Version actuelle datée du 2 mai 2021 à 09:56

Introductory aspects of public international law

Données clés
Professeur(s)	Robert Kolb

Lectures

Positive law is called in Latin the lex lata which refers to the standards in force today. He opposes the lex ferenda, which refers to the law in the making. The term "positive" comes from the Middle Ages and would refer to something positively created.

Languages

Español Français

Definition of public international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Public international law is the legal order that contains rules on certain relations between States and other matters.

It is a very vague definition, let us try to clarify the terms:

Order: conveys the idea that it is a nested system.
Legal: this epithet connotes the idea of a standard. That's the rule.
Some: relations between States are not regulated in all aspects by rules of law. In international law, there is not a "super-state". There is, therefore, room for a foreign policy that can be conducted more or less freely.
Between states: States make international law. It is an inter-state law, based on coordination, horizontal in its structure. There are two ways of doing law: 1) I have power, I make rules that I impose. 2) There is no one who has power, the rules are made by agreements. There are important consequences to "between States". Decentralized creation, multiple, overlapping homes. Execution is decentralized (e. g. execution by revenge, he has done this forbidden, I also do it as a reprisal).
Other subjects: persons, generally collective entities with diplomatic and political competence. Entities such as: insurgents, ICRC, Holy See (concorda), international organizations such as the United Nations, finally there is the individual. The individual becomes a subject of international law, enjoys certain human rights and is subject to rules of international criminal law (judged by the International Criminal Court).

A simpler, but less precise definition: The legal order that regulates affairs between States.

International law governs international society. In opposition to national laws, there is international law. International society has changed over the centuries, but we can say that from a legal point of view, international society is formed primarily, but not exclusively, by States.

International law is the law that governs primarily certain relations between States; it is inter-State law.

Modern international society, the society that counts for the rule of law, is not made up solely of States. It consists mainly of States, but not exclusively. There are a whole series of other subjects that have legal status in international law. They can create certain international standards by concluding agreements, for example.

Logically, these entities may be bound by a norm of international law. The United Nations can, for example, create an agreement with a State for the establishment of a headquarters, as in New York or Geneva. This treaty is an agreement under public international law.

It would be too short to say that public international law governs only relations between States, which excludes certain subjects of law. Thus, the establishment of a headquarters is subject to international law between an organization and a State. For example, the Pope as head of the Holy See may conclude international treaties.

The main subjects for and through which international law is done are the 194 States around the world. Other actors are also parts of the international legal society because international practice recognizes their powers in matters of public international law.

However, States are the main subjects of international law, because international law is done by and for States. It is because States hold the power of sovereignty that explains why international law and made by and for States.

Thus, international law governs relations between States, but also with other subjects submitted and participating in international society.

Not all relations between States are governed by international law. States may have different relationships because they are free to act as they see fit in a variety of areas. States shall bind themselves by expressing mutual will in order to develop legal certainty. Thus, they more or less voluntarily alienate their original freedom in order to obtain certain advantages, as may be provided by legal certainty.

This can only be done through agreements that limit rights but guarantee certain relationships.

We have to look at what norms bind a state to enlighten situations. There are general but also specific standards that vary from state to state. There may be a policy pursued by a State in a lawful manner with respect to one State and unlawful with respect to another State, depending on the legal relations between a State and others, and this in a different way, it is a right of varying geometry.

To sum up, international law is the law that fundamentally governs certain relations between States, those that States want to see subject to legal discipline.

Evolution of public international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The evolution takes us from classical international law to modern international law.

Classical international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Classical international law extends from the Grotian period to the 19th century, which ended politically in 1919, i.e. until the end of the First World War. The climax of classical international law is the 20th century.

Modern international law begins after the First World War. What distinguishes it is that classical international law is a minimal legal order that basically attempts to organize coexistence with States, but this is accompanied by important eclipses. There are independent "civilized" states, the law is there to serve them as a useful foreign policy instrument for each of them. He is a great servant of the "civilized" states. Thus it is a closed circle that applies only to the great rulers and sets their operating rules.

In the 19th century, international law was confined to the fields of diplomacy, treaties (transaction) and war.

Diplomacy: to ratify bilateral treaties and cooperate, but also to resolve disputes and disputes.
Treaties: it is an instrument in which the chords will be recorded and an instrument is needed to transcribe the chords.
War: war empties the dispute between states. In the 19th century legal system, war is a means of resolving disputes following the failure of negotiations.

It is a supreme servant, a service that offers rules giving the possibility to agree on treaties depending on regulations. It is in everyone's interest that war be contained, but that it remains a legitimate means. There is no particular constraint on States.

The 19th-century law knows no limits on the use of force, even for a discretionary cause. In peacetime, one cannot enter the territory of another State because there are strict rules on the violation of sovereignty, but in wartime it is possible to violate territorial integrity and annex territory.

Thus, in the 19th century, international law was a minimum right at the service of States.

Modern international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Modern international law breaks with this tradition, it is no longer a minimum, but is intended to expand without leaving any gaps. Modern international law will provide for a series of fairly binding norms such as the non-use of force, prohibition of annexation and violation of internal affairs, but also the right of peoples to self-determination.

The objective is to police the international society and make it less anarchic. The idea is to prioritize international society with rules that are valid for all and binding on States becoming a master for States under modern international law.

