Le dialogue entre juridictions et quasi-juridictions internationales de protection des droits de la personne : l'exemple de la prohibition de la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants
|Advisor:||Delas, Olivier; Tournepiche, Anne-Marie|
|Abstract:||In the international legal order, international bodies protecting human rights are both of a different nature and independent. Indeed, a hierarchical principle of organization still remains unknown and multiple legal systems protect human rights. Judicial dialogue consists in referring to decisions or international instruments that are external sources to the system in which the international body has to exercise its power of interpretation. In this study, the example of the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments will be used to illustrate this spontaneous practice. This prohibition is at the crossroads of international human rights law, of international humanitarian law and of international criminal law. Therefore, its violations can both engage the international responsibility of State and the individual criminal responsibility.Judicial dialogue is seen as an interpretive technique, allowing to reach common interpretations of the substance, the meaning and the scope of this prohibition. Nevertheless, the use of external sources does not always lead to extensive interpretations since it can also highlight disagreements in which case restrictive interpretations are inevitable. Sometimes, this spontaneous practice will show the existence of international common positions regarding certains aspects of human rights. It is the case regarding the entrenched consensus of the complementarity between international human rights law and international humanitarian law and concerning the extraterritoriality of human rights treaties. This acknowledgement expands States jurisdiction and strengthens the protection offered to the individuals, while increasing interactions between international legal systems protecting human rights and therefore showing a state of substantive interdependence. The lack of consensus in the international legal order will be the ultimate limit to constructive judicial dialogue. Indeed, the latter will emphasize divergent positions in matters of interpretation. One of the most significant examples is the trouble to determine precisely the effect of peremptory norms such as the prohibition of torture when it encounters immunities in international law. This study also questions the content of the international judiciary and its capacity to reach a normative convergence through the use of external sources that shows an interpretive convergence in the first place. The notion of global interpretation through normative and systemic interactions means confronting international legal norms which are similar, even though they were adopted separate and independent systems, in order to reach a better interpretation. This study attempts to show that even though international bodies rotecting human rights are quite different and formally independent, they tend to self-regulation by using external sources. Indeed, the spontaneous practice of judicial dialogue will allow both a process of self-limitation by referring to other sources in order to interpret a given legal provision, since it means including optional limits to the margin of appreciation. At the same time, the use of external sources will also lead to a self-expansion of the possibilities in matters of interpretation by taking into account solutions that were found by other legal interpreters in comparable legal disputes. Therefore, it appears that the international jurisprudential dialogue can both contribute to coordinate and harmonize the application and interpretation of international human rights law.|
|Document Type:||Thèse de doctorat|
|Open Access Date:||9 August 2021|
|Collection:||Thèses et mémoires|
All documents in CorpusUL are protected by Copyright Act of Canada.