Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DE
LE
GA
TIN
G
ST
AT
E P
OW
ER
S:
The
Effe
ct o
f Tre
aty
Reg
imes
on
Dem
ocra
cy a
nd S
over
eign
ty
Edite
d by
Thom
as M
. Fran
ck
Thom
as M.
Fran
ck
Robe
rt E.
Dalto
n Di
ane B
ui Es
chrat
Rah
imi-L
aridja
ni Jer
emy
B. Zu
cker
D. A.
Jerem
y Telm
an
Krist
en B
oon
Nina
Sch
ou
Sir F
rankli
n Be
rman
Ge
org N
olte
Alain
Pell
et
Ch
apte
r E
leve
n
A F
ren
ch C
on
stit
uti
on
al P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
ple
men
tati
on
A Ia
in P
elle
t*
On
Janu
ary
22,
1999
, the
Fre
nch
Con
seil
Con
stit
utio
nnel
iss
ued
a de
ci si
on
by w
hich
it
Dec
ides
: A
rtic
le 1
: Aut
hori
zatio
n to
rat
ify
the
Tre
aty
inco
rpor
atin
g th
e St
atut
e o
f the
In
tern
atio
nal
Cri
min
al C
ourt
dem
ands
a re
vis i
on o
f the
Con
stitu
tion.
l
Thi
s m
eans
tha
t the
Fre
nch
Con
stit
utio
n m
ust b
e am
ende
d be
fore
Fra
nce
rat
ifie
s th
e S
tatu
te o
f R
ome,
as
it h
as b
een
amen
ded
twic
e du
ring
rec
ent
year
s in
or
der
to e
nabl
e ra
tifi
cati
on o
f the
Tre
atie
s o
f Maa
stri
cht
and
Am
ster
dam
,2 w
hich
cr
eate
and
str
engt
hen
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
. T
his
call
s fo
r so
me
expl
anat
ions
abo
ut t
he r
elat
ions
bet
wee
n th
e F
renc
h C
onst
itut
ion
and
inte
rnat
iona
llaw
, an
d m
ore
spec
ific
ally
, tr
eatie
s.
Acc
ordi
ng t
o pa
ragr
aphs
14
and
15 o
f th
e P
ream
ble
to t
he C
onst
itut
ion
of
1946
, whi
ch is
mad
e pa
rt o
f the
Con
stit
utio
n o
f Oct
ober
4,
1958
, by
the
Pre
ambl
e to
the
lat
ter:
The
Fre
nch
Rep
ubli
c, f
aith
ful
to i
ts t
radi
tion
, sh
all
obse
rve
the
rule
s o
f pub
lic
inte
rnat
iona
llaw
[in
tern
atio
nal
publ
ic l
aw].
...
Sub
ject
to r
ecip
roci
ty,
Fra
nce
wil
l co
nsen
t to
suc
h li
mit
atio
ns o
f so
ver
eign
ty a
s ar
e ne
cess
ary
to t
he r
eali
zati
on o
f th
e de
fens
e o
f pe
ace.
3
* Pr
ofes
sor,
Uni
vers
ity
of P
aris
X-N
ante
rre
and
Inst
itut
d'E
tude
s po
liti
ques
de
Pari
s; M
embe
r an
d fo
rmer
Cha
irm
an,
Inte
rnat
iona
l L
aw C
omm
issi
on. 1
wis
h to
tha
nk h
eart
ily
Pro
fess
or T
hom
as
M.
Fra
nck
for
his
corr
ecti
ons
ofm
y E
ngli
sh a
nd h
is h
elpf
ul r
emar
ks o
n a
firs
t dr
aft
oft
his
pap
er.
1 D
ecis
ion
No.
98-
-408
OC
, no
t ye
t pu
blis
hed.
My
tran
slat
ion.
2
See
disc
ussi
on,
infr
a.
) U
nles
s ot
herw
ise
indi
cate
d, t
rans
lati
ons
of
the
Fre
nch
text
s ar
e fr
om a
boo
klet
edi
ted
by
the
Con
seil
con
stit
utio
nnel
: C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ase
Law
: C
omm
unit
y L
aw
an
d I
mm
igra
tion
Act
s,
(Par
is,
1998
). lt
stat
es:
"The
Eng
lish
tra
nsla
tion
doe
s no
t ha
ve o
ffic
ial
stan
ding
"; m
y ow
n ob
jec
tion
s to
the
se t
rans
lati
ons
are
men
tion
ed b
etw
een
squa
re b
rack
ets.
279
280
Del
egat
ing
Stat
e P
ower
s
How
ever
, th
ese
very
gen
eral
pri
ncip
les
are
spec
ifie
d in
the
body
of t
he 1
958
Con
stit
utio
n it
self
, at
lea
st a
s fa
r as
tre
atie
s ar
e co
ncer
ned.
4 T
he r
elev
ant m
Ies
are
incl
uded
in
Art
icle
s 52
to
55,
incl
uded
in
Tit
le V
I, "
Tre
atie
s an
d In
tern
atio
nal
Agr
eem
ents
."5
Acc
ordi
ng t
o th
ese
prov
isio
ns,
a tr
eaty
is
nego
tiat
ed b
y th
e P
resi
dent
of t
he
Rep
ubli
c (o
r in
his
nam
e) a
nd r
atif
ied
by h
im (
Art
icle
52)
, if
nec
essa
ry "
in p
ur
suan
ce o
f an
Act
in
Par
liam
ent"
(A
rtic
le 5
36 )
or a
fter
a r
efer
endu
m (
Art
icle
s Il
an
d 53
, pa
ragr
aph
2).
The
n,
Fro
m th
e m
omen
t o
f the
ir p
ubli
cati
on,
trea
ties
or
agre
emen
ts d
uly
rat
ifie
d or
app
rove
d sh
aH p
reva
il o
ver A
cts
in P
arli
amen
t su
bjec
t, fo
r ea
ch
agre
emen
t or
trea
ty,
to r
ecip
roca
l ap
plic
atio
n by
the
oth
er p
arty
.?
4 B
y co
ntr
ast,
th
e si
len
ce o
f th
e C
on
stit
uti
on
reg
ard
ing
the
sta
tute
of
inte
rnat
ion
al c
us
tom
ary
law
is
a so
urc
e o
f di
ffic
ulti
es a
nd
unc
erta
inti
es.
Whi
le,
curi
ousl
y, t
he C
onse
il c
onst
itu
tion
nel,
whi
ch,
in c
on
trad
icti
on
wit
h th
e cl
ear
text
of
art.
55
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion
(see
bel
ow),
do
es n
ot s
ecur
e re
spec
t fo
r th
e su
peri
orit
y o
f tr
eati
es o
ver
acts
in
Par
liam
ent
(see
, e.
g.,
Dec
isio
n N
o. 7
4-5
4,
Jan.
15,
197
5, "
Abo
rtio
n C
ase,
" C
C R
ep.
19;
see
com
men
ts b
y G
. D
rues
ne,
R,M
. C.
1975
.285
; L
. F
avor
eu a
nd L
. P
hili
p, R
.D,P
. 19
75.1
87;
C.
Fra
nck,
R.G
.D.I
.P.
1975
,107
0; H
amon
, D
. 19
75,5
29;
A.
Pel
let,
G.P
. Ja
n. 1
4-1
5,
1976
, at
9;
J. R
ivér
o, A
.J.D
.A.
1975
.134
an
d D
. R
uzié
, JO
.!.
1975
.249
), i
t do
es c
hec
k t
hat
Act
s in
Par
liam
ent
are
not
inco
nsis
tent
wit
h g
ener
al p
rin
cip
les
of
inte
rnat
ion
al l
aw (
see,
e.g
., D
ecis
ion
s N
o. 7
5-5
9,
Dec
. 30
, 19
75,
Cas
e co
nce
rnin
g
May
otte
, C
C R
ep.
26;
see
also
com
men
ts b
y L
. F
avor
eu,
R.D
.P.
1976
.537
; H
amon
, D
. 19
76.5
38;
G,P
. 1 9
76.I
I.48
0; J
.C.
Mae
stre
, R
.D,P
. 43
1; L
. P
hili
p, R
.D.P
. 19
76.9
95;
F. S
udre
, R
. G.D
.I.P
. 19
76.1
63;
D.
Ruz
ié,
JD.!
. 19
76.4
05 a
nd D
ecis
ion
No.
82
-13
9,
Feb
. II
, 19
82,
Cas
e co
nce
rn
ing
Exp
ropr
iati
ons,
CC
Rep
. 31
; se
e al
so c
omm
ents
by
L.
Fav
oreu
, R
.D.P
. 19
82.3
77;
B.
Gol
dman
, JD
f.
19
82
.27
5;
Ham
on
, D
.S.
1983
, ch
ron
.79
; N
gu
yen
Qu
oc
Vin
h, a
nd F
ran
ck,
R.G
.D.I
.P.
1982
.349
; R
ivér
o, A
.J.D
,A.
1982
.202
). O
n th
e co
ntra
ry,
the
Con
seil
d'É
tat
has
rece
ntly
dec
ided
th
at i
nte
rnat
ion
al c
ust
om
ary
rul
es d
o no
t pr
evai
l ov
er a
cts
in P
arli
amen
t (s
ee e
.g.,
CE
, A
ss.,
A
quar
one,
R, G
,O.I
.P.
1997
.596
; se
e al
so c
oncl
usio
ns o
f G
. B
ache
lier
, id
. an
d R
.FD
.A.
1997
.585
an
d co
mm
ents
by
D.
All
and,
R,G
.D.I
.P.
1998
.207
and
D.
Cha
uvau
x an
d T
.X,
Gir
ardo
t, A
.J.D
.A.
1997
.482
).
5 A
cco
rdin
g t
o th
e F
renc
h C
onst
itut
ion,
tre
atie
s ar
e su
bjec
t to
rat
ific
atio
n pr
oper
ly s
aid;
in
tern
atio
nal
agre
emen
ts a
re "
appr
oved
" by
the
Gov
ernm
ent.
1 w
ill
focu
s he
re o
n "t
reat
ies.