Modern international law is also strongly committed to promoting certain common causes in contrast to classical international law, which did not care about them as the servant of the Western powers.

Material and personal expansion of international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Material Expansion[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Traditional international law contained rules that clothed around diplomacy, treaties and war. Modern international law is a much broader right in terms of the matters it covers.

Today, it would be difficult to find any issue that was not regulated at the international level. Not only will there be other international matters to be added, such as the settlement of disputes or international responsibility, but more importantly, issues that were not meant to be settled at the international level, and which will begin to be settled because of growing interdependencies.

For example, in the various legal systems there are labour laws that refer to national law. There is also a whole series of international texts on labour law, and in the first place 200 conventions adopted under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation. Thus we have a bipartition of the rules of work between the national and international layers. Another example is patents, where the International Patent Office deals with patents, but also economic and financial law, which is regulated with force and detail in domestic legal systems, but yet there is already a whole international component with the WTO, IMF, IBRD and a whole series of conventions such as bilateral investment treaties. The same is true of environmental law with a whole series of internal protections and international conventions.

It is impossible to find any branch of international law where there is not also international regulation, whatever its purpose, international law refers to public international law. Even in the case of private law, a treaty must be concluded in order to harmonize private law legislation, since the conclusion of a treaty is even one of its sources.

States will not want to regulate everything internationally, but they know that they must agree on certain aspects in order to create legal certainty.

Personal Expansion[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Formerly, in the 19th century, the subjects of international law, the entities capable of having rights and duties were the States, holding the spotlight and occupying almost all of them.

In the twentieth century the number of subjects diversified, the first fruits of which can be found in the nineteenth century with the Holy See, the Committee of the Red Cross founded in 1862-1893, but also international organizations. There is also the individual we are all who had no status. Prior to 1945, international law was considered to be inter-power relations and the individual's legal relations were considered to be regulated solely by domestic law. Domestic law was protected against any form of interference, a purely domestic matter on which no other State had anything to say.

After 1945 this lock was broken, no distinctions were made, on the contrary there is a movement of international criminal law inaugurated in Nuremberg in 1946 - 1949, on the other hand has slowly but definitely progressed an international human rights law through a whole series of conventions. The individual enjoys certain rights directly while being subject to criminal responsibility under international law. Previously a treaty could subject an individual to prosecution, now it is possible in some cases to claim accounts directly under international law before an international tribunal.

There is a change of deep structures that no longer marks separations. This remains true in general terms, but separation is no longer inert.

After 1945, there was a great diversity in the subjects of international law, i. e. entities or persons that may have rights or obligations directly under an international rule. We can feel the effects until today.

The effectiveness of public international law[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

There is an equation that will bring us face to face and that we have already thought about. Domestic law works because there is a gendarme and a judge; in short, the recalcitrant can be brought to a court so that sanctions are evoked even against his will.

The idea that domestic law is always the enforcement of sentences and a simplistic idea. The equation to complete it is that in international law there are no gendarmes and judges. Something must work, however... when the law is subordinate, it works and when it is co-ordinating it would not work.

The reality is that this equation is wrong. One only has to look at tax law and compare the rules of a club approved by all members to realize that the rules of a club are more often respected.

We must beware of this equation, we must reserve the inventory. When you look at things more closely, you realize that they are much more articulated.

As in all branches of law there are strong and weak subjects. For example, in the case of the International Court of Justice (1921 - 1940) and the Permanent Court of International Justice, this is the major jurisdiction for settling disputes between States. The Permanent Court in his career issued about 35 judgments. There was no police officer to enforce these arrests, but they were all executed in the 1920s and 1930s.

On the other hand, in the case of human rights and humanitarian rights, humanitarian law is the law of armed conflict, which contains rules on the conduct of hostilities and the protection of persons in the event of armed conflict. These two subjects are contrasted, human rights violations are indirect violations of national laws. There will always be a trial under international law, but never a trial under the domestic law of these States, it will be said that the regime is tyrannical, but not that the law has malfunctioned.

In UIL, in the case of conflict, humanitarian law does not work well because it was adopted primarily for humanitarian and non-warlike reasons. The same right for armed conflicts works remarkably well, because armies of trades put great care in not violating international rules. You have to look before you express yourself.

There are some factors that lead to respect for international law, which may be imponderable, but they are less important:

