Those who denounce international conventions want to obliterate our history

De facto > Issue 32

Fran­çais

Camille de Vulpillières, philosopher

Some french presidential candidates in 2022 suggested that france “withdraw” from certain international conventions. Beyond its legal repercussions, such an action would have uncertain political and symbolic implications.

The French poli­tical debate is regu­larly punc­tuated by sensa­tional state­ments from poli­ti­cians calling for “with­drawal” from one or other inter­na­tional conven­tion. While decla­ra­tions of this kind, prof­fered mainly on the far right of the poli­tical spec­trum,^[1]Although some on the left also advo­cate a with­drawal, at least partial, from Euro­pean trea­ties. are not always included in the candi­dates’ offi­cial mani­festos, they are implicit in the imple­men­ta­tion of many proposed measures. Éric Zemmour,^[2]Programme Zemmour2022, “Immi­gra­tion : le programme d’Éric Zemmour”, URL : https://​programme​.zemmour2022​.fr/​i​m​m​i​g​ration, accessed on 27/​03/​2022. for example, while no longer viewing the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights as the “root of all evil”,^[3]“Face à l’info”, CNews, 29 September 2020. aims to “remove France’s signa­ture from the United Nations Marra­kesh Agree­ment”, “abolish the right to family reuni­fi­ca­tion”, “demand that asylum requests be lodged outside the national terri­tory”, and “perma­nently prohibit the regu­la­ri­za­tion of any forei­gner who enters French terri­tory ille­gally”. These measures, among others, violate nume­rous inter­na­tional conven­tions, the most clearly targeted being the 1951 Geneva Conven­tion Rela­ting to the Status of Refu­gees and the Euro­pean Conven­tion for the Protec­tion of Human Rights and Funda­mental Free­doms (ECHR). He even proposes “to chal­lenge the primacy of inter­na­tional trea­ties and stan­dards over national law, a hierarchy that enslaves us and prevents us from acting, on migra­tion espe­cially”, in defiance of the current French Consti­tu­tion.^[4]Zemmour2022, “Indé­pen­dance”, URL : https://​www​.zemmour2022​.fr/​i​n​d​e​p​e​ndance, accessed on 27/​03/​2022. While Marine le Pen, for her part, has recently toned down her discourse,^[5]Although she no longer expli­citly advo­cates “opting-out” of certain articles of the ECHR (as was the case during the “Grand Jury RTL, Le Figaro” radio show on 25 October 2020, at 2 min 15 sec. URL : https://​www​.rtl​.fr/ actu/in­ter­na­tio­nal/­ma­rine-le-pen-le-voilea-accom­pagne-la-montee-de-l-isla­mis­meen-france-7800910701), she … Lire la suite she advo­cates a similar set of measures rela­tive to family reuni­fi­ca­tion, asylum, regu­la­ri­za­tion and expul­sion of foreign delin­quents.^[6]Mlafrance, “22 mesures pour 2022”, URL : https://​mlafrance​.fr/​p​r​o​gramme, accessed on 25/​02/​2022.

Would it be possible for France to with­draw from these conven­tions ? A legal answer to this ques­tion can be found in the conven­tions them­selves, which some­times provide for this possi­bi­lity and describe the proce­dures to be followed.^[7]See the Vienna Conven­tion on the Law of Trea­ties (Article 56, and Articles 39–41 for the amend­ments). URL : https://​legal​.un​.org/​i​l​c​/​t​e​x​t​s​/​i​n​s​t​r​u​m​e​n​t​s​/​e​n​g​l​i​s​h​/​c​o​n​v​e​n​t​i​o​n​s​/​1​_​1​_​1​9​69.pdf In this case, the Geneva Conven­tion^[8]Article 44. and the ECHR^[9]Article 58. expli­citly state that a signa­tory state can with­draw simply by noti­fying its inten­tion to do so. These provi­sions may seem surpri­sing, given that such a with­drawal would defeat the very purpose of these texts to safe­guard the effec­tive obser­vance of human rights. And yet they reflect the nature of inter­na­tional law, based on contrac­tual obli­ga­tion : the texts are binding for states only to the extent that (or for as long as) they give their sove­reign consent to abide by their provisions.

“In the case of France, the arguments of Éric Zemmour or Marine Le Pen are based more on a logic of secession and withdrawal into the national sphere, destined for a strictly domestic audience.”

Camille de Vulpillières, philosopher

With­drawal (invol­ving unila­teral denun­cia­tion of a prior commit­ment) must be distin­gui­shed from partial rene­go­tia­tion of an agree­ment due, for example, to a change of circum­stances that make it inap­pli­cable.^[10]Regar­ding the Geneva Conven­tion, such a possi­bi­lity is some­times mentioned in rela­tion to the climate refugee cate­gory, non-existent when the conven­tion was first drafted, but which now needs to be included in the text. An action of this kind would be based on coope­ra­tion and, even if its unavowed objec­tive is to “unpick” the provi­sions of a text, it is none­the­less in formal compliance with the logic of inter­na­tional law. In the case of France, the argu­ments of Éric Zemmour or Marine le Pen are based more on a logic of seces­sion and with­drawal into the national sphere, and target a strictly domestic audience.