" 6
Art
. 53
enu
mer
ates
the
kin
ds o
f tr
eati
es (
or i
nter
nati
onal
agr
eem
ents
) w
hich
mus
t be
fir
st
refe
rred
to
the
Par
liam
ent;
the
y ar
e: "
Pea
ce t
reat
ies,
tra
de a
gree
men
ts,
trea
ties
or
agre
emen
ts
con
cern
ing
in
tern
atio
nal
org
aniz
atio
ns [
in t
he F
renc
h te
xt,
"org
anis
atio
n" i
s in
the
sin
gula
r],
thos
e im
plyi
ng a
com
mit
men
t o
f na
tion
al r
esou
rces
, th
ose
amen
din
g ru
les
of
a le
gisl
ativ
e na
ture
, th
ose
con
cern
ing
per
sona
l st
atus
, an
d th
ose
call
ing
for
the
tran
sfer
, ex
chan
ge o
r an
nexa
tion
of
terr
itor
y";
see
my
com
men
t in
F. L
UC
HA
IRE
AN
D G
. C
ON
AC
, LA
CO
NST
ITU
TIO
N D
E LA
RÉP
UB
LIQ
UE
FRA
NÇ
AIS
E, 1
00
5-1
05
8 (
1987
).
7 A
fter
a l
ong
peri
od o
f he
sita
tion
, th
e C
our
de C
assa
tion
(C
ass.
Civ
l, C
h. m
ixte
, So
ciét
é "C
afé
Jacq
ues
Fab
re,"
Bul
l. 6
; se
e al
so c
oncl
usio
ns b
y J.
Tou
ffai
t, D
.197
5.J.
497
and
com
men
ts
by 1
. B
oulo
uis,
A.J
.D.A
. 19
75.5
67;
G.
Dru
esne
, R
.M.C
. 19
75.1
; Je
ante
t, J
c.P
. 19
75.1
1.18
180;
N
guye
n Q
uoc
Din
h, A
.FD
.!.
1975
.859
; J.
Pir
otte
-Ger
ouvi
lle,
R.T
.O.E
. 19
76.2
15;
R.C
., G
.P.,
2,
p. 4
70;
Ch.
Rou
ssea
u, R
. G.D
.I.P
. 19
76.9
60 B
nd D
. R
uzié
, J.D
,I,
1975
.801
) th
en t
he
Con
seil
d'É
ta
t (C
.E.,
Ass
., 2
0 O
ct.
1989
, N
icol
o, L
lth.
748;
see
afsQ
co
ncl
usi
on
s by
Fri
edm
an,
id.;
J c
.P.
1989
.11.
2137
1; R
.FD
.A.
1989
.813
an
d R
.C.D
./,P
. 1<
)89.
1043
an
d c
om
mcn
ts b
y J.
Bo
ulo
uis
, R
.G O
.l.P
. 19
90.9
1,;
Cla
vet,
JC
P.
1990
.1.3
429;
Ch
aban
ol,
G.P
. N
ov.
12,
1989
; J.
Deh
auss
y,
.J.D
.I.
1990
.5;
Gen
evoi
s, F
avor
eu a
nd
Dub
ouis
, R
.FD
.A.
19
89
.82
4,9
93
an
d 1
000;
Ho
no
rat
et
Bap
tist
e, A
.JO
.A.
1989
.576
; G
. Is
aac,
R.T
D.E
. 19
89.7
71;
Kov
ar,
D.
1990
.57;
Lac
haum
e, A
.FD
.I.
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
28
1
ln th
e m
eant
ime,
it m
ay h
appe
n th
at th
e C
onse
il c
onst
itut
ionn
el b
e co
nsul
ted
on t
he g
roun
d o
f Art
icle
54
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion:
If,
upon
the
req
uest
of
the
Pre
side
nt o
f th
e R
epub
lic,
the
Pri
me
Min
iste
r or
the
Pre
side
nt o
f on
e or
oth
er H
ouse
or
sixt
y de
puti
es o
r si
xt Y
sen
ator
s, t
he C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il h
as r
uled
tha
t an
int
erna
ti
onal
agr
eem
ent
cont
ains
a c
laus
e co
ntra
ry to
the
con
stit
utio
n, t
he r
at
ific
atio
n or
app
rova
l o
f th
is i
nter
nati
onal
agr
eem
ent
shaH
not
be
auth
oriz
ed u
ntil
the
Con
stit
utio
n ha
s be
en r
evis
ed.
Thi
s is
an
inte
rest
ing
atte
mpt
to a
void
a c
ontr
adic
tion
bet
wee
n in
tern
atio
nal
com
mit
men
ts e
nter
ed i
nto
by F
ranc
e an
d th
e co
nsti
tuti
onal
req
uire
men
ts:8
Art
icle
54
doe
s no
t im
pede
Fra
nce
to c
oncl
ude
trea
ties
whi
ch a
re a
t va
rian
ce w
ith
the
Con
stit
utio
n at
the
tim
e o
f the
ir s
igna
ture
; bu
t if
this
hap
pens
, th
e tr
eaty
in
ques
ti
on m
ay b
e ra
tifi
ed o
nly
afte
r an
am
endm
ent
of
the
Con
stit
utio
n, w
hich
mus
t be
pass
ed b
y bo
th H
ouse
s o
f Par
liam
ent
and
beco
mes
eff
ecti
ve a
fter
app
rova
l by
ref
er
endu
m o
r by
the
"C
ongr
ess"
(th
at i
s th
e tw
o H
ouse
s o
f P
arli
amen
t m
eeti
ng
toge
ther
) by
a t
hree
-fif
ths
maj
orit
y o
f th
e vo
tes
cast
.9
The
abo
ve-m
enti
oned
dec
isio
n in
the
case
con
cern
ing
the
Rom
e St
atut
elO
is
base
d on
Art
icle
54
of t
he F
renc
h C
onst
itut
ion
and
is m
otiv
ated
by
inco
mpa
tibi
lit
ies
foun
d by
the
Cou
ncil
bet
wee
n so
rne
Art
icle
s in
the
Sta
tute
of t
he I
nter
nati
onal
C
rim
inal
Cou
rt (
here
afte
r "I
.C.C
.")
on t
he o
ne h
and
and
seve
ral
Art
icle
s in
the
C
onst
itut
ion
on t
he o
ther
han
d. A
rtic
le 6
8 o
f th
e C
onst
itut
ion
prov
ides
for
the
im
mun
ity
of t
he P
resi
dent
of t
he R
epub
lic
exce
pt i
n ca
se o
f hig
h tr
easo
n, i
n w
hich
in
stan
ce h
e ca
n on
ly b
e tr
ied
by t
he H
igh
Cou
rt o
f Ju
stic
e af
ter
an i
ndic
tmen
t by
the
two
Hou
ses
of t
he P
arli
amen
t; A
rtic
le 6
8-1
give
s ex
clus
ive
juri
sdic
tion
to t
he
Cou
rt o
f Ju
stic
e o
f th
e R
epub
lic
in o
rder
to t
ry M
embe
rs o
f the
Gov
ernm
ent
for
cert
ain
crim
inal
act
s pe
rfor
med
in t
he e
xerc
ise
of t
heir
dut
ies;
whi
le,
by v
irtu
e o
f A
rtic
le 2
6, M
embe
rs o
f th
e P
arli
amen
t en
joy
a sp
ecia
l re
gim
e o
f pe
nall
iabi
lity
an
d ju
dgm
ent.
AH
the
se p
rovi
sion
s w
ere
decl
ared
inco
mpa
tibl
e w
ith
Art
icle
27
of
the
Sta
tute
of
the
1. C
. C.
whi
ch r
ecog
nize
s no
im
mun
ity
befo
re t
he I
nter
nati
onal
C
rim
inal
Cou
rt f
or H
eads
of
Sta
tes
or o
f G
over
nmen
ts o
r M
embe
rs o
f G
over
nm
ent
or P
arli
amen
t by
virt
ue o
f the
ir o
ffic
ial
posi
tion
. S
imil
arly
, w
hile
the
Cou
ncil
did
not
see
any
con
stit
utio
nal
prob
lem
reg
ard
ing
thos
e pr
ovis
ions
of t
he S
tatu
te o
f the
Cou
rt t
hat
rela
te t
o th
e "c
ompl
emen
tar
ity"
bet
wee
n it
s ow
n ju
risd
icti
on a
nd t
hat
of
the
nati
onal
Cou
rts,
it
sees
con
flic
t
1990
.945
an
d R
.M. C
. 19
90.3
84;
Lag
arde
, R
.C.D
.I.P
. 19
90.1
25;
Nég
rier
an
d T
ouch
ard,
R.D
.P.
1990
.767
; P.
Ram
baud
, A
FD
.l.
1989
.91;
Sab
ouri
n, D
. 19
90.1
35;
D.
Sim
on,
A.J
.D,A
. 19
89.7
88;
Tou
char
d, R
,D,P
. 19
90.8
01)
have
mad
e tr
eati
es p
reva
il o
ver
acts
in
Par
liam
ent,
eve
n if
the
latt
er
wer
e su
bseq
uent
in
tim
e.
S H
owev
er,
ther
e is
no
auto
mat
icit
y: i
t co
uld
happ
en t
hat
none
of t
he a
utho
riti
es e
ntit
led
to
refe
r a
trea
ty c
on
trar
y t
o t
he
Co
nst
itu
tio
n t
o th
e C
on
stit
uti
on
al C
ou
nci
l. I
n s
uch
a c
ase,
th
e C
onst
itut
ion
wil
l pr
evai
l be
fore
Fre
nch
Cou
rts
(see
inf
ra n
ote
55) .
9
Art
. 89
of
the
Con
stit
utio
n.
10
See
supr
a no
te 1
.
282
Del
egat
ing
Stat
e P
ower
s
betw
een
the
Con
stit
utio
n an
d ot
her
prov
isio
ns o
f the
Sta
tute
whi
ch m
ake
subj
ect
to t
he C
ourt
's ju
risd
icti
on p
ers o
ns w
ho c
omm
itte
d ac
ts c
over
ed b
y am
nest
y or
pre
sc
ript
ion
acco
rdin
g to
Fre
nch
law
. The
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cou
ncil
als
o sa
w a
pot
enti
al
conf
lict
bet
wee
n F
renc
h co
nsti
tuti
onal
law
and
Art
icle
99,
par
agra
ph 4
, o
f th
e L
e.e.
Sta
tute
, w
hich
all
ows
the
Pro
secu
tor
of
the
Cou
rt to
set
up
inve
stig
atio
ns
on F
renc
h te
rrit
ory
wit
hout
the
par
tici
pati
on o
f the
Fre
nch
judi
cial
aut
hori
ties
. In
bo
th c
ases
, it
dec
lare
s th
at th
ese
prov
isio
ns a
re "
of a
nat
ure
such
as
to j
eopa
rdiz
e th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty.