Reciprocity: l when a rule is respected, there is no violation of another State. In the case of a violation of a rule, there is a strong reflection, because States are rational, the right to think is important to them, because their interests can be called into question. Reciprocity is a pliers to enforce the law. In international law there are very few rules imposed on a State, they are subject to the rules that they have basically accepted. For example, all treaty rules are rules contained in treaties: no one is supposed to respect a non-conventional rule because a treaty is applicable only if it is ratified; it is a choice which presupposes that the rules are appropriate and that there is an interest in applying them, because it was made during the negotiation to discuss the rules and came to be ratified or not. Even after ratification, there is still the possibility of making reservations by reserving all that is offensive to the violation of the provisions subject to reservation is not one of them. For customary law this is similar, there are no customary rules only imposed, it must correspond to a general practice of States, if there is no practice, the rule is not customary. Since the rules of international law are voluntary and not imposed, the incentive to comply with them is also much greater. Even assuming that the law is violated, it must first be acknowledged that there are significant violations. Even in this case, a rule can be said to be "violated", bringing an aspect of stigmatization. The violation of the rule makes it possible to exert a certain amount of pressure, it can be said that "the Baltic States were annexed by the USSR against an international rule", we are not going to launch wars, but to maintain the pressure by denouncing it leading to a legal sanction. By a legal game, the Baltic States have never lost their sovereignty. Even in a violation of the rule, it may have some justification.
Voluntary/consensual character: On the whole, international law is respected, but only violations are reported by the press because they are important. What is weak is enforced execution, States act rationally and violate the law only with much reflection; this idea is incompatible with the principle of sovereignty; there should be an international community which itself becomes a State making peoples of peoples who are no longer sovereign. Sovereignty means that no progress can be made in enforcement, and States must always cooperate to enforce sanctions against recalcitrant prisoners. A forced execution under domestic law is that when an offence is committed, it can be brought before a court of law even to the point of violating privacy through the use of force. In international law we are not in this position, to seek a State at home to enforce a sentence means a declaration of war; in international law, it is a war of execution against a State. The remedy is worse than evil, we are not going to start a war to enforce a norm of international law. It is therefore easy to say that more should be done, but if we are not prepared to give up sovereignty and go as far as a war of execution, there can be no seriousness.

To talk about international law, one must have knowledge of the subject and much modesty. We need to approach the problem with toroughtness« An intelligent man is silent on matters which he does not know, for he manifests in others the extent of his ignorance and the defect of his character. »^[1].

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

DAILLIER, Patrick, FORTEAU, Mathias, PELLET, Alain, Droit internationalpublic, 8èmeéd., Paris, LGDJ, 2009, 1709 p, pp. 43-50
DAILLIER, Patrick, FORTEAU, Mathias, PELLET, Alain, Droit internationalpublic, 8èmeéd., Paris, LGDJ, 2009, 1709 p (ci-après : DFP), pp. 51-90

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

↑ Robert Kolb

[1] Robert Kolb

[1]

