Contenu du sommaire

As the legislator is about to amend the financial repression, it seems legit to focus on how european and french laws frame this regulation.According to ne bis in dem, French law should now prevent anybody from being prosecuted repeatedly, which should at last launch the rationalisation of this regulation

Regarding the impartiality of the trial judge, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal adopts a different conception depending on the type of impartiality being challenged, be it personal or functional. If the first type refers, for example, to the behavior or the statements of the trial judge showing a certain bias ; the second one tends to verify the knowledge the judge may have had of the case in which he has to pronounce upon a matter owing to previous functions. Holding an appropriate conception of the personal impartiality of the trial judge, the Criminal Chamber protects this requirement significantly. This does not at all apply for the functional impartiality of the Criminal Court judge. The conception retained by the Court of Appeal appears outdated in all respects.

The article sets out how a U.
S Federal Statute, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), interpreted by federal Courts as granting universal jurisdiction for redressing tortious conduct committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States has threatened international relations.The first part sets forth the origins of the law, its wording, the reasons for its voting, its late rebirth and ensuing expansion by federal courts.The second part analyses the way in which the U.S Supreme Court has interpreted the statute. It focuses on the issue of reconciling two conflicting interests : the need for U.S courts to redress torts caused by atrocious conduct that occurred abroad while deferring to comity principles and the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S laws.The third part lays out all the remaining unanswered issues, whether as to International law or separation of powers. It resorts to comparative law to assess how similar cases would be tried under French Criminal or tort law. Finally, it sorts out how to articulate both jurisdictions of U.S federal courts under the ATS as well as that of the International criminal court (I.C.C) under the Rome Statute.

The question of the academic status of criminology is an old controversy in France. A similar debate occured in the United States, even though some universities do have criminology departments where we can find professional academic criminologists. This paper investigates the structure of US criminology and shows that the debates regarding the legitimacy of a disciplinary-autonomous criminology is tied up with a hierarchy of social prestige. These results shed an interesting light on the French case : the US situation is not that different from ours, but the size of the faculty and universities and the decentralization of the disciplinary identities leave some space, at the periphery, for a « synthetic approach » that is quite marginal in France. Yet, on both sides of the Atlantic, this « synthetic approach » of criminology encounters the same difficulties to obtain legitimacy.