" 1 1
Thi
s fo
rmul
atio
n o
f th
e C
ounc
il's
obj
ect
ions
is
not
new
. It
ent
ered
int
o th
e F
renc
h co
nsti
tuti
onal
cor
pus
wit
h an
othe
r an
d m
ore
inno
cuou
s de
cisi
on o
f th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il i
n 19
70,
whe
n it
dec
lare
d th
at "
the
Dec
isio
n [o
f th
e C
ounc
il o
f the
EE
C]
of A
pril
21,
197
0, r
elat
ing
to t
he r
epla
cem
ent
of
the
fina
nci
al c
ontr
ibut
ions
of M
embe
r S
tate
s by
the
Com
mun
itie
s' o
wn
reso
urce
s ca
n, n
ei
ther
by
its n
atur
e no
r by
its
impo
rtan
ce, j
eopa
rdiz
e th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he
exer
cise
of
nati
onal
sov
erei
gnty
.":2
The
sam
e fo
rmul
a ha
s su
bseq
uent
ly b
een
inse
rted
in s
ever
al (
but n
ot a
Il) d
ecis
ions
mad
e by
the
Cou
ncil
rel
atin
g to
the
con
st
itut
iona
lity
of
trea
ties
. It
fea
ture
s in
the
onl
y tw
o ot
her
deci
sion
s by
whi
ch i
t de
clar
ed
that
tr
eati
es
sign
ed
by
Fra
nce
wer
e no
t in
co
nfor
mit
y w
ith
the
Con
stit
utio
n. I
n ea
ch in
stan
ce,
the
Fre
nch
Con
stit
utio
n ha
d to
be
amen
ded
befo
re
the
trea
ties
(vi
z. t
he T
reat
ies
of M
aast
rich
tl3 a
nd A
mst
erda
ml4
mod
ifyi
ng t
he E
C
Tre
aty)
cou
ld b
e ra
tifi
ed.
Thi
s C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il's
for
mul
atio
n co
nsti
tute
s a
com
men
dabl
e at
tem
pt t
o re
conc
ile
the
Fre
nch
Con
stit
utio
n's
text
wit
h th
e re
quir
emen
ts o
f in
tern
atio
nal
coop
erat
ion
in t
he m
oder
n w
orld
. It
als
o se
eks
to r
econ
cile
the
"d
omes
tic
noti
on"
of
sove
reig
nty
wit
h th
e m
eani
ng o
f th
e sa
me
conc
ept
unde
r in
tern
atio
nal
law
. A
s a
mat
ter
of f
act,
the
wor
d "s
over
eign
ty"
do es
not
hav
e th
e sa
me
mea
ning
in
the
fra
mew
ork
of
inte
rnat
iona
l so
ciet
y as
it
has
wit
hin
the
Stat
e. W
hile
, at
the
na
tion
al l
evel
, th
ere
is o
nly
one
sove
reig
n (w
heth
er t
he p
eopl
e, t
he n
atio
n, t
he
Il
My
tran
slat
ion.
12
D
ecis
ion
No
. 70
-39
, L
uxem
bour
g T
reat
y o
f 22
Apr
il 1
970
mod
ifyi
ng b
udge
tary
pro
visi
ons
il! t
he T
reat
ies
inst
itut
ing
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
ies,
C. C
. R
ep.
15;
see
also
com
men
ts b
y C
h.
Rou
ssea
u, R
. G.D
.I.P
. 19
71.2
41 a
nd D
. R
uzié
, 1.
c.P
. 19
70.1
.235
4; m
y tr
ansl
atio
n.
13
Dec
isio
n 9
2-3
08
, A
pr.
9, 1
992,
C. C
. R
ep.
55;
in E
ngli
sh:
CC
, C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ase
La
w
(fn.
3),
at
47;
see
a/so
co
mm
ents
by
C.
Blu
man
n, R
.M.C
.UE
. 19
94.3
93;
R.
Eti
en,
Rev
. ad
m.
1992
.126
; L
. F
avor
eu,
R.F
D C
. 19
92.3
34 a
nd 3
89 a
nd R
.G.D
.I.P
. 19
93.3
9; P
. G
aia,
R.F
D.C
. 19
92.3
98;
B.
Gen
evoi
s, R
.FD
.A.
1992
.373
; J.P
. Ja
cqué
, R
. T.D
.E.
1992
.251
; F.
Luc
hair
e, R
.D.P
. 19
92.5
89;
B.
Mat
hieu
and
M.
Ver
peau
, L
es P
etit
es A
ffic
hes,
Jun
e 26
,199
2, a
t 6;
E.
Pic
ard,
R.F
D.A
. 1
99
34
7 a
nd A
.JD
.A.
1993
.151
; 1.
Rid
eau,
R.A
.E.
1992
, N
o.3,
at
7; D
. S
imon
, E
urop
e, m
ai 1
992;
an
d N
. V
an T
uong
, 1.c
.P.
1992
.Il.
2185
3.
14
Dec
isio
n N
o. 9
7-3
94
, D
ec.
31,
1997
, C
c.
Rep
.344
; in
Eng
lish
: C
C,
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cas
e L
aw
(fn
. 3)
, at
62;
see
a/s
a co
mm
ents
by
L. B
aghe
stan
i-P
erre
y, P
A.
June
22,
199
8, a
t 15
; P.
Bon
, id
., Ju
ne 1
9, 1
998,
at
17;
F. C
halt
iel,
R.M
.C.U
E.
1998
.73;
P. G
aïa,
R.F
D.C
. 19
98.1
42; T
. L
arzu
l,
DA
. 1
99
8-2
.17;
F.
Luc
hair
e, R
.D.P
. 19
98.3
31;
A.
Pel
let,
Cah
iers
C.C
. 19
98,
No.
4,
at 1
13;
D.
Ric
hard
, G
.P.
Jun
e 1
7-1
8,1
99
8,
at 2
; J.
E.
Sch
oett
l, A
.J.D
.A.
1998
.135
; va
rii,
"L
e T
rait
é d
'Am
ster
dam
fac
e au
x co
nsti
tuti
ons
nati
onal
es,"
Doc
. F
., 19
98.
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
28
3
Kin
g or
the
Sta
te i
tsel
f doe
s no
t m
atte
r he
re:
the
fact
is
that
the
sov
erei
gn is
one
an
d on
ly o
ne),
on
the
othe
r han
cl,
the
inte
rnat
iona
l so
ciet
y is
mad
e up
of s
orne
two
hund
red
"sov
erei
gns.
" A
s th
e A
rbit
rati
on C
omm
issi
on f
or F
orm
er Y
ugos
lavi
a no
ted:
"th
e S
tate
is
com
mon
ly d
efin
ed a
s a
com
mun
ity
whi
ch c
onsi
sts
of a
ter
ri
tory
and
a p
opul
atio
n su
bjec
t to
an o
rgan
ized
pol
itic
al a
utho
rity
, ..
. su
ch a
Sta
te
is c
hara
cter
ized
by
sove
reig
nty.
"15
ln o
ther
wor
ds,
in t
he s
pher
e o
f in
tern
atio
nal
law
, so
vere
ignt
y is
the
ver
y cr
iter
ion
of s
tate
hood
; a
sove
reig
n en
tity
is a
Sta
te a
nd,
as a
mat
ter
of d
efin
itio
n, a
Sta
te is
a s
over
eign
ent
ity.
Thi
s m
akes
a p
heno
men
al d
iffe
renc
e. I
nsid
e th
e S
tate
, so
vere
ignt
y m
eans
a
supr
eme
and
(leg
ally
) un
chal
leng
ed p
ower
and
, as
Pro
fess
or P
rosp
er W
eil
put
it in
hi
s ou
tsta
ndin
g in
trod
ucti
on to
Fre
nch
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
, "t
he v
ery
exis
tenc
e o
f ao
adm
inis
trat
ive
law
is a
kin
d o
f mira
cle.
"16
By
cont
rast
, at
the
int
erna
tion
alle
vel,
so
vere
ignt
ies
are
equa
l w
hich
nec
essa
rily
im
plie
s th
at e
ach
Sta
te's
juri
sdic
tion
is
lim
ited
by
the
equa
l ri
ghts
bel
ongi
ng t
o aI
l ot
her
Stat
es.
Thi
s co
ntra
st is
ref
lect
ed i
n th
e F
renc
h C
onst
itut
ion.
W
hile
Art
icle
3 d
ecla
res:
"N
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty
resi
des
in t
he p
eopl
e w
ho
exer
cise
it t
hrou
gh t
heir
rep
rese
ntat
ives
and
by
the
way
of r
efer
endu
m,"
par
agra
ph
15 o
f the
Pre
ambl
e to
the
194
6 C
onst
itut
ion
cont
empl
ates
tha
t F
ranc
e m
ay "
con
sent
to
such
lim
itat
ions
of
sove
reig
nty
as a
re n
eces
sary
to
the
real
izat
ion
of
the
defe
nse
of p
eace
." 17
T
he f
irst
quo
ted
prov
isio
n co
nfir
ms
that
ins
ide
the
Sta
te t
here
is
only
one
so
vere
ign:
"th
e pe
ople
." O
n th
e ot
her
hand
, at
the
int
erna
tion
alle
vel,
Fra
nce
rec
ogni
zes
poss
ible
"li
mit
s" to
its
sov
erei
gnty
. In
deed
thi
s is
not
a v
ery
conv
inci
ng w
ordi
ng:
as e
xpla
ined
abo
ve,
sove
rei
gnty
is t
he v
ery
crit
erio
n o
f sta
teho
od;
it c
ao b
e ne
ithe
r "t
rans
ferr
ed"
nor
"lim
it
ed."