@@ Ligne 12 : / Ligne 12 : @@
 }}
-Le droit positif est appelé en latin la ''lex lata'' qui se réfère aux normes en vigueur aujourd’hui. Il s’oppose à la ''lex ferenda'' qui renvoie au droit en devenir. Le terme positif provient du moyen-âge et se referait à quelque chose de positivement créé.
+Positive law is called in Latin the lex lata which refers to the standards in force today. He opposes the lex ferenda, which refers to the law in the making. The term "positive" comes from the Middle Ages and would refer to something positively created.
-= Définition du droit international public =
+{{Translations
+| fr = Aspects introductifs du droit international public
+| es = Aspectos introductorios del derecho internacional público
+}}
-'''Le droit international public est l'ordre juridique qui contient des règles sur certaines relations entre États et certains autres sujets.'''
+= Definition of public international law =
-C'est une définition très vague, essayons d'en préciser les termes :
+Public international law is the legal order that contains rules on certain relations between States and other matters.
-* Ordre : véhicule l'idée que c'est un système imbriqué.
-* Juridique : cette épithète connote l'idée de norme. C'est à dire de règle.
-* Certaines : les relations entre les États ne sont pas réglementées dans tous les aspects par des règles de droit. En droit international, il n'y a pas un "super état". Il y a donc un espace pour une politique étrangère qui peut être menée plus ou moins librement.
-* Entre états : Ce sont les états qui font le droit international. C'est un droit interétatique, basé sur la coordination, horizontal dans sa structure. Il y a deux manières de faire du droit: 1) j'ai le pouvoir, je fais des règles que j'impose. 2) Il n'y a personne qui a le pouvoir, les règles se font par accords. Il y a des conséquences importantes à "entre États". Une création décentralisée, des foyers multiples qui se superposent. L'exécution est décentralisée (ex. exécution par vengeance, il a fait ça d'interdit, je le fais aussi comme représailles).
-* Autres sujets : des personnes, des entités généralement collectives ayant en tout cas des compétences diplomatiques et politiques. On considère des entités tel que : des insurgés, CICR, Saint-Siège (concorda), les organisations internationales comme les Nations unies enfin il y a l'individu. L'individu devient un sujet du droit international, il jouit de certain droit de l'homme et est soumis à des règles de droit pénal international (jugé à la Cour pénale internationale).
-Définition plus simple, mais moins précise : L'ordre juridique qui règle les affaires entre États.
+It is a very vague definition, let us try to clarify the terms:
+* Order: conveys the idea that it is a nested system.
+* Legal: this epithet connotes the idea of a standard. That's the rule.
+* Some: relations between States are not regulated in all aspects by rules of law. In international law, there is not a "super-state". There is, therefore, room for a foreign policy that can be conducted more or less freely.
+* Between states: States make international law. It is an inter-state law, based on coordination, horizontal in its structure. There are two ways of doing law: 1) I have power, I make rules that I impose. 2) There is no one who has power, the rules are made by agreements. There are important consequences to "between States". Decentralized creation, multiple, overlapping homes. Execution is decentralized (e. g. execution by revenge, he has done this forbidden, I also do it as a reprisal).
+* Other subjects: persons, generally collective entities with diplomatic and political competence. Entities such as: insurgents, ICRC, Holy See (concorda), international organizations such as the United Nations, finally there is the individual. The individual becomes a subject of international law, enjoys certain human rights and is subject to rules of international criminal law (judged by the International Criminal Court).
+A simpler, but less precise definition: The legal order that regulates affairs between States.
-Le droit international régit la société internationale. En opposition aux droits nationaux, il y a le droit international. La société internationale a changé à travers les siècles, mais nous pouvons dire que du point de vue juridique la société internationale est constituée surtout, mais pas exclusivement par les États.
+International law governs international society. In opposition to national laws, there is international law. International society has changed over the centuries, but we can say that from a legal point of view, international society is formed primarily, but not exclusively, by States.
-Le droit international est le droit qui régit avant tout certaines relations entre les États, c’est du droit interétatique.
+International law is the law that governs primarily certain relations between States; it is inter-State law.
-La société internationale moderne, celle qui compte pour le droit, n’est pas faite que d’États. Elle est constituée principalement d’États, mais pas exclusivement. Il existe toute une série d’autres sujets qui ont un statut juridique en droit international. Elles peuvent créer certaines normes internationales en concluants par exemple des accords.
-En toute logique, ces entités peuvent être obligées par une norme de droit international. L’ONU peut, par exemple, créer un accord avec un État pour l’établissement d’un siège comme à New York ou encore à Genève. Ce traité est un accord de droit international public.
-Il serait trop court de dire que le droit international public ne régit que les relations entre les États ce qui exclut certains sujets de droit. Ainsi l’établissement d’un siège est soumis au droit international entre une organisation et un État. Par exemple, le Pape en tant que chef du Saint-Siège peut conclure des traités internationaux.
-Les principaux sujets pour et par lesquels le droit international est fait sont les 194 États de par le monde. D’autres acteurs sont aussi des parties de la société internationale juridique parce que la pratique internationale leur reconnait des pouvoirs en matière de droit international public.
-Toutefois, les États sont les sujets principaux du droit international, car le droit international est fait par et pour les États. C’est parce que les États détiennent la puissance de la souveraineté qui explique que le droit international et fait par et pour les États.
-Ainsi, le droit international régit les relations entre États, mais aussi avec d’autres sujets soumis et participants à la société internationale.
-Toutes les relations entre les États ne sont pas régies par le droit international. Les États peuvent avoir des relations différentes parce qu’ils sont libres d’agir comme bon leur semble dans toute une série de domaines. Les États se lient par l’expression d’une volonté réciproque afin d’élaborer une sécurité juridique. Ainsi ils aliènent plus ou moins volontairement leur liberté originelle afin d’obtenir certains avantages comme peut le procurer la sécurité juridique.
-Cela ne peut se faire que par des accords limitant les droits, mais qui garantissent certaines relations.
-Il faut regarder quelles normes lient un État pour éclairer des situations. Il y a des normes générales, mais aussi particulières qui varient d’un État à l’autre. Il peut y avoir une politique menée par un État d’une manière licite vis-à-vis d’un État et illicite vis-à-vis d’un autre État, cela en fonction des relations juridiques qui lient un État à d’autres, et ce de manière différente, c’est un droit à géométrie variable.
