Search

Les avis consultatifs font partie intégrante de la jurisprudence constitutionnelle canadienne. L’exécutif fédéral a le privilège exclusif de pouvoir soumettre pratiquement toute question de droit, abstraite ou non, à la Cour suprême du Canada, alors que les exécutifs provinciaux peuvent en faire autant auprès de leur Cour d’appel respective. Ces tribunaux ont, en principe, l’obligation de répondre. Au fil des ans, les « renvois » ont traité d’une multitude de sujets, y compris de la répartition fédérale des compétences, du rapatriement de la Constitution, du mariage entre personnes de même sexe, de la réforme du Sénat et de la possible sécession d’une province. Si l’analyse du contenu des renvois constitue un pilier de la plupart des cours de droit constitutionnel, l’institution même a étonnamment largement échappé à une analyse approfondie. Deux ouvrages majeurs, publiés à quelques mois d’intervalle, comblent avec brio cette lacune. Dans Courts Without Cases: The Law and Politics of Advisory Opinions et Seeking the Court’s Advice: The Politics of the Canadian Reference Power, la constitutionnaliste Carissima Mathen et la politologue Kate Puddister décodent habilement la théorie et la pratique des avis consultatifs sous des angles disciplinaires distincts, mais complémentaires. Deux aspects problématiques ressortent particulièrement de cette analyse croisée. Il s’agit, en premier lieu, du risque d’instrumentalisation des tribunaux par la branche exécutive. De fait, l’apparent affront à la séparation des pouvoirs a conduit plusieurs pays de common law (mais pas tous) à rejeter la pratique des avis consultatifs. Pourquoi n’est-ce pas le cas du Canada? En second lieu, malgré leur caractère officiellement non contraignant, les renvois sont lus, enseignés, cités, critiqués, plaidés et largement rédigés comme s’il s’agissait d’arrêts rendus en appel, arrêts qui eux sont évidemment contraignants. Comment expliquer la force normative déroutante d’« avis » qui n’ont plus de « consultatifs » que le nom? Cet essai critique place les deux ouvrages en conversation l’un avec l’autre. L’auteure y ajoute ses propres interrogations et réflexions, notamment sur le rôle et le statut des renvois dans une perspective comparative. L’essai examine les origines, l’évolution et le cadre normatif des « avis consultatifs », ainsi que les motivations « stratégiques » qui fondent la décision de l’exécutif de demander — ou non — un avis consultatif. En conclusion, l’auteure avance une hypothèse sur cette singulière institution qui ne fonctionne pas en théorie, mais plutôt bien en pratique. Les « renvois » représenteraient-ils un autre élément de la culture constitutionnelle du Canada, qui voit s’entrecroiser et s’influencer de manière si fluide les sources formelles et informelles, écrites et non écrites, officielles et effectives du droit?

Authors in various disciplines have adopted a dichotomous typology of “old and new minorities”. For many scholars and policy makers, this dual conception, which was notably introduced by Will Kymlicka, has further evolved into a three-pronged typology, where Indigenous peoples constitute a distinct category. This classification has had a significant influence on both theoretical and functional accommodation of minorities. It has provided a set of criteria for determining which fundamental rights, accommodation measures, and self-government mechanisms can legitimately be claimed by each category. In this article, the author argues that the dominant three-pronged classification of minorities—“national minorities”, “aboriginal peoples” and “ethnic minorities”—fails to capture the specificity and complexity of the French-speaking communities who do not enjoy territorial autonomy in Canada. The result is that Francophone minority communities outside of Quebec (which amount to one million French-speakers) effectively find themselves in a normative penumbra, as their fluid identity floats between an “ethnic minority” and a “national minority”. The dichotomous distinction between old and new minorities has rendered these communities largely invisible, and the discussion on their political autonomy, almost inexistent. The author suggests three tentative answers to what could be called “Kymlicka’s blind spot”. The first replaces the rigid categories with a spectrum, the second builds continuum inside the current categories and the third proposes to add another category to the existing typology. Any exploration of alternative conceptual schemes requires notably a clarification of the claims of autonomy made—or which could be made—by these linguistic minorities, including claims of territorial or non-territorial political autonomy. While political autonomy has not been recognized for francophone minority communities in Canada, the author discusses the legitimacy and potential forms of this possibility, often overlooked in favour of non-State efforts. Ultimately, this piece calls to rethink Kymlicka’s typology through a more nuanced and contextualized lens, in light of the Canadian experience.

Authors in various disciplines have adopted a dichotomous typology of “old and new minorities”. For many scholars and policy makers, this dual conception, which was notably introduced by Will Kymlicka, has further evolved into a three-pronged typology, where Indigenous peoples constitute a distinct category. This classification has had a significant influence on both theoretical and functional accommodation of minorities. It has provided a set of criteria for determining which fundamental rights, accommodation measures, and self-government mechanisms can legitimately be claimed by each category. In this article, the author argues that the dominant three-pronged classification of minorities—“national minorities”, “aboriginal peoples” and “ethnic minorities”—fails to capture the specificity and complexity of the French-speaking communities who do not enjoy territorial autonomy in Canada. The result is that Francophone minority communities outside of Quebec (which amount to one million French-speakers) effectively find themselves in a normative penumbra, as their fluid identity floats between an “ethnic minority” and a “national minority”. The dichotomous distinction between old and new minorities has rendered these communities largely invisible, and the discussion on their political autonomy, almost inexistent. The author suggests three tentative answers to what could be called “Kymlicka’s blind spot”. The first replaces the rigid categories with a spectrum, the second builds continuum inside the current categories and the third proposes to add another category to the existing typology. Any exploration of alternative conceptual schemes requires notably a clarification of the claims of autonomy made—or which could be made—by these linguistic minorities, including claims of territorial or non-territorial political autonomy. While political autonomy has not been recognized for francophone minority communities in Canada, the author discusses the legitimacy and potential forms of this possibility, often overlooked in favour of non-State efforts. Ultimately, this piece calls to rethink Kymlicka’s typology through a more nuanced and contextualized lens, in light of the Canadian experience.

In multinational polities, different orders of government are involved in determining the norms of social protection. In this context, this article addresses the question of who does what, how and why. The first section deals with the distribution of normative power concerning social protection in federal states and in the European Union. The second section examines a variety of devices enabling the articulation of shared power. Finally, a third section concentrates on the different functions of normative power in the social domain. The first one is obviously redistributive. Secondly, the exercise of normative power legitimises public institutions of all government levels involved. The third function, which is of particular interest in the context of multinational States (or political spaces such as Europe) consists in the consolidation of citizenship. The solidarity inherent in norms of social protection reflects the sense of belonging to a particular social group, and in this context, the nation. It can also serve to strengthen the sense of belonging to the larger political space, the multinational federation. In complex political structures, the power to establish norms of social protection contributes to the phenomenon of multiple loyalties and overlapping citizenship. Cementing citizenship in such a political context cannot succeed through homogenisation, but must respect the cultural dimension of social protection and the right to be different.

Observations The borders of Brussels’ metropolitan area It is commonly recognised that the institutional boundaries of Brussels do not correspond to its socio-economic borders. Economic and geographical studies have demonstrated this time and again. For example, the Brussels agglomeration has been said to cover 31 communes (Dujardin et al., 2007), or even 62 (Luyten & Van Hecke, 2007: 26), including the 19 already part of the Brussels-Capital Region (BCR). The figures obviously vary depending...