AS
tate
can
not
be "
half
-sov
erei
gn";
if
it is
aS
tate
, it
enjo
ys s
over
eign
ty;
if
it tr
ansf
ers
its s
over
eign
ty,
it is
no
mor
e a
Stat
e. A
s th
e P
erm
anen
t C
ourt
exp
lain
ed
in i
ts f
irst
Jud
gmen
t, "
the
righ
t o
f en
teri
ng i
nto
inte
rnat
iona
l en
gage
men
ts i
s an
at
trib
ute
of S
tate
sov
erei
gnty
" an
d "t
he c
oncl
usio
n o
f an
y tr
eaty
by
whi
ch a
Sta
te
unde
rtak
es to
per
form
or
refr
ain
from
per
form
ing
a pa
rtic
ular
act
[ca
nnot
be
seen
as
] an
aba
ndon
men
t o
f so
vere
ignt
y."1
8 ln
oth
er w
ord,
sov
erei
gnty
is
the
basi
s o
f st
ate
com
pete
ncie
s an
d, b
y co
nclu
ding
a tr
eaty
, aS
tate
doe
s no
t lim
it, o
r ab
ando
n,
or t
rans
fer
its s
over
eign
ty;
it ex
erci
ses
the
righ
ts d
eriv
ing
from
its
sov
erei
gnty
. F
or t
his
sam
e re
ason
, 1
have
sor
ne r
eser
vati
ons
rega
rdin
g th
e ti
tle
of
this
st
udy.
Sta
tes
may
del
egat
e po
wer
s, o
r, ra
ther
, th
e ex
erci
se o
f so
rne
of
thei
r po
w
ers,
but
they
can
not
"del
egat
e" t
heir
sov
erei
gnty
.19
15
Adv
isor
y O
pini
on N
o. 1
, N
ov.
29,
1991
, I.
L.M
. 19
92.1
494
[em
phas
is a
dded
].
16
Le
droi
t a
dm
inis
tra
tif3
(l6
th.
ed.
1994
, w
ith
D.
Pou
yaud
); m
y tr
ansl
atio
n.
17
See
full
tex
t, s
upra
not
e 3.
18
S
.S.
Wim
bled
on C
ase,
P.C
.U.,
(se
r. A
) N
o. 1
, at
25
[em
phas
is a
dded
].
19
ln t
his
resp
ect,
the
LC
.J.
decl
ared
tha
t M
oroc
co,
whi
le u
nder
the
Fre
nch
prot
ecto
rate
, ha
d "r
etai
ned
its p
erso
nali
ty a
s a
Stat
e in
int
erna
tion
al l
aw"
(Jud
gmen
t o
f Aug
. 27
, 19
52, U
.S.
Nat
iona
ls
in M
oroc
co,
I.C
.J.
Rep
. 19
52,
at 1
85 [
emph
asis
add
ed].
1 h
ave
doub
t th
at t
his
is i
n ke
epin
g w
ith
the
mod
ern
defi
niti
on o
f st
ateh
ood.
284
Del
egat
ing
Stat
e P
ower
s
In t
his
resp
ect-
tho
ug
h,
in F
ran
ce a
s in
oth
er S
tate
s, t
he d
ebat
e is
oft
en
Jhra
sed
in t
erm
s o
f lo
ss o
f so
vere
ign
ty b
y th
e ex
trem
e ri
ght
poli
tica
l p
art
ies
he q
uest
ion
is r
elev
ant
to F
ranc
e's
Mem
ber
ship
of
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
. B
y d
el
!gat
ing
prog
ress
ivel
y m
ore
an
d m
ore
pow
ers
to t
he C
om
mu
nit
ies
and
/or
the
~.u.,
in i
mp
ort
ant
and
mo
re a
nd
mor
e di
vers
ifie
d fi
elds
, w
ill
ther
e n
ot
be
a )O
int
whe
n th
e "s
over
eign
ty"
of
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
wil
l be
com
e an
em
pty
she
ll f
or
vant
of
"att
ribu
tes"
?20
Thi
s so
rt o
f ar
gum
ent
was
mad
e by
the
Sen
ator
s w
ho i
niti
ated
the
sec
ond
'efe
rral
con
cern
ing
the
Tre
aty
on t
he E
urop
ean
Uni
on (
Maa
stri
cht
II),
aft
er t
he
evis
ion
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion
enac
ted
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
the
deci
sion
in M
aast
rich
t ',2
1 T
hey
proc
eede
d "f
rom
the
conc
ept t
hat
the
Fre
nch
cons
titu
tion
al o
rder
is c
on
.truc
ted
arou
nd th
e ce
ntra
l no
tion
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty
to a
sk th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l :::
ounc
il ho
w f
ar i
t is
pos
sibl
e to
go
wit
h re
visi
ons
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion
to e
ffec
t suc
:e
ssÎv
e in
road
s in
to 'th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of s
over
eign
ty.
"22
In
his
cas
e th
e C
ounc
il w
as a
ble
to
avoi
d co
nfro
ntin
g th
eir
impl
ied
argu
men
t aga
inst
lr
oad
gran
ts o
fpo
wer
s to
the
sup
rana
tion
al s
yste
m o
n th
e gT
ound
tha
l 'A
rtic
le 5
4 ,f
the
Con
stit
utio
n ..
. co
nfer
s ju
risd
icti
oD o
n d
le C
onsh
tuti
onal
Cou
nci
] sol
ely
to
scer
lain
whe
ther
a g
iven
int
erna
tion
al a
gree
men
t re
ferr
ed t
o do
es o
r do
es n
ot
onta
in c
laus
es c
ontr
ary
to t
he C
onst
itut
ion.
" It
is,
how
ever
, th
e vi
ew o
f th
e pr
esen
t w
cite
r: f
irst
th
at t
be
ques
tion
can
not
'c d
isre
gard
ed f
orev
er a
nd a
n an
swer
eve
ntua
Uy
wil
l ha
ve t
o be
gÏv
en;
ane!
, se
con
d tb
at,
tor
the
mom
ent
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
of t
he E
uro
pea
n U
nion
are
sti
ll SO
ver
ign,
if
only
bec
ause
tbey
ret
ajn
tbei
r m
onop
oly
in t
Jle
use
of f
orce
d co
erci
on;
bu
t la
t, i
n th
e lo
ng r
un,
lhe
Com
mun
itie
s st
ruct
ure
will
mov
e to
war
ds f
eder
alis
m.
At
lis
stag
e, w
hich
has
not
yet
bee
n re
ache
e!,
Mem
bers
of t
he C
omm
unit
ies
wil
l ha
ve
ease
d to
be
Sta
tes
in t
he w
ord'
s in
tern
atio
nal
leg
al m
eani
ng.
Mem
bers
Sta
tes,
le
n, w
ill
not
have
"de
lega
ted"
the
ir s
over
eign
ty;
they
wil
l si
mpl
y an
d pu
rely
hav
e ~a
nsferr
ed i
t to
a n
ew s
tate
ent
ity.2
3
Aft
er y
ears
of
appr
oxim
ate
and
ques
tion
able
for
mul
atio
ns,
this
ana
lysi
s is
ha
red
by t
he C
onse
il c
onst
itut
ionn
el s
ince
Maa
stri
cht
1. In
thi
s de
cisi
on,
the
:oun
cil
said
:
It f
ollo
ws
from
the
se v
ario
us i
nsti
tuti
onal
[si
c-co
nsti
tuti
onal
?] p
rovi
si
ons
[24]
that
res
pect
for
nat
iona
l so
vere
ignt
y do
es n
ot p
recl
ude
Fra
nce,
20
See
supr
a no
te 1
8.
21
See
sup
ra n
ote
13.
22
Dec
isio
n N
o. 9
2-3
12, S
ep\.
2,
J 992
, C
C R
ep.
76;
in E
ngli
sh:
CC
, C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ase
La
w
il.
3),
at 5
5; s
ee a
l.w
CO
IOm
cnts
by
L. F
:lvo
reu,
R.f
W.C
. 1
99
2.4
08
and
R.G
.D.l
.P.
1993
.39;
B.
enev
ois,
R.F
D.A
. J 9
92.9
37;
F. L
uth
aire
, R.
D.P
. J 9
92.1
587
; B
. M
athi
eu a
nd
M.
Ver
peau
x, P
A.
ee.
9,
J 993
, at
J3
Hnd
N.
Van
Tuo
ng,
J.C
P.
1992
.1J.
J 94
3.
23
See
Ala
in P
elle
t, L
es fo
ndem
ents
juri
diqu
es i
nter
nati
onau
x du
dro
it c
omm
unau
tair
e, i
n V
EU
RO
PEA
N L
AW
AC
AD
EM
Y,
FLO
RE
NC
E,
RE
CU
EIL
DE
S C
OU
RS
19
3-2
71
, es
peci
ally
at
22
5-2
31
99
7).
24
Sai
d pr
ovis
ions
are
: 1.
Pre
amhl
e to
the
195
8 C
on
stit
uti
on
ref
erri
ng
to
the
Dec
lara
tio
n o
f u
man
and
Civ
ic R
ight
s o
f 17
89 a
nd t
he P
ream
ble
to t
he C
onst
itut
ion
of
1946
(se
e su
pra,
par
a.
1; 2.
par
a. 3
of
the
J 78
9 D
ecla
rati
on
: "A
lI [
?] s
ov
erei
gn
ty i
nh
eres
in
the
Nat
ion
"; 3
. ar
t. 3
of
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
acti
ng i
n ac
cord
ance
wit
h t
he P
ream
ble
to t
he C
onst
itut
ion
of
1946
, fr
om c
oncl
udin
g in
tern
atio
nal
agre
emen
ts i
n vi
ew o
f it
s pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in t
he e
stab
lish
men
t or
deve
lopm
ent
of a
per
man
ent
inte
rnat
iona
l or
ga
niza
tion
enj
oyin
g le
gal p
erso
nali
ty a
nd d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
pow
ers
on t
he
basi
s o
f tra
nsfe
rs o
fpow
ers
deci
ded
on b
y th
e M
embe
r S
tate
s, s
ubje
ct
to r
ecip
roci
ty.2
5
285
Suc
b a
form
ula
("tr
ansf
ers
of p
ower
s")
is,
inde
ed m
ore
conv
inci
ng t
han
the
text
of t
he P
ream
ble
to t
he 1
946
Con
stit
utio
n it
self
("li
mit
atio
ns o
f sov
erei
gnty
"26)
ev
en t
houg
h it
mig
ht s
eem
rat
her
para
doxi
cal
that
the
Con
seil
con
stit
utio
nnel
re
wri
tes
the
wor
ding
of
the
Con
stit
utio
n it
is
supp
osed
to a
pply
. T
his
new
for
mul
ati
on w
as,
how
ever
, in
trod
uced
int
o th
e C
onst
itut
ion
by a
n am
endm
ent
adop
ted
foll
owin
g th
is d
ecis
ion.