-Pour résumer, le droit international est le droit qui fondamentalement régit certaines relations entre États, celles que les États veulent voir soumises à une discipline juridique.
-= Évolution du droit international public =
+Modern international society, the society that counts for the rule of law, is not made up solely of States. It consists mainly of States, but not exclusively. There are a whole series of other subjects that have legal status in international law. They can create certain international standards by concluding agreements, for example.
-L’évolution nous porte du droit international classique vers du droit international moderne.
-== Droit international classique ==
+Logically, these entities may be bound by a norm of international law. The United Nations can, for example, create an agreement with a State for the establishment of a headquarters, as in New York or Geneva. This treaty is an agreement under public international law.
-Le droit international classique s’étend de l’époque grotienne jusqu’au XIXème siècle qui s’arrête politiquement en 1919 c’est-à-dire jusqu’à la fin de la Première guerre mondiale. L’apogée du droit international classique est le XXème siècle.
-Le droit international moderne débute après la Première guerre mondiale. Ce qui le distingue est que le droit international classique est un ordre juridique minimal qui essaie fondamentalement d’organiser la coexistence avec des États, mais cela avec des éclipses importantes. Il y a des États « civilisés » indépendants, le droit est là pour les servir comme un instrument utile de la politique étrangère de chacun d’entre eux. C’est un grand serviteur des États « civilisés ». Ainsi c’est un cercle fermé qui ne s’applique seulement qu’aux grands souverains et fixe leurs règles de fonctionnement.
-Au XIXème siècle, le droit international se contente des domaines de la diplomatie, des traités (transaction) et de la guerre.
-*'''Diplomatie''' : afin de ratifier des traités bilatéraux et afin de coopérer, mais aussi de résoudre les différends et les litiges.
-*'''Traités''' : c’est un instrument dans lequel on va consigner les accords, il faut un instrument qui permette de transcrire les accords.
-*'''Guerre''' : la guerre vide le différend entre les États. Dans le système du droit du {{XIXe}} siècle, la guerre est un moyen de résoudre les différends suite à l’échec de négociations.
-C’est un suprême serviteur, un service qui offre des règles donnant la possibilité de s’accorder autour de traités dépendamment d’une règlementation. Il est dans l’intérêt de tous que la guerre soit contenue, mais qu’elle reste un moyen légitime. Rien ne contraint particulièrement les États.
+It would be too short to say that public international law governs only relations between States, which excludes certain subjects of law. Thus, the establishment of a headquarters is subject to international law between an organization and a State. For example, the Pope as head of the Holy See may conclude international treaties.
-Le droit du XIXème siècle ne connait pas de limites sur le recours à la force et cela même pour une cause discrétionnaire. En temps de paix, on ne peut pénétrer sur le territoire d’un autre État, car il y a des règles pointues sur la violation de la souveraineté du territoire, mais en temps de guerre il est possible de violer l’intégrité territoriale et d’annexer un territoire.
-Ainsi, au XIXème siècle le droit international est un droit minimal au service des États.
-== Droit international moderne ==
+The main subjects for and through which international law is done are the 194 States around the world. Other actors are also parts of the international legal society because international practice recognizes their powers in matters of public international law.
-Le droit international moderne rompt avec cette tradition, il n’est plus minimum, mais a pour vocation d’étoffer ne laissant pas de lacunes. Le droit international moderne va prévoir toute une série de normes assez contraignantes comme le non-recours à la force, l’interdiction à l’annexion et la violation des affaires intérieures, mais aussi le droit à l’autodétermination des peuples.
-L’objectif et de policer la société internationale et de la rendre moins anarchique. L’idée est de hiérarchiser la société internationale avec des règles valables pour tous et contraignantes pour les États devenant un maitre pour les États de droit international moderne.
-Le droit international moderne est également très attaché à promouvoir certaines causes communes au contraire du droit international classique qui ne s’en souciait pas étant le serviteur des puissances occidentales.
-= Expansion matérielle et personnelle du droit international =
+However, States are the main subjects of international law, because international law is done by and for States. It is because States hold the power of sovereignty that explains why international law and made by and for States.
-== Expansion matérielle ==
+Thus, international law governs relations between States, but also with other subjects submitted and participating in international society.
-Le droit international classique contenait certaines règles, mais qui se coagulaient autour de la diplomatie, des traités et de la guerre. Le droit international moderne est un droit beaucoup plus large quant aux matières qu’il couvre.
-Aujourd’hui, il serait difficile de trouver une question quelconque qui ne fut régulée au niveau international. Non seulement il y a d’autres matières internationales qui vont s’ajouter comme le règlement des différends ou de la responsabilité internationale, mais qui plus est de questions qui n’avaient pas pour vocation d’être réglées sur le plan international et qui vont commencer à l‘être à cause d’interdépendances croissantes.
-Par exemple, dans les différents ordres juridiques existe des législations relatives au travail qui renvoient à du droit national. Sur le droit du travail existe aussi toute une série de textes internationaux et en tout premier lieu 200 conventions adoptées sous les auspices de l’Organisation Internationale du Travail. Ainsi on a une bipartition des règles du travail entre les couches nationales et internationales. Un autre exemple est les brevets ou le Bureau International s’occupe des brevets, mais encore le droit économique et financier qui est règlementé avec force et détail dans les ordres juridiques internes, mais pourtant il existe déjà tout un volet international avec l’OMC, le FMI, la BIRD ainsi que toute une série de conventions comme les traités bilatéraux sur les investissements. Il en est de même avec le droit de l’environnement avec toute une série de protections internes et de conventions internationales.
-Il est impossible de trouver une branche quelconque où il n’y a pas aussi de la règlementation internationale, quel que soit son objet le droit international renvoie au droit international public. Même dans le cas du droit privé on doit conclure un traité afin d’harmoniser les législations en matière de droit privé, la conclusion d’un traité relève du droit international public étant même une de ses sources.
-Les États vont vouloir ne pas tout règlementer internationalement, mais ils savent qu’ils doivent se mettre d’accord sur certains aspects pour créer une sécurité juridique.