It is rela­ti­vely easy to foresee the legal conse­quences of such actions, since denun­cia­tion is provided for in the texts. The symbolic and poli­tical impli­ca­tions are much less clear, however. Upon what basis could such an action claim its legi­ti­macy ? Two mutually rein­for­cing argu­ments are given for denoun­cing such inter­na­tional conven­tions : the desire to do away with the “govern­ment of judges” (whereby the judi­ciary has taken the place of the sove­reign people), and the defence of French sove­rei­gnty and identity.

“In the name of French sovereignty, identity and history, [Éric Zemmour] obliterates a whole slice of this history and identity ; he refuses to acknowledge just how deeply the country’s history has been structured by an attachment to human rights and by the promotion of international texts to defend them.”

Camille de Vulpillières, philosopher

Éric Zemmour sees the inter­ven­tion of judges of the Euro­pean Court of Human Rights, but also of the French Council of State or the Consti­tu­tional Council, as an attempt to “impose an ideo­lo­gical will”^[11] See, in parti­cular, his speech in Calais on 19 January 2022. URL : https://​youtu​.be/​c​k​j​Y​U​zdriSQ at the expense of what he sees as the will of the people. Zemmour denies the exis­tence of ideo­lo­gical conflict among the French people, quali­fying as outside inter­fe­rence the values conveyed in inter­na­tional texts and the actions of the judges who uphold them. In the name of French sove­rei­gnty,^[12]Of the people, here confused with that of the state. iden­tity and history, he obli­te­rates a whole slice of this history and iden­tity ; he refuses to acknow­ledge just how deeply the country’s history has been struc­tured by an attach­ment to human rights and by the promo­tion of inter­na­tional texts to defend them. Indeed, some of the most emble­matic, inclu­ding the ECHR or the Universal Decla­ra­tion of Human Rights, were shaped by eminent French legal experts such as Pierre-Henri Teitgen and René Cassin, whose role in the Resis­tance proves that attach­ment to France and promo­tion of inter­na­tional conven­tions can go hand in hand.

This inter­wea­ving of inter­na­tional texts with French history is also evident in the cascade effect that would result from a with­drawal from the ECHR or the Geneva Conven­tion. To make such a with­drawal effec­tive, the French Decla­ra­tion of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen would also have to be largely emptied of its substance. Clearly, these propo­sals are linked to the reac­tio­nary tradi­tion in its most literal sense, i.e. the desire to wipe away the poli­tical and legal advances made possible by the Revo­lu­tion of 1789.

Further readings

• Burgorgue-Larsen L., 2020. « La CEDH ne mérite pas d’être le bouc-émis­saire du réduc­tion­nisme de la pensée », Revue des droits et libertés fonda­men­tales, Chro­nique n°73. URL : http://​www​.revuedlf​.com/​c​e​d​h​/​l​a​-​c​e​d​h​-​n​e​-​m​e​r​i​t​e​-​p​a​s​-​d​e​t​r​e​-​l​e​-​b​o​u​c​-​e​m​i​s​s​a​i​r​e​-​d​u​-​r​e​d​u​c​t​i​o​n​n​i​s​m​e​-​d​e​-​l​a​-​p​ensee/.
• Hennette-Vauchez S., 2017. « Un ‘Frexit’ des droits de l’homme ? », Déli­bérée, n° 1, p. 59–63. DOI : 10.3917/delib.001.0059. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-deliberee-2017–1‑page-59.htm
• Lécuyer Y., 2019. « Les critiques ataviques à l’encontre de la Cour euro­péenne des droits de l’homme », Revue des droits et libertés fonda­men­tales, Chro­nique n°53. URL : http://​www​.revuedlf​.com/​c​e​d​h​/​l​e​s​-​c​r​i​t​i​q​u​e​s​-​a​t​a​v​i​q​u​e​s​-​a​-​l​e​n​c​o​n​t​r​e​-​d​e​-​l​a​-​c​o​u​r​-​e​u​r​o​p​e​e​n​n​e​-​d​e​s​-​d​r​o​i​t​s​-​d​e​-​l​homme/.
• Lochak D., 2018. Les Droits de l’homme, La Décou­verte, Paris.

About the author

Camille de Vulpillières, holds an agré­ga­tion and a PhD in philo­sophy. She is a resear­cher at the Sophiapol labo­ra­tory and a tempo­rary lecturer (ATER) at the Univer­sity of Tours.

Cite this article

Camille de Vulpillières, “Those who denounce inter­na­tional conven­tions want to obli­te­rate our history”, in : Emeline Zoug­bédé, Michel Agier & Ségo­lène Barbou des Places (eds.), Feature “If France were to with­draw from inter­na­tional conven­tions”? De facto [online], 32 | March 2022. URL : https://www.icmigrations.cnrs.fr/en/2022/11/07/defacto-032–03/

Republication

De facto is publi­shed under the terms of the Crea­tive Commons Attri­bu­tion-No deri­va­tive 4.0 Inter­na­tional License (CC BY-ND 4.0). You are free to repu­blish this article free of charge online or in paper format, in accor­dance with these recom­men­da­tions. Do not edit the article, mention the author and specify that this article was publi­shed by De facto | CI Migra­tion. To obtain the embed code of this article, please write to defacto@​icmigrations.​fr