Quand le 'non-droit' fait la loi: les accords de coopération et l'hypothèse du pluralisme juridique (When 'Non-Law' Makes Law: Cooperation Agreements and the Hypothesis of Legal Pluralism)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La presente contribution s’interroge sur le pluralisme juridique dans le contexte des ententes intergouvernementales. Le droit positif classique pose une condition de pedigree au droit « officiel » : il nait de l’action officielle des organes de l’Etat. Seules les normes que l’Etat edicte constitueraient ainsi du « droit » digne de ce nom. Le pluralisme juridique, quant a lui, pose comme constat – ou postulat, selon l’approche – que l’Etat n’est pas l’unique, voire la principale source de normativite juridique. La presente note aborde la question sous un autre angle : les organes de l’Etat peuvent-ils se placer « hors du droit (positif) », tout en restant dans un registre normatif fortement contraignant, formalise, au point qu’il en constituerait un reel ordre « juridique », parallele au droit etatique « officiel » ? Autrement dit, l’Etat peut-il lui-meme creer un registre de normativite qui fasse concurrence – ou du moins qui se place en reelle alternative – au droit positif. Le pluralisme juridique peut-il expliquer non seulement le phenomene de normativites plurielles hors de l’Etat, mais au sein de l’Etat ? La premiere partie identifie des symptomes, ceux d’un droit en marge du droit, un « non-droit qui ferait la loi ». Pour le droit public, il s’agit assurement d’une drole de maladie (I). Dans la seconde partie, l’auteure tente un diagnostic. Pourrait-il s’agir d’une forme de pluralisme juridique ? (II). Enfin, la conclusion abordera le caractere de l’affliction (maladie infantile, contagieuse, chronique ?) et des eventuels remedes susceptibles de la traiter (medecine traditionnelle (droit positif?) ou alternative (ordre juridique bis ?).English Abstract: This article is concerned with legal pluralism in the context of intergovernmental agreements. The classical and positive approach to law considers “law” only what emanates from the State and its official actions. Only the norms dictated by the state can claim to be called “law”. Legal pluralism, however, posits that the State is not the sole source of legal normativity. The present article is concerned with another question: can the state’s organizations place themselves “outside” of the realm of positive/state law, even if these institutions stay in a binding normative register which does not represent another parallel legal order? In other terms, can the State, by itself, create another normative level that competes with the official legal order? Can legal pluralism, therefore, explain multiple normative orders that emerge outside of the realm of the State, but also within the State? The first part identifies the symptoms of this type of law, which can be an amusing disease for public law (I), which can be found on the “edges” of law. In the second part, the author offers a diagnostic. Could this phenomenon be characterized as legal pluralism? (II). In the last part, the author concludes by examining the nature of the affliction (childhood, contagious, chronic?), and possible “prescriptions” to treat the disease (traditional (positive law) or alternative medicine (parallel legal order?)).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".