-== Expansion personnelle ==
-Anciennement, au XIXème, les sujets de droit international, les entités capables d’avoir des droits et des devoirs étaient les États, tenant le devant de la scène et l’occupant dans la quasi-totalité.
-Au XXème siècle le nombre de sujets s’est diversifié, les prémices se trouvent d’ailleurs dans le XIXème siècle avec le Saint-Siège, le Comité de la Croix Rouge fondé en 1862 -1893, mais aussi les organisations internationales. Il y a aussi l’individu que nous sommes tous qui n’avait aucun statut. Avant 1945, on considérait que le droit international relevait des rapports entre puissances et que l’individu voyait ses relations juridiques réglementées uniquement par le droit interne. Le droit interne était protégé contre toute forme d’intervention, question purement intérieure sur lesquels tout autre État n’avait rien à dire.
-Après 1945 ce verrou a sauté, on ne fait plus de distinctions, au contraire il y a un mouvement de droit international pénal inauguré à Nuremberg en 1946 – 1949, de l’autre côté a cheminé lentement, mais non moins décidément un droit international des droits de l’homme à travers toute une série de conventions. L’individu jouit directement de certains droits tout en se trouvant soumis à une responsabilité pénale en vertu du droit international. Auparavant un traité pouvait soumettre un individu à des poursuites, maintenant il est possible de demander dans certains cas des comptes directement en vertu du droit international devant un tribunal international.
-Il y a un changement de structures profondes qui ne marque plus de séparations. Cela reste vrai dans les grandes lignes, mais la séparation n’est plus inerte.
-Après 1945, on constate une grande diversification dans les sujets du droit international à savoir les entités ou les personnes qui peuvent avoir des droits ou des obligations directement en vertu d’une règle internationale. On en ressent les effets jusqu’à aujourd’hui.
-= L’efficacité du droit international public =
+Not all relations between States are governed by international law. States may have different relationships because they are free to act as they see fit in a variety of areas. States shall bind themselves by expressing mutual will in order to develop legal certainty. Thus, they more or less voluntarily alienate their original freedom in order to obtain certain advantages, as may be provided by legal certainty.
-Il y a une équation qui va nous porter à confrontation et à laquelle nous avons déjà pensé. Le droit interne fonctionne parce qu’il y a un gendarme et un juge ; en définitive le récalcitrant peut être amené vers un tribunal pour que des sanctions soient évoquées même contre sa volonté.
+This can only be done through agreements that limit rights but guarantee certain relationships.
-L’idée que le droit interne est toujours l’exécution des peines et une idée simpliste. L’équation pour la compléter est que dans le droit international il n’y a pas de gendarme et de juge. Quelque chose doit pourtant opérer… quand le droit est subordinatif, cela fonctionne et lorsqu’il est coordinatif cela ne marcherait pas.
+We have to look at what norms bind a state to enlighten situations. There are general but also specific standards that vary from state to state. There may be a policy pursued by a State in a lawful manner with respect to one State and unlawful with respect to another State, depending on the legal relations between a State and others, and this in a different way, it is a right of varying geometry.
-La réalité est que cette équation est fausse. Il suffit d’évoquer le droit fiscal et de comparer les règles d’un club agréé par tous les membres pour se rendre compte que les règles d’un club sont plus souvent respectées.
+To sum up, international law is the law that fundamentally governs certain relations between States, those that States want to see subject to legal discipline.
-Il faut se méfier de cette équation, il faut s’en réserver l’inventaire. Lorsque l’on regarde les choses de plus près, on se rend compte qu’elles sont beaucoup plus articulées.
+= Evolution of public international law =
-Comme dans toutes les branches du droit il y a des matières fortes et faibles. Par exemple dans le cas de la Cour Internationale de Justice (1921 - 1940) et la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, il s’agit là de la juridiction majeure pour trancher les litiges entre États. La Cour permanente dans sa carrière a émis environ 35 jugements. Il n’y avait pas de policier pour faire exécuter ces arrêts, cependant ils ont tous été exécutés dans les années 1920 et les années 1930.
+The evolution takes us from classical international law to modern international law.
-D’un autre côté, dans le cas des droits de l’homme et des droits humanitaires, le droit humanitaire est le droit des conflits armés qui contient des règles sur la conduite des hostilités et la protection des personnes en cas de conflit armé, ne faut-il pas se tourner vers la Syrie pour se rendre compte qu’il fonctionne mal. Ces deux matières sont contrastées, les violations des droits de l’homme sont des violations indirectes des droits nationaux. On fera toujours le procès au droit international, mais jamais de procès au droit interne de ces États, on dira que le régime est tyrannique, mais pas que le droit a dysfonctionné.
+== Classical international law ==
+Classical international law extends from the Grotian period to the 19th century, which ended politically in 1919, i.e. until the end of the First World War. The climax of classical international law is the 20th century.
-Dans le DIH, dans le cas de conflits, le droit humanitaire fonctionne mal, car il fut adopté principalement pour des raisons humanitaires et non guerrières. Le même droit pour les conflits armés fonctionne remarquablement, car les armées de métiers mettent une grande attention à ne pas violer les règles internationales. Il faut regarder avant de s’exprimer.
+Modern international law begins after the First World War. What distinguishes it is that classical international law is a minimal legal order that basically attempts to organize coexistence with States, but this is accompanied by important eclipses. There are independent "civilized" states, the law is there to serve them as a useful foreign policy instrument for each of them. He is a great servant of the "civilized" states. Thus it is a closed circle that applies only to the great rulers and sets their operating rules.
-Certains facteurs poussent vers le respect du droit international, ce sont peut-être des facteurs impondérables, mais ils sont moins importants :
