De la legitimation de la conduite de politique exterieure des etats a la lumiere de certains cas de recours a la force armee

The legitimization of states' foreing policy : some cases of recourse to armed force

• Auteur / Autrice : Mohammed Bouacha
• Direction : Edmond Jouve
• Type : Thèse de doctorat
• Discipline(s) : Droit public
• Date : Soutenance en 1997
• Etablissement(s) : Paris 5

Mots clés

Mots clés contrôlés

Droit d'ingérence humanitaire

Légitime défense (droit international)

Agression (droit international)

Intervention (droit international)

Résumé

Les processus de legitimation, a l'epoque contemporaine, refletent la tension entre ordre et justice, tension deja perceptible dans la charte des nations unies et persistante dans le droit international contemporain "ecartele entre legitimite et legalite". Les etats qui ont utilise la force dans les relations internationales ont exprime leur volonte de ne pas s'ecarter au paradigme de la charte des nations unies concernant le jus ad bellum. Mais tout en affichant leur fidelite a ce paradigme, les etats ont pris parti des ambiguites de l'article 2 para 4 et des exceptions posees a cette regle erodant ainsi la prohibition du recours a la force. Les etats ont, d'autre part, manifeste leur souci de promouvoir la "justice". La preference de la justice au detriment de la paix a ete, dans la periode d'apres guerre, l'un des problemes qui ont ebranle les normes concernant le jus ad bellum. Or, cependant que l'article 2 para 4 a ete interprete de maniere a justifier presque toute forme d'emploi de la force, il n'existe pas de definition commune de ce qu'est une cause "juste". Les etats ont utilise la force pour promouvoir des causes "justes" variees. La fin de la guerre froide consecutivement a l'effondrement des regimes communistes a l'est annoncait, cependant, l'emergence d'un consensus autour de certains objectifs "justes". Il a en particulier, ete affirme que l'usage de la force pou promouvoir l'autodetermination interne est admissible. Cette evolution serait annonciatrice d'un accord, qui va grandissant, sur ce qu'est un regime "illegitime". La legitimite est, ici, normative, elle renvoie, notamment, au pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques. Ce consensus serait annonciateur d'un accord naissant sur l'admissibilite du recours a la force pour deposer les regimes "illegitimes". Certains ont pu parler de l'emergence d'une nouvelle "obligation legale", d'un "nouveau paradigme", le paradigme "pro-democratique".

Legitimization processes in the contemporary era reflect the tension between order and justice, tension which can be perceived in the united nations charter and which is persistent under contemporary international law "divided between legitimacy and legality". States which have used force in international relations expressed the will not to depart from the united nations charter paradigm relating to the jus ad bellum for justifying their actions. However, although they proved loyal to this paradigm, states took advantage of the ambiguities of article 2$$4 as well as of the exceptions to this rule, hence eroding the prohibition of the recourse to force. In the same time, states have shown they were interested in promoting "justice". The preference for "justice" over peace has been, in the post war era, the problem that most undermined charter norms on the use of force although. Article 2$$4 has been interpreted in such a way as to justify nearly all kind of recourse to force, there is no common definition of what constitute a "just" cause. States have had recourse to force in order to promote various "just" causes. The end of cold war consecutively to the collapse of communism in eastern countries fortold the emergence of a consensus around "just" causes. In particular, use of power to promote internal self-determination was found to be permissible. Such an evolution foretells a growing international consensus around what constitute an "illegitimate" regime. Legitimacy is normative, it refers to the international covenant on civil and political rights. This consensus is the premise of an emerging belief that it is becoming permissible to use force in order to remove "illegitimate regimes". Some authors refer to the emergence of a "new legal obligation", a new "paradigm", the " pro-democratic" pardigm.