The
new
Art
icle
88-
2 st
ates
:
Sub
ject
to
reci
proc
ity[
27]
and
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
the
term
s o
f th
e T
reat
y o
n E
urop
ean
Uni
on s
igne
d on
Feb
ruar
y 19
92, F
ranc
e ag
rees
to
the
tran
sfer
of p
ower
s ne
cess
ary
to t
he e
stab
lish
men
t o
f Eur
opea
n ec
ono
mic
and
mon
etar
y un
ion
and
for
the
dete
rmin
atio
n o
f rul
es r
elat
ing
to t
he c
ross
ing
of
the
exte
rnal
bor
ders
of
the
mem
bers
Sta
tes
of
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
y."2
8
Art
icle
88
-1,
also
ad
ded
to
the
Con
stit
utio
n af
ter
Maa
stri
cht
l by
C
onst
itut
iona
l L
aw o
f Jun
e 25
, 19
92, i
s dr
afte
d al
ong
the
sam
e li
nes.
It
defi
nes
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
ies
and
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
as
"con
sist
ing
of
Sta
tes,
whi
ch,
the
Co
nst
itu
tio
n o
f 19
58 (
see
supr
a n
ote
17)
; 4.
par
a. 1
4 o
f th
e P
ream
hle
to
the
Co
nst
itu
tio
n
of
1958
(se
e su
pra
no
te 3
); 5
. pa
ra.
15 o
f th
is s
ame
Pre
amh
le (
see
id.)
an
d 6
. A
rt.
53 o
f th
e 19
58 C
on
stit
uti
on
: ac
cord
ing
to
whi
ch "
trea
ties
an
d a
gre
emen
ts r
elat
ing
to
inte
rnat
ion
al o
rga
niz
atio
n .
' .
may
on
ly h
e ra
tifi
ed o
r ap
prov
ed i
n p
urs
uan
ce o
f an
aet
of
Par
liam
ent"
(se
e al
so
supr
a n
ote
6).
25
D
ecis
ion
of A
pr.
9, 1
992,
sup
ra n
ote
13 [
emph
asis
add
ed].
In
its
Dec
isio
n o
f Ja
n. 2
2, 1
999,
re
gard
ing
the
Sta
tute
of
the
I.C
.C.
(sup
ra n
ote
1),
the
Con
seil
con
stit
utio
nnel
set
as i
de t
his
con
dit
ion
of
reci
proc
ity.
It
righ
tly
note
s th
at,
in c
on
sid
erat
ion
of
its
pu
rpo
se,
that
is,
"to
pro
mo
te
wor
ld p
eace
and
sec
urit
y an
d to
sec
ure
resp
ect
for
gene
ral
prin
cipl
es o
f int
erna
tion
al p
ubli
c la
w,"
"o
bli
gat
ion
s p
roce
edin
g f
rom
suc
h co
mm
itm
ents
are
im
pose
d on
eac
h S
tate
Par
ty i
ndep
ende
ntly
o
f th
e w
ay t
hey
are
imp
lem
ente
d b
y o
ther
Sta
tes
Par
ties
; th
eref
ore,
the
res
erva
tion
co
nce
rnin
g
reci
proc
ity
men
tio
ned
in
art.
55
of
the
Con
stit
utio
n is
no
t to
he
app
lied
" (m
y tr
ansl
atio
n).
See
text
of
art.
55,
sup
ra.
26
See
supr
a no
te 3
. 27
O
n th
is u
nn
eces
sary
men
tion
, se
e su
pra
note
25.
28
E
mph
asis
ad
ded
. On
Jan
. 18
, 19
99,
the
Con
gres
s (m
ade
of
the
two
Hou
ses
ofP
arli
amen
t m
eeti
ng
to
geth
er-
see s
upra
) ad
op
ted
a n
ew c
onst
itut
iona
l am
endm
ent,
ad
din
g a
sec
ond
para
gr
aph
to a
rt.
88
-2 a
ccor
ding
to w
hich
, "U
nd
er th
e se
sam
e re
serv
atio
n an
d ac
cord
ing
to t
he m
odal
il
ies
prov
ided
for
in
the
Tre
aty
inst
itut
ing
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
y, i
n it
s dr
afti
ng r
esul
ting
fro
m
the
Tre
aty
sig
ned
on
Oct
. 2,
199
7, t
rans
fers
of p
ow
ers
nec
essa
ry t
o th
e d
eter
min
atio
n o
f ru
les
rela
ting
to
the
free
mov
emen
t o
f pe
rson
s an
d re
late
d m
atte
rs m
ay b
e ag
reed
up
on
"; m
y tr
ansl
ati
on
, em
ph
asis
ad
ded
. T
his
am
end
men
t w
as a
do
pte
d i
n co
mp
lian
ce w
ith
the
Dec
isio
n o
f th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il o
n th
e T
reat
y o
f Am
ster
dam
, su
pra
note
14.
,""o
u
uel
ega
cmg
:ic
ate
l'ow
ers
by m
eans
of t
he c
onst
itut
ive
trea
ties
, ha
ve v
olun
tari
ly r
esol
ved
to e
xerc
ise
som
e o
f th
eir
pow
ers
in c
omm
on."
29
Thi
s ne
w f
orm
ulat
ion,
rei
tera
ted
in t
he C
ounc
il's
dec
isio
ns c
once
rnin
g A
mst
erda
m30
and
the
Sta
tute
of t
he 1
.C.C
.,31
is f
ar m
ore
sati
sfac
tory
tha
n fo
rmu
las
used
in
prev
ious
dec
isio
ns.
In i
ts D
ecis
ion
of D
ecem
ber
30,
1976
, on
the
Ele
ctio
n o
f the
Ass
embl
y o
f the
C
omm
unit
ies
by u
nive
rsal
dir
ect s
uffr
age,
the
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cou
ncil
had
ass
erte
d th
at
notw
iths
tand
ing
the
wor
ding
of
the
1946
Pre
ambl
e,32
whi
ch i
t qu
oted
, , n
pr
ovis
ion
of a
con
stit
utio
nal n
atur
e au
thor
izes
tra
n~fe
rs o
f sov
erei
gnty
as
a w
hole
or
in
part
to
any
int
erna
tion
al o
rgan
izat
ion
wha
tsoe
ver."
33 f
t ag
ain
llsed
the
ex
pres
sion
"tr
ansf
er o
f so
vere
ignt
y" i
n its
Dec
isio
n o
f Ju
ly 2
5, 1
991,
rel
atin
g to
th
e A
gree
men
t fo
r th
e E
nfor
cem
ent
of
the
chen
gen
Con
vent
ion
of
1985
. B
ut,
show
ing
ambi
vale
nce
it pu
t th
ese
wor
ds i
n qu
otat
ion
mar
ks a
ltbo
ugh,
in th
e sa
me
deci
sion
, it
nlso
ref
erre
d to
all
eged
' ab
ando
rune
nt o
f s v
erei
gnty
," e
ven
lhou
gh
deny
i.ng
rbat
suc
h an
aba
ndor
unen
t was
im
plie
d by
the
Con
vent
ion.
34
By
mov
ing
from
the
con
cept
of "
lim
itat
ion,
" "t
rans
fer"
or
"aba
ndon
men
t of
sove
reig
nty"
to
fuat
of "
tran
sfer
s o
f pow
ers,
" th
e C
ounc
i.l h
as n
uanc
ed it
s ju
risp
m
denc
e in
a m
Osl
sen
sib
l.e d
iTec
tion.
It D
OW
tak
es i
nto
acco
unt t
he r
eal
mea
ning
of
sove
reig
nty
in m
odem
int
erna
tion
al l
aw w
hile
avo
idin
g th
e im
pres
sion
tha
t so
ver
eign
ty c
an b
e tr
ansf
erre
d (o
r Ii
nlite
d, o
r "d
eleg
ated
") in
par
t or
in w
hole
by
...
a so
vere
ign
Sta
te,
whi
ch,
to r
eite
rate
my
view
wou
ld m
ean
Ihai
the
tra
nsfe
rrin
g po
wel
· ha
s ce
ased
to
be a
Sta
te.
Thi
s ap
proa
ch,
whi
ch f
its w
ith
sove
reig
nty
in i
ts i
nter
nati
onal
def
initi
on,
has
to b
e re
conc
iled
wit
h th
e m
eani
ng o
f the
wor
d in
Fre
nch
dom
esti
c la
w a
s em
bod
ied
in A
rtic
le 3
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion.
35 H
ere
the
noti
on o
f "es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or
the
exer
cise
of
nati
onal
sov
erei
gnty
" pr
oves
hel
pful
. A
s no
ted
abov
e,36
the
on
stit
utio
nal C
OU1~
cil
coin
ed t
his
expr
essi
on a
s ea
rly
as 1
970
, an
d re
fers
ta
it in
ord
er t
o ap
prai
se w
heth
er a
tre
aty
"jeo
pard
izes
th
e so
vere
ignt
y o
f the
peo
ple
wbi
ch,
cons
titut
iona
lly,
has
to b
ex
erci
sed
"by
tbei
!" r
ep
rese
ntat
ives
[th
at is
the
Mem
bers
ofP
arli
amen
t and
, pr
obab
ly,
the
Pre
side
nt o
f the
R
epub
lic]
and
by
the
way
of r
efer
endu
m."
T
he p
robl
em r
aise
d by
thi
s co
ncep
t (a
nd p
roba
bly
its
valu
e) l
ies
in i
ts
hazi
ness
and
sub
ject
ivit
y, a
Il th
e m
ore
beca
use
now
here
doe
s th
e C
onst
itut
ion
29
Em
phas
is a
dded
. JO
D
ecis
ion
ofD
ec.
31
,199
7, s
upra
not
e 14
. JI
D
ecis
ion
of
Jan
. 22,
199
9, s
upra
not
e 1.
J2
S
ee s
upra
p.
279
. JJ
D
ecis
ion
No.
76-
71,
my
tran
slat
ion,
em
phas
is a
ddcd
. Se
e a/
so c
omm
ents
by
J. B
oulo
uis,
C
ah.
DI.
eur
o 19
77.4
58;
J. D
arra
s an
d O
. P
irot
ie
R.I
.D.E
. 19
77.6
97;
L.
Fav
oreu
and
L.