-#'''Réciprocité''' : l lorsque l’on respecte une règle on ne se pose pas à une violation d’un autre État. Dans le cas d’une violation d’une règle, il y a une forte réflexion, car les États sont rationnels, le droit qui les importe les pousses à réfléchir, car leurs intérêts peuvent être remis en cause. La réciprocité est une tenaille pour appliquer le droit. En droit international il y a très peu de règles imposées à un État, ils sont soumis aux règles qu’ils ont fondamentalement acceptées. Par exemple toutes les règles conventionnelles sont des règles contenues dans des traités : nul n’est censé respecter une règle non-conventionnelle car un traité est applicable que si il est ratifié ; c’est un choix qui postule que les règles conviennent et qu’il y a un intérêt à les appliquer, car il a été fait en sorte lors de la négociation de discuter les règles et est venu le choix de ratifier ou non. Même après ratification il y a possibilité de faire des réserves en réservant tout ce qui fâche ainsi la violation des dispositions sous réserve n’en est pas une. Pour le droit coutumier cela est similaire, il n’y a pas de règles coutumières seulement imposées, cela doit correspondre à une pratique générale des États, s’il n’y a pas de pratique, la règle n’est pas coutumière. Comme les règles du droit international sont volontaires et non pas imposées, l’incitation pour les respecter est aussi beaucoup plus grande. A supposer même que le droit soit violé, il faut d’abord reconnaitre qu’il y a d’importantes violations. Même dans ce cas, une règle peut être dite « violée » apportant un aspect de stigmatisation. La violation de la règle permet d’exercer une certaine pression, on peut dire que « les États Baltes ont été annexés par l’URSS contre une règle internationale », on ne va pas lancer de guerres, mais maintenir la pression en le dénonçant menant à une sanction du droit. Par un jeu juridique, les États Baltes n’ont jamais perdu leur souveraineté. Même dans une violation de la règle, elle peut avoir une certaine justification.
+In the 19th century, international law was confined to the fields of diplomacy, treaties (transaction) and war.
-#'''Caractère volontaire / consensuel ''':dans l’ensemble, le droit international est respecté, mais seules les violations sont rapportées par la presse, car elles sont importantes. Ce qui est faible est l’exécution forcée, les États agissent rationnellement et ne violent le droit qu’avec beaucoup de réflexion ; cette idée est incompatible avec le principe de souveraineté, il faudrait une communauté internationale qui devienne elle-même un État faisant des peuples des peuples qui ne sont plus souverains. La souveraineté fait que l’on ne peut progresser dans l’exécution forcée, il faut toujours engager la coopération des États pour exécuter les sanctions envers les récalcitrants. Une exécution forcée en droit interne est que lorsqu’il y a infraction on peut comparaitre devant un tribunal allant même jusqu'à violer la vie privée par l’usage de la force. En droit international on n’est pas dans cette position, aller chercher un État chez lui pour exécuter une sentence signifie une déclaration de guerre ; en droit international c’est une guerre d’exécution contre un État. Le remède est pire que le mal, on ne va pas ouvrir une guerre pour faire exécuter une norme de droit international. Il est donc facile de dire qu’il faudrait faire plus, mais si nous ne sommes pas prêts à abandonner la souveraineté et à aller jusqu’à une guerre d’exécution il ne peut y avoir de sérieux.
+* '''Diplomacy''': to ratify bilateral treaties and cooperate, but also to resolve disputes and disputes.
+* '''Treaties''': it is an instrument in which the chords will be recorded and an instrument is needed to transcribe the chords.
-Pour parler du droit international, on doit avoir une connaissance de la matière et beaucoup de modestie. Il faut approcher le problème avec circonscription. {{citation|Un homme intelligent se tait sur les questions qu’il ne connaît pas, car il manifeste chez les autres l’étendue de son ignorance et le défaut de son caractère}}<ref>Robert Kolb</ref>.
+* '''War''': war empties the dispute between states. In the 19th century legal system, war is a means of resolving disputes following the failure of negotiations.
+It is a supreme servant, a service that offers rules giving the possibility to agree on treaties depending on regulations. It is in everyone's interest that war be contained, but that it remains a legitimate means. There is no particular constraint on States.
+The 19th-century law knows no limits on the use of force, even for a discretionary cause. In peacetime, one cannot enter the territory of another State because there are strict rules on the violation of sovereignty, but in wartime it is possible to violate territorial integrity and annex territory.
+Thus, in the 19th century, international law was a minimum right at the service of States.
+== Modern international law ==
+Modern international law breaks with this tradition, it is no longer a minimum, but is intended to expand without leaving any gaps. Modern international law will provide for a series of fairly binding norms such as the non-use of force, prohibition of annexation and violation of internal affairs, but also the right of peoples to self-determination.
+The objective is to police the international society and make it less anarchic. The idea is to prioritize international society with rules that are valid for all and binding on States becoming a master for States under modern international law.
+Modern international law is also strongly committed to promoting certain common causes in contrast to classical international law, which did not care about them as the servant of the Western powers.
+= Material and personal expansion of international law =
+== Material Expansion ==
+Traditional international law contained rules that clothed around diplomacy, treaties and war. Modern international law is a much broader right in terms of the matters it covers.
+Today, it would be difficult to find any issue that was not regulated at the international level. Not only will there be other international matters to be added, such as the settlement of disputes or international responsibility, but more importantly, issues that were not meant to be settled at the international level, and which will begin to be settled because of growing interdependencies.
+For example, in the various legal systems there are labour laws that refer to national law. There is also a whole series of international texts on labour law, and in the first place 200 conventions adopted under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation. Thus we have a bipartition of the rules of work between the national and international layers. Another example is patents, where the International Patent Office deals with patents, but also economic and financial law, which is regulated with force and detail in domestic legal systems, but yet there is already a whole international component with the WTO, IMF, IBRD and a whole series of conventions such as bilateral investment treaties. The same is true of environmental law with a whole series of internal protections and international conventions.
+It is impossible to find any branch of international law where there is not also international regulation, whatever its purpose, international law refers to public international law. Even in the case of private law, a treaty must be concluded in order to harmonize private law legislation, since the conclusion of a treaty is even one of its sources.
+States will not want to regulate everything internationally, but they know that they must agree on certain aspects in order to create legal certainty.
+== Personal Expansion ==
+Formerly, in the 19th century, the subjects of international law, the entities capable of having rights and duties were the States, holding the spotlight and occupying almost all of them.
