De facto n°32 | March 2022

This latest issue of De Facto scru­ti­nizes – by discus­sing its under­lying assump­tions – the proposal put forward by some candi­dates at the presi­den­tial elec­tion (in May 2022) that France should with­draw from inter­na­tional conven­tions it has signed and rati­fied, those regar­ding migra­tion espe­cially. The issue examines whether such a with­drawal would be possible or desi­rable, since denoun­cing the “omni­po­tence” of inter­na­tional conven­tions and Euro­pean law reflects an igno­rance of what the law repre­sents, beyond its written rules.

The contri­bu­tors imagine the scenario in which France would with­draw from the main conven­tions that concern migra­tion, both directly or indi­rectly. Is such a with­drawal legally possible, and under what condi­tions ? If France can indeed be legally released from some of its inter­na­tional obli­ga­tions, what are the motives of those advo­ca­ting such an outcome ? Are they seeking to denounce the primacy of inter­na­tional and Euro­pean law and to restore state sove­rei­gnty ? If so, couldn’t we argue that making a commit­ment via an inter­na­tional conven­tion involves exer­ci­sing this very state sove­rei­gnty ? Is it impli­citly assumed that inter­na­tional and Euro­pean law contra­venes the demo­cratic ideal ? But what does it really mean to “with­draw from inter­na­tional and Euro­pean conven­tions”? A complete with­drawal ? Does this not overes­ti­mate the binding power of inter­na­tional conven­tions and of Euro­pean law, and omit the margins of inter­pre­ta­tion for the nume­rous actors of different levels ?

Our first ques­tion, too often over­looked, can be put in simple terms : why do we (indi­vi­duals and states) need inter­na­tional conven­tions ? What purpose do they serve, and for whom are they adopted ? Do not inter­na­tional conven­tions express the global dimen­sion of our planet and the need to orga­nize the rela­tions between the humans that inhabit it ? Inter­na­tional law provides a means to defend people whose access to rights is not – or not fully – guaran­teed in their own country and who can seek protec­tion at inter­na­tional (or Euro­pean) level. The ongoing war in Ukraine high­lights the urgency of consi­de­ring our planet in its global dimen­sion, and the need to consider our shared huma­nity beyond all borders and national iden­ti­ties. ^[1]This is the very purpose of the recently publi­shed report entitled Migra­tions. Pour la protec­tion des droits fonda­men­taux (2021) (Migra­tion. For the protec­tion of funda­mental rights). Coor­di­nated by five major orga­ni­za­tions working with migrants, the report aims to alert parlia­men­tary groups to the impor­tance of respec­ting and … Lire la suite It reveals the nonsense of the many inflated contro­ver­sies on migra­tion, as well as the absur­dity and igno­miny of argu­ments and view­points that seek to attach diffe­ring values to human lives.

Émeline Zoug­bédé, Ségo­lène Barbou des Places and Michel Agier,
scien­tific coordinators