Phi
lip,
R
.D.P
. 19
77.1
29;
C.
Fra
nck,
J.C
P.
1977
.11.
1870
4; R
. K
ovar
and
D.
Sim
on,
R.T
.D.E
. 19
77.6
97;
L. H
amon
, D
. 19
77.2
01;
D.
Ruz
ié, J
.O.l
. 1
97
7.6
6 a
nd
M.
de V
illie
rs, JC
P.
1978
.1.2
895
. J4
D
ecis
ion
No
. 91
-29
4, C
C R
ep.9
1. S
ee a
/so
com
men
ts b
y P.
Gai
a, R
.FD
.C.
1991
.703
and
R
.R.J
-Oro
il p
rosp
ecti
f, 1
992,
No
. l,
p.
25;
L. H
amon
, O.
1991
.617
; F.
Luc
hair
e, R
.D.P
. 19
91.1
499;
X
. Pré
tot,
R.T
.D.E
. 19
92.1
87 a
nd G
. Ved
el,
R.F
D.A
. 19
92.1
73.
J5
See
sup
ra n
ote
17.
J6
See
tex
t ac
com
pany
ing
note
12.
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
28
7
mak
e a
dist
inct
ion
betw
een
the
esse
ntia
l an
d th
e no
n-es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns o
f so
vere
ignt
y.37
O
n so
rne
occa
sion
s ho
wev
er,
the
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cou
nci1
has
att
empt
ed t
o cl
arifY
the
cri
teri
ons
for
the
notio
n. T
hus,
in
its D
ecis
ion
of
1970
, it
held
.t~a
t "t
he
repl
acem
ent o
f the
fin
anci
al c
ontr
ibut
ions
of M
embe
r St
ate.
s by
C~rnmumtles o~n
reso
urce
s ca
n, n
eith
er b
y ils
nat
ure
nor
by if
s im
port
ance
, jeO
pard
lze
the
esse
ntla
l co
ndit
ions
for
the
exe
rcis
e o
f nat
iona
l so
vere
ignt
y."3
8 In
198
5, i
t gav
e a
list o
f sor
ne
elem
ents
whi
ch c
ould
be
of s
uch
"nat
ure"
or
"im
port
ance
" bu
t co
nclu
ded
that
:
Add
itio
nal
Pro
toco
l N
o.
6 to
th
e E
urop
ean
Con
vent
ion
for
the
Pro
tect
ion
of H
urna
n R
ight
s an
d F
unda
men
tal F
reed
oms
rela
ting
to t
he
abol
itio
n o
f the
dea
th p
enal
ty, w
hich
is n
ot in
com
pati
ble
wit
h th
e du
ty
incu
mbe
nt o
n th
e S
tate
to
sec u
re r
espe
ct f
or t
he i
nsti
tuti
ons
of
the
Rep
ubli
c, c
onti
nuit
y o
f th
e li
fe o
f th
e N
atio
n an
d pr
otec
tion
of
the
righ
ts a
nd f
reed
oms
of t
he c
itiz
ens,
the
refo
re d
oes
not j
eopa
rdiz
e th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty.
39
The
Cou
ncil
rep
rodu
ced
this
sam
e li
st i
n its
Dec
isio
n o
f Ju
ly 2
5, 1
991,
and
co
nclu
ded,
on
this
bas
is a
nd a
fter
a m
etic
ulou
s an
alys
is,
that
the
Agr
eem
ent
for
the
App
lica
tion
of
the
Sch
enge
n C
onve
ntio
n o
f 19
85 w
as i
n co
nfor
mit
y w
ith
the
Con
stit
utio
n.40
H
owev
er, w
ith
Maa
stri
cht l
, the
Cou
ncil
res
urne
d a
mor
e em
piri
cal
appr
oach
an
d as
sess
ed v
ery
subj
ecti
vely
the
tm
eats
to
the
"ess
enti
al c
ondi
tion
s o
f the
exe
rci
se o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty,"
whi
ch i
t as
sert
s m
ore
than
it
prov
es b
y us
ing
the
"im
port
ance
" an
d "n
atur
e" t
ests
. T
he D
ecis
ions
in
Am
ster
dam
and
the
Sta
tute
of
the
LC
.C. a
re a
long
the
sam
e hn
es b
ut a
new
em
phas
is i
s gi
ven
to t
he "
fiel
d" o
f th
e tr
eaty
or
the
"con
diti
ons"
of i
ts e
nfor
cem
ent.
41
App
lyin
g th
ese
prin
cipl
es,
the
foll
owin
g tr
eati
es h
ave be
~n d~clared
not
to
be c
ontr
ary
to t
he c
once
pt o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty a
s em
bodl
ed 1
0 t
he F
renc
h C
onst
itut
ion:
J7
Thi
s pu
rely
pra
etor
ian
orig
in o
f th
e no
tion
is
mad
e cl
ear
by t
he w
ordi
ng o
f th
e re
leva
nt
deci
sion
s o
f th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il,
whi
ch p
reci
ses
that
the
aut
honz
atlo
n to
rat
lfy
trea
tles
re
quir
es p
rior
am
endm
ent
of
the
Con
stit
utio
n w
here
the
y "c
onta
in a
cla
use
that
is c
ontr
ary
to
the
Con
stit
utio
n,
or
whe
re t
hey
jeop
ardi
ze t
he e
ssen
tial
con
diti
ons
for
the
exer
clse
of
natI
Ona
l so
vere
ignt
y" [
emph
asis
add
ed]
(see
, e
g.,
Maa
stri
cht
l, s
upra
not
e 13
; Am
ster
dam~
s~f.ra
note
14
, S
tatu
te o
f th
e I.
C.C
., su
pra
note
I-i
n t
his
last
cas
e, t
he C
ounc
d ad
ds t
o th
e h
st .
m~~rna
tion
al c
om
mit
men
ts w
hich
jeo
par
diz
e ri
ghts
and
fre
edom
s se
cure
d by
the
Con
stit
utIO
n ;
my
tran
slat
ion)
. )8
Se
e SI
/pra
not
e 12
; em
phas
is a
dded
. J9
D
ecis
ion
No.
85-
188,
May
22,
198
5, C
C R
ep.1
5; s
ee a
/so
com
men
ts b
y L
. Fa
vore
u, A
.FD
.l.
1985
.868
and
A./
.J.C
. 19
85.4
30.
40
See
sup
ra n
ote
34.
41
See
supr
a no
tes
14 a
nd 1
.
288
Del
ega
tin
g S
tate
Pow
ers
Dec
isio
n o
f the
Cou
ncil
of t
he C
omm
unit
ies
of A
pril
21,
197
0, r
elat
ing
to
the
repl
acem
ent
of
the
fina
ncia
l co
ntri
buti
ons
of
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
by
Com
mun
itie
s ow
n re
sour
ces
(con
trar
y ne
ithe
r by
its
nat
ure
nor
its i
mpo
rta
nce
to t
he "
esse
ntia
l co
ndit
ions
of t
he e
xerc
ise
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty"
);42
Tre
aty
of
Lux
embo
urg
of A
pril
22,
197
0, m
odif
ying
sor
ne b
udge
tary
rul
es
in t
he T
reat
ies
inst
itut
ing
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
ies
(whi
ch d
oes
not
chan
ge t
he b
alan
ce b
etw
een
the
Com
mun
itie
s on
the
one
han
d, a
nd i
ts
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
on t
he o
ther
han
d);4
3
Fra
nco-
Ger
man
add
itio
nal A
gree
men
t ofO
ctob
er 2
4, 1
974,
to t
he E
urop
ean
Con
vent
ion
on j
udic
ial
coop
erat
ion
of
1959
(w
hich
pre
serv
es t
he j
uris
dic
tion
of t
he F
renc
hjud
icia
l au
thor
itie
s to
im
plem
ent i
n Fr
ance
the
obli
gati
on
of j
udic
ial
coop
erat
ion
it im
pose
s an
d do
es n
ot i
nfri
nge
the
cons
titu
tion
al
righ
t o
f as
ylum
);44
Agr
eem
ent
of
Sep
tem
ber
20,
1976
, in
stit
utin
g di
rect
uni
vers
al s
uffr
age
for
the
elec
tion
of t
he E
urop
ean
Par
liam
enta
ry A
ssem
bly
(whi
ch d
o es
not
"cr
eat
e a
sove
reig
nty"
(si
c) a
nd d
oes
not
infr
inge
the
pow
ers
and
func
tion
s o
f th
e in
stit
utio
ns o
f th
e R
epub
lic,
nor
the
pri
ncip
le o
f in
divi
sibi
lity
of
the
Rep
ubli
c );4
5
"Kin
gsto
n A
gree
men
ts"
of J
anua
ry 8
, 19
76,
amen
ding
the
Sta
tute
s o
f the
In
tern
atio
nal
Mon
etar
y F
und
(whi
ch e
nter
ed i
n fo
rce
in c
onfo
rmit
y w
ith
the
proc
eedi
ngs
prov
ided
for
in
said
Sta
tute
s al
read
y ra
tifi
ed b
y F
ranc
e an
d w
hich
, in
an
y ca
se,
leav
e M
embe
rs
Sta
tes
free
to
de
fine
th
eir
exch
ange
par
ity);
46
Add
itio
nal
Pro
toco
l N
o. 6
to t
he E
urop
ean
Con
vent
ion
on H
uman
Rig
hts
of
1950
on
the
abol
itio
n o
f the
dea
th p
enal
ty o
f Apr
il 28
, 19
83,
(whi
ch "
is n
ot
inco
mpa
tibl
e w
ith
the
dut y
inc
umbe
nt o
n th
e S
tate
to s
ecur
e re
spec
t for
the
inst
itut
ions
of t
he R
epub
lic,
con
tinu
ity
of t
he l
ife
of t
he N
atio
n an
d pr
otec
ti
on o
f the
rig
hts
and
free
dom
s o
f the
citi
zens
");4
7
Agr
eem
ent
for
the
App
lica
tion
of
the
Sch
enge
n C
onve
ntio
n o
f Ju
ne 1
4,
1985
(w
hich
doe
s no
t in
frin
ge t
he
com
pete
nce
of
the
poli
ce i
n ea
ch
Eur
opea
n S
tate
, au
thor
izes
the
Par
ties
to
gran
t as
ylum
acc
ordi
ng t
o th
eir
own
dom
esti
c la
ws
and
prov
ides
for
cro
ss-b
orde
r in
vest
igat
ions
and
pur
suit
s on
ly i
n ur
gent
or
exce
ptio
nal
circ
umst
ance
s).4
8
42
CC
, D
ecis
ion
of
June
19,
197
0, s
ee s
upra
not
e 12
. 4
] Id
. 44
C
C,
Dec
isio
n N
o. 8
0-1
16
of J
uly
17,
1980
, C
C R
ep.3
6; s
ee a
/so
com
men
ts b
y L
. F
avor
eu,
R D
P.