+In the twentieth century the number of subjects diversified, the first fruits of which can be found in the nineteenth century with the Holy See, the Committee of the Red Cross founded in 1862-1893, but also international organizations. There is also the individual we are all who had no status. Prior to 1945, international law was considered to be inter-power relations and the individual's legal relations were considered to be regulated solely by domestic law. Domestic law was protected against any form of interference, a purely domestic matter on which no other State had anything to say.
+After 1945 this lock was broken, no distinctions were made, on the contrary there is a movement of international criminal law inaugurated in Nuremberg in 1946 - 1949, on the other hand has slowly but definitely progressed an international human rights law through a whole series of conventions. The individual enjoys certain rights directly while being subject to criminal responsibility under international law. Previously a treaty could subject an individual to prosecution, now it is possible in some cases to claim accounts directly under international law before an international tribunal.
+There is a change of deep structures that no longer marks separations. This remains true in general terms, but separation is no longer inert.
+After 1945, there was a great diversity in the subjects of international law, i. e. entities or persons that may have rights or obligations directly under an international rule. We can feel the effects until today.
+= The effectiveness of public international law =
+There is an equation that will bring us face to face and that we have already thought about. Domestic law works because there is a gendarme and a judge; in short, the recalcitrant can be brought to a court so that sanctions are evoked even against his will.
+The idea that domestic law is always the enforcement of sentences and a simplistic idea. The equation to complete it is that in international law there are no gendarmes and judges. Something must work, however... when the law is subordinate, it works and when it is co-ordinating it would not work.
+The reality is that this equation is wrong. One only has to look at tax law and compare the rules of a club approved by all members to realize that the rules of a club are more often respected.
+We must beware of this equation, we must reserve the inventory. When you look at things more closely, you realize that they are much more articulated.
+As in all branches of law there are strong and weak subjects. For example, in the case of the International Court of Justice (1921 - 1940) and the Permanent Court of International Justice, this is the major jurisdiction for settling disputes between States. The Permanent Court in his career issued about 35 judgments. There was no police officer to enforce these arrests, but they were all executed in the 1920s and 1930s.
+On the other hand, in the case of human rights and humanitarian rights, humanitarian law is the law of armed conflict, which contains rules on the conduct of hostilities and the protection of persons in the event of armed conflict. These two subjects are contrasted, human rights violations are indirect violations of national laws. There will always be a trial under international law, but never a trial under the domestic law of these States, it will be said that the regime is tyrannical, but not that the law has malfunctioned.
+In UIL, in the case of conflict, humanitarian law does not work well because it was adopted primarily for humanitarian and non-warlike reasons. The same right for armed conflicts works remarkably well, because armies of trades put great care in not violating international rules. You have to look before you express yourself.
+There are some factors that lead to respect for international law, which may be imponderable, but they are less important:
+# '''Reciprocity''': l when a rule is respected, there is no violation of another State. In the case of a violation of a rule, there is a strong reflection, because States are rational, the right to think is important to them, because their interests can be called into question. Reciprocity is a pliers to enforce the law. In international law there are very few rules imposed on a State, they are subject to the rules that they have basically accepted. For example, all treaty rules are rules contained in treaties: no one is supposed to respect a non-conventional rule because a treaty is applicable only if it is ratified; it is a choice which presupposes that the rules are appropriate and that there is an interest in applying them, because it was made during the negotiation to discuss the rules and came to be ratified or not. Even after ratification, there is still the possibility of making reservations by reserving all that is offensive to the violation of the provisions subject to reservation is not one of them. For customary law this is similar, there are no customary rules only imposed, it must correspond to a general practice of States, if there is no practice, the rule is not customary. Since the rules of international law are voluntary and not imposed, the incentive to comply with them is also much greater. Even assuming that the law is violated, it must first be acknowledged that there are significant violations. Even in this case, a rule can be said to be "violated", bringing an aspect of stigmatization. The violation of the rule makes it possible to exert a certain amount of pressure, it can be said that "the Baltic States were annexed by the USSR against an international rule", we are not going to launch wars, but to maintain the pressure by denouncing it leading to a legal sanction. By a legal game, the Baltic States have never lost their sovereignty. Even in a violation of the rule, it may have some justification.
+# '''Voluntary/consensual character''': On the whole, international law is respected, but only violations are reported by the press because they are important. What is weak is enforced execution, States act rationally and violate the law only with much reflection; this idea is incompatible with the principle of sovereignty; there should be an international community which itself becomes a State making peoples of peoples who are no longer sovereign. Sovereignty means that no progress can be made in enforcement, and States must always cooperate to enforce sanctions against recalcitrant prisoners. A forced execution under domestic law is that when an offence is committed, it can be brought before a court of law even to the point of violating privacy through the use of force. In international law we are not in this position, to seek a State at home to enforce a sentence means a declaration of war; in international law, it is a war of execution against a State. The remedy is worse than evil, we are not going to start a war to enforce a norm of international law. It is therefore easy to say that more should be done, but if we are not prepared to give up sovereignty and go as far as a war of execution, there can be no seriousness.
+To talk about international law, one must have knowledge of the subject and much modesty. We need to approach the problem with toroughtness{{citation|An intelligent man is silent on matters which he does not know, for he manifests in others the extent of his ignorance and the defect of his character.}}<ref>Robert Kolb</ref>.
 = Annexes =
@@ Ligne 128 : / Ligne 130 : @@
 = References =
-<references/>
+<references />
 [[Category:Robert Kolb]]

« Introductory aspects of public international law » : différence entre les versions