Les accords de coopération entre partenaires fédéraux : entre ‘sources du droit’ et ‘soft law’ (Cooperation Agreements between Federal Partners: Between 'Sources of Law' and 'Soft Law')

French Abstract: Alors que la doctrine belge semble avoir tenu pour acquise la qualification des accords de cooperation en tant que source formelle du droit, ce travail vient nuancer ces propos en distinguant les accords qui peuvent proprement etre caracterises comme sources du droit positif de ceux qui ne peuvent surmonter le « seuil de juridicite ». La presente contribution se veut donc une etude des accords de cooperation ayant une valeur normative claire, tout en offrant une reflexion sur le sort que la theorie du droit peut reserver aux accords n’ayant pas franchi ce seuil. Dans une premiere partie, les auteurs tentent d’appliquer la grille de lecture de H.L.A Hart dans le but de determiner si les accords de cooperation adoptee en vertu de l’article 92 LSRI peuvent etre decrits comme « source du droit ». Les auteurs suggerent que l’article 92 LSRI est la regle de reconnaissance des accords de cooperation et donc que les accords adoptes entre partenaires federaux doivent necessairement suivre ses criteres proceduraux pour etre consideres des sources formelles du droit. Souvent, cela necessite l’assentiment des assemblees legislatives des partenaires, mais les accords traitant de matieres relevant des pouvoirs executifs peuvent y echapper. Ces derniers seraient concus comme contrat entre executifs (potentiellement comme norme reglementaire), mais sans aucun effet sur les tiers. Enfin, les auteurs posent un regard sur la validite de ces accords, leur place dans la hierarchie des normes et le controle de ces accords par la section de legislation du Conseil d’Etat et par les organes juridictionnels. La seconde partie se concentre sur les accords de cooperation ayant enfreint les regles de reconnaissance et les examine selon la typologie des sources de soft law elaboree par Isabelle Hachez, tout en offrant une reflexion sur la « force normative » de ces memes ententes. Les auteurs font la distinction entre les accords de cooperation en attente de procedures d’adoption, des accords necessitants mais qui n’ont pas fait l’objet d’assentiments legislatifs et les ententes qui ne portent pas le titre d’« accord de cooperation ». Quoique ces ententes soient au-dela du droit positif (souvent en marge de celui-ci et meme parfois en opposition) et que leur statut soit incertain, les auteurs suggerent que ces accords de cooperation peuvent quand meme constituer des sources du droit et sont dotes d’une grande effectivite.English Abstract: While doctrinal writings in Belgium seem to have taken for granted the qualification of cooperation agreements as formal sources of law, this work qualifies that assumption by distinguishing the agreements that can properly be characterized as sources of positive law to those who cannot overcome the “juridicity threshold”. This contribution is therefore intended to study the cooperation agreements that have clear normative value, while offering a reflection on the fate the theory of law can reserve to those agreements that have not crossed that threshold. In the first part, the authors attempt to apply H.L.A Hart’s reading grid for the purpose of determining whether the cooperation agreements adopted under Section 92 LSRI can be described as “sources of law”. The authors suggest that Section 92 LSRI is the rule of recognition for cooperation agreements, which means the agreements reached between federal partners must necessarily follow its procedural criteria to be considered formal sources of law. Often this requires the consent of the various legislative assemblies, but agreements dealing with matters falling within the purview of the executive branch may escape this mechanism. The latter agreements are perceived as contracts between the executives (potentially as regulatory standards), but with no effect on third parties. Finally, the authors discuss the validity of such agreements, their place in the hierarchy of norms and the review of these agreements by the Legislation Section of the Council of State and judicial bodies. The second part looks at the cooperation agreements that have broken the rules of recognition and reviews the typology of the sources of soft law developed by Isabelle Hachez, while offering a reflection on the “normative force” of these agreements. They distinguish between cooperation agreements awaiting adoption procedures, agreements requiring but which have not been consented to by the various legislative assemblies and agreements that do not bear the title “cooperation agreements.” Although these agreements are beyond positive law (often on the margins of it and sometimes in opposition to it) and that their status is uncertain, the authors suggest that these cooperation agreements may still be sources of law and are endowed with great effectiveness.

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.