1980
.164
0 an
d C
h. V
allé
e, R
.G.D
.l.P
. 19
81.2
02.
45
CC
, D
ecis
ion
of
Dec
. 30
, 19
76,
see
supr
a no
te 3
3.
46
CC
, D
ecis
ion
No.
78
-93
of A
pr.
29
,19
78
, C
C R
ep.2
3; s
ee a
/so
com
men
ts b
y D
. C
arre
au,
R.G
.D.l
.P.
1979
.209
; H
amon
, D
. 19
79.5
42 a
nd D
. R
uzié
, iD
.!.
1978
.577
. 47
C
C,
Dec
isio
n o
f M
ay 2
2,
1985
, see
sup
ra n
ote
39.
48
CC
, D
ecis
ion
of
July
25,
199
1, s
ee s
upra
not
e 34
. B
y a
Dec
isio
n N
o. 9
8-3
99
of
May
5,
1998
, th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il d
ecid
ed,
abou
t th
e A
ct i
n P
arli
amen
t (n
ot a
tre
aty)
con
cern
ing
entr
y an
d re
side
nce
in F
ranc
e o
f al
iens
and
the
rig
ht o
f as
ylum
, th
at "
the
pres
ence
of
repr
esen
-
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
28
9
By
con
tras
t, t
he f
ollo
win
g tr
eati
es h
ave
bee
n d
ecla
red
in p
art u
ncon
stit
utio
nal:
Tre
aty
of
Maa
stri
cht
for
Eur
opea
n U
nion
of
Feb
ruar
y 7,
19
92,
sinc
e,
thro
ugh
the
righ
t to
vote
in
mun
icip
al e
lect
ions
gra
nted
to
"Eur
opea
n ci
ti
zens
" to
mun
icip
al e
lect
ions
, it p
erm
its
fore
igne
rs t
o pa
rtic
ipat
e in
the
ele
cti
ons
of
the
Sen
ator
s; b
y cr
eati
ng a
sin
gle
mon
etar
y an
d ex
chan
ge p
olic
y it
bear
s on
• a
mat
ter
wbi
ch i
5 vi
tal
to t
he e
xerc
ise
of
nati
onal
sov
erei
gnty
";
and
by p
rovi
ding
for
the
ado
ptio
n by
a m
ajor
ily
vote
of a
pol
icy
conc
erni
ng
the
gran
ting
ofv
isas
'it
coul
d ge
nera
te a
situ
atio
n in
whi
ch t
he e
xerc
ise
of
nati
onal
sov
erei
gnty
was
[w
ould
be]
jeo
pard
ized
";49
Tre
aty
of A
mst
erda
m o
f Oct
ober
2,
1997
, am
endi
ng th
e T
reat
y on
Eur
opea
n U
nion
and
the
Tre
atie
s es
tabl
ishi
ng th
e E
urop
ean
Com
mun
itie
s, i
n th
at t
he
tran
sfer
of p
ower
s au
thor
ized
by
this
ins
trum
ent
in a
re as
suc
h as
the
abo
li
tion
of
cont
raIs
of
pers
ons
cros
sing
int
erna
i or
ext
erna
l bo
rder
s, a
sylu
m,
imm
igra
tion
or
the
gran
ting
of v
isas
cou
ld a
ffec
t the
con
diti
ons
esse
ntia
l fo
r th
e ex
erci
se o
f nat
iona
l so
vere
ignt
y;50
and
Sta
tute
of t
he I
.C.C
. si
gned
at
Rom
e on
Jul
y 17
, 19
98.51
A s
yn
thes
is o
f th
is j
uri
spru
den
ce i
s d
iffi
cult
, p
arti
y b
ecau
se t
he
case
Jaw
re
mai
ns l
imit
ed e
ven
ifit
is g
row
ing
rath
er r
apid
ly;
part
iy b
ecau
se,
in c
on
form
ity
w
ith
the
Fre
nch
jud
icia
l tr
adit
ion.
th
e C
OU
llcil
doe
s no
t el
abor
ate
the
reas
ons
for
its
deci
sion
s.
Sor
ne o
f it
s m
ain
ele
men
ts c
an b
e su
mm
ed u
p as
fol
low
s:
(1)
the
adop
tion
by
a m
ajor
ity
vote
of
deci
sion
s bi
ndin
g o
n M
emb
ers
Sta
tes
of
an i
nter
nati
onal
org
aniz
atio
n in
"im
po
rtan
t" m
atte
rs;
(2)
the
poss
ibil
ity
for
exte
rnal
aut
hori
ties
to
inve
stig
ate
on
the
Fre
nch
terr
ito
ry;
or
(3)
gran
ting
to
fore
igne
rs a
rig
ht to
vot
e in
nat
iona
l el
ecti
ons
jeo
par
diz
e th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of
nati
onal
sov
erei
gnty
.
t01.
ives
of
the
OIT
ice
of t
he U
nite
d N
atio
ns H
igh
Com
mis
sion
cr f
or R
I:fug
cC5,
aec
oUD
tmg
for
one
thir
d o
f ca
ch o
f th
e se
clio
ns o
f the
ref
ugec
s A
ppea
l C
omm
issi
on .
..• b
emg
a m
inor
ity
pres
ence
, do
es n
ot J
eopa
rdiz
e th
e cs
sent
ial
cond
üion
s fo
r fh
e ex
erci
se o
f na
tion
al s
over
cign
ty";
Eng
lish
te
xl
in
C,
Co
m·ti
ll//;
Qlla
l Cas
e L
aw
(fn.
3),
al 1
37;
see
alsl
) co
mm
cnts
by
N.
Gui
mcz
anes
, J.C
.P.
1998
.1.1
80;
. Ju
lien
-Laf
crri
ère,
AJ.
D.A
. 19
98.1
001
: A.
Penn
-Gai
a, R
.F.D
.C.
1998
.634
; lE
. E
. Pl
carù
, R
.F.D
.A.
1998
.620
; S
choe
ttl,
A.J
.D.A
. 19
98.4
89;_
C. T
eitg
cn-
Col
ly,
id.I
OO
I: D
. Tur
pin,
N
.C.D
.I.P
. 19
9R.5
2J.
49
C,
Dec
isio
n o
f A
pr.
9,
L99
2,
see
sup
ra n
ote
13.
By
ils
Dec
isio
n o
f S
ept.
2,
1992
, (M
aast
rich
t Il
, SI/p
ro n
oIe
22),
the
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cou
ncil
too
k th
e vi
ew t
hat
the
Tre
aty
of M
aast
rich
t w
as i
n co
nfon
nity
wit
h th
e C
ons
titu
tion
as
amen
ded
by t
he C
onst
itut
iona
l A
ct o
f Ju
ne 2
5, 1
992
adop
te<l
afte
r ils
Dce
i~io
ll r
n M
aast
rich
t 1.
50
CC
, D
ecis
ion
of
Dec
. 31
, 19
97,
see
supr
a no
te 1
4.
51
See
sup
ra n
ote
1.
290
Del
egal
ing
Slal
e P
ower
s
On
the
cont
rary
, w
hen
(4)
the
pow
er o
f de
cisi
on is
ret
aine
d by
the
Fre
nch
auth
orit
ies;
(5)
thes
e au
thor
itie
s ke
ep t
heir
mon
opol
y o
f ac
tion
on
the
Fre
nch
terr
itor
y (e
ven
whe
n du
ties
are
im
pose
d on
the
m t
o ac
t in
a p
arti
cula
r w
ay);
(6)
the
deci
sion
-mak
ing
pow
er g
rant
ed to
int
erna
tion
al o
rgan
izat
ions
or
the
righ
t o
f fo
reig
n au
thor
itie
s to
act
on
the
Fre
nch
terr
itor
y ar
e re
late
d to
min
or
prob
lem
s;
(7)
or a
re t
empo
rary
;
(8)
or a
re j
usti
fied
by
urge
ncy,
the
ess
enti
al c
ondi
tion
s fo
r th
e ex
erci
se o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty a
re n
ot je
opar
dize
d.
It g
oes
wit
hout
say
ing
that
the
se g
uide
line
s ar
e m
ost
flex
ible
. The
y al
low
th
e C
onse
il c
onst
itut
ionn
el t
o st
rike
a b
alan
ce b
etw
een
the
nece
ssit
y o
f in
ter
nati
onal
coo
pera
tion
and
the
pro
tect
ion
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty,
and
to
adap
t it
s co
ntro
l to
cir
cum
stan
ces
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
a te
st t
hat
is n
ot w
itho
ut s
imil
arit
y to
the
pri
ncip
le o
f "r
easo
nabl
enes
s" (
whi
ch,
as s
uch,
is
unkn
own
in F
renc
h co
nst
itut
iona
l la
w).
It
can
be
note
d th
at, i
n ac
cord
ance
wit
h th
e ab
ove
men
tion
ed c
rite
ria,
trea
ties
su
ch a
s th
e C
hart
er o
f the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
, the
Sta
tute
of t
he L
M.F
., t
he E
urop
ean
Con
vent
ion
on R
um
an R
ight
s or
tho
se e
stab
lish
ing
the
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
ies
wou
ld,
mos
t pr
obab
ly,
have
bee
n fo
und
as b
eing
in c
onR
ict w
ith
the
Con
stit
utio
n,
had
they
bee
n ex
amin
ed b
y th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il.
Thi
s m
eans
tha
t F
ranc
e is
pro
babl
y pa
rty
to t
reat
ies
that
are
con
trar
y to
the
C
onst
itut
ion
and
whi
ch je
opar
dize
the
esse
ntia
l co
ndit
ions
of e
xerc
ise
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty
as d
efin
ed b
y (o
r im
plie
d in
) th
e C
onst
itut
ion.
