclair, Ian, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 93 (1983)Google Scholar; Zuleeg, Manfred, Vertragkonkurrenz im Völkerrecht, 1977 Ger. Y. B. Int’l L. 246 Google Scholar.

31 See, e.g., Ronny Abraham, L ‘articulation du droit interne et du droit international, in La France Et Le Droit International, supra note 20, at 257.

32 2 Charles De Gaulle, Discours Et Messages: Dans L’attente (Février 1946 Avril 1958) 287 (1970) (“les États sont des monstres froids”).

33 Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 239 (1978); see also Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951 ICJ Rep. 15, 23 (May 28) (holding that with respect to this type of treaty, one “adopted for a purely humanitarian and civilizing purpose. . . . one cannot speak of individual advantages or disadvantages to States, or of the maintenance of a perfect contractual balance between rights and duties”).

34 Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, para. 129 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 23, 2012), at http://www.echr.coe.int/.

35 See Domino & Bretonneau, supra note 2, at 204-06.