Thi
s ha
s, o
f co
urse
, no
co
nseq
uenc
e in
int
erna
tion
al l
aw:
"fro
m t
he s
tand
poin
t o
f in
tern
atio
nal
law
,"
dom
esti
c la
w,
incl
udin
g na
tion
al c
onst
itut
ions
, ar
e "m
erel
y fa
cts.
"S2
Unt
il v
ery
rece
ntly
, the
pos
itio
n w
as c
ompa
rabl
e in
reg
ard
of F
renc
h co
nsti
tu
tion
al l
aw: it
flo
ws
from
the
Fre
nch
syst
em o
f co
ntro
l o
f co
nsti
tuti
onal
ity
that
on
ce t
hey
are
in f
orce
, the
val
idit
y of
trea
ties
can
no
long
er b
e ch
alle
nged
.S3 T
hus,
th
e po
tent
ial
unco
nsti
tuti
onal
ity
of
a tr
eaty
wou
ld n
ot m
atte
r: t
he C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il c
ould
no
long
er b
e se
ized
of
the
issu
e an
d "o
rdin
ary"
jud
ges,
whe
ther
be
long
ing
to t
he a
dmin
istr
ativ
e or
der
(hav
ing
the
Con
seil
d'É
tat a
t its
hea
d) o
r th
e ju
dici
al o
rder
(cu
lmin
atin
g in
the
Cou
r de
Cas
sati
on),
use
d no
t to
rev
iew
the
con
fo
rmit
y o
f tr
eati
es (
or o
f ac
ts i
n P
arli
amen
t) t
o th
e C
onst
itut
ion.
52
See
Pol
ish
Upp
er S
iles
ia,
P.C
.U.,
(se
r. A
) N
o.
7, a
t 19
. 53
S
ee C
C,
Dec
isio
n o
f A
pr.
29,
1978
, su
pra
note
46.
A f
ort
iori
, w
hen
a tr
eaty
has
bee
n de
clar
ed i
n co
nfor
mit
y w
ith
the
Con
stit
utio
n, a
new
tre
aty
mer
ely
repr
oduc
ing
the
prov
isio
ns o
f th
e fo
rmer
can
not
be c
hall
enge
d; s
ee C
C,
Dec
isio
n o
f D
ec.
31,
1997
, su
pra
note
14
.
A F
ren
ch P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
reat
y Im
plem
enta
tion
29
1
Thi
s co
uld
wel
l ch
ange
wit
h a
deci
sion
of
the
Gen
eral
Ass
embl
y o
f th
e C
onse
il d
'Éta
t o
f O
ctoh
er 3
0, 1
998,
in
re S
arra
n et
al.
54 In
thi
s ju
dgm
ent,
the
C
ourt
cam
e to
the
se c
oncl
usio
ns:
Con
side
ring
tha
t ev
en t
houg
h A
rtic
le 5
5 o
f th
e C
onst
itut
ion
prov
ides
th
at "
from
the
mom
ent
of t
heir
pub
lica
tion
, tre
atie
s or
agr
eem
ents
dul
y ra
tifi
ed o
r ap
prov
ed s
hall
pre
vail
ove
r A
cts
of P
arli
amen
t su
bjec
t, f
or
each
agr
eem
ent o
r tr
eaty
, to
rec
ipro
cal
appl
icat
ion
by t
he o
ther
par
ty",
th
e su
prem
acy
thus
con
ferr
ed t
o in
tern
atio
nal
com
mit
men
ts d
o es
not
ap
ply,
in
the
dom
esti
c or
der,
to p
rovi
sion
s o
f a c
onst
itut
iona
l nat
ure.
ss
The
con
sequ
ence
of
such
a p
osit
ion
is t
hat,
in
the
futu
re,
Fre
nch
judg
es
mig
ht b
e le
d to
dis
rega
rd a
tre
aty
alre
ady
in f
orce
, if
they
fin
d it
cont
rary
to
the
Con
stit
utio
n an
d, i
n pa
rtic
ular
, w
ith
the
prin
cipl
e o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty o
r th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of s
over
eign
ty. A
nd,
appa
rent
ly,
this
wou
ld b
e tr
ue
whe
ther
th
e T
reat
y ha
d be
en
conc
lude
d be
fore
or
af
ter
the
pres
ent
Con
stit
utio
n o
f 19
58.
For
its
part
, th
e C
onse
il C
onst
itut
ionn
el h
as r
ecen
tly
he Id
tha
t th
e R
efug
ees
App
eal
Com
mis
sion
, an
adm
inis
trat
ive
cour
t es
tabl
ishe
d to
rev
iew
dec
isio
ns o
f th
e F
renc
h O
ffic
e fo
r th
e P
rote
ctio
n o
f Ref
ugee
s an
d S
tate
less
Per
sons
, is
not
pre
ve
nted
by
the
Con
stit
utio
n fr
om i
nclu
ding
mem
bers
rep
rese
ntin
g th
e O
ffic
e o
f the
U
N. R
igh
Com
mis
sion
er f
or R
efug
ees
(pro
vide
d th
ey a
re a
min
orit
y).S
6 It
cam
e to
thi
s co
nclu
sion
in
a ra
ther
tor
tuou
s w
ay:
It f
ollo
ws
from
[A
rtic
le 3
of
the
Dec
lara
tion
of
Rum
an a
nd C
ivic
R
ight
s o
f 19
79,
Art
icle
3 o
f th
e C
onst
itut
ion
of
1958
and
par
agra
phs
14 a
nd 1
5 o
f the
Pre
ambl
e to
the
Con
stit
utio
n o
f 19
46]5
7 th
at a
s a
mat
te
r o
f pr
inci
ple
func
tion
s th
at a
re i
nsep
arab
le f
rom
the
exe
rcis
e o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty m
ay n
ot b
e en
trus
ted
to f
orei
gn n
atio
nals
or
to
repr
esen
tati
ves
of
inte
rnat
iona
l or
gani
zati
ons;
thi
s ap
plie
s in
par
ti cu
la
r to
judi
cial
fun
ctio
ns s
ince
bot
h th
e or
dina
ry a
nd t
he a
dmin
istr
ativ
e co
urts
act
"in
the
na m
e o
f th
e F
renc
h pe
ople
"; i
t m
ay,
how
ever
, be
le
giti
mat
e to
dep
art
from
thi
s pr
inci
ple
to s
uch
exte
nt a
s m
ay b
e ne
ces
sary
to
give
eff
ect
to a
n in
tern
atio
nal
agre
emen
t en
tere
d by
Fra
nce,
54
A p
revi
ous
jud
gm
ent
of
the
sam
e G
ener
al A
ssem
bly
(the
mos
t so
lem
n pa
nel
of t
he F
renc
h C
on
seil
d'É
tat)
had
pav
ed t
he w
ay i
n th
is s
ame
dire
ctio
n:
C.E
., A
ss.,
July
3,
1996
, K
oné,
Leh
. 25
5; s
ee a
lso
co
ncl
usi
on
s o
f J.
M.
Del
aru
e, R
.F.D
.A.
1996
.870
; an
d co
mm
ents
by
D. A
llan
d,
R G
.D.I
.P.
1997
.238
; C
. B
raud
, R
.D.P
. 11
6.17
51;
D.
Cha
uvau
x an
d T
h.-
X.
Gir
ardo
t, A
.JD
.A.
1996
.722
; L
. F
avor
eu,
P. G
aïa,
H.
Lab
ayle
and
P. D
elvo
lvé,
R.F
.D.A
. 19
96.8
82; F
. Jul
ien-
Laf
erri
ère,
D
. 19
96.5
09 a
nd X
. P
réto
t, J
. c.P
. 19
96.1
1.22
720
. 5
5
A.J
.D.A
. 19
98.1
03
9 w
ith
a c
om
men
tary
by
F.
Ray
nau
d a
nd
P.
Fo
mb
eur
at 9
62
; m
y tr
ansl
atio
n.
56
Se
e su
pra
note
48
. \7
C
once
rnin
g th
e te
xts
of
thes
e pr
ovis
ions
, se
e su
pra
note
24.
292
Del
ega
tin
g S
tate
Po
wer
s
prov
ided
ther
e is
no
impa
ct o
n th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
he e
xerc
ise
of n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty.
58
Thi
s st
alem
ent i
s no
t eas
y ta
int
erpr
et.
On
the
one
hand
, th
e C
ounc
il s
eem
s lO
acc
ept
that
an
Act
in
Par
liam
ent m
ay d
epar
t tr
om c
onst
itut
iona
l pr
inci
ples
in
orde
r to
giv
e ef
fect
to i
nter
nati
onal
agr
eem
ents
S!i
(in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
tbe
195
1 G
enev
a C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Sta
tus
ofR
efug
ees)
. O
n th
e ot
ber
hand
, it
deni
es s
uch
3. p
ossi
bili
ty i
f th
e A
ct je
opar
dize
s th
e es
sent
ial
cond
itio
ns f
or t
be e
xerd
se o
f Ja
tion
al s
over
eign
ty,
whi
oh i
mpl
ies
rbat
the
Con
seil
con
stit
utio
nnel
too,
in
snch
a
;ase
. co
nld
pros
crib
e th
e ap
plic
atio
n o
f a t
reat
y in
for
ce.
111i
5 re
view
of
the
Fre
nch
cons
titu
tion
alla
w p
osit
ion,
as
inte
rpre
ted
by t
he
;our
ts
nol
on '
dele
gali
ng s
over
eign
ty,"
but
on
tran
sfer
ring
pow
ers
deri
ving
fro
m
;ove
reig
nty
show
s so
rne
inoo
nsis
tenc
ies.
The
y ar
e pa
rti y
the
res
ult
of t
he g
èner
al
Itti
tude
of F
renc
b ju
dges
' bei
ng t
empt
ed t
o is
olat
ioni
sm,
mak
ing
them
rel
ncta
nt
o gi
ving
ful
l ef
fect
to
para
grap
hs.
14 a
nd 1
5 o
rth
e P
ream
ble
to t
be C
onst
itut
ion
)f 1
946
by w
hich
"th
e F
renc
h R
epub
üc,
faith
fuJ
to i
ts t
radi
tion
, de
cJar
es t
hat
it 's
halJ
obse
rve
the
rule
s o
f pub
lic
inte
rnat
iona
J la
w"
and
"wil
l con
sent
to s
uch
mn
tati
ons
of s
over
eign
ty a
s ar
e ne
c ss
ary
ta t
he r
eali
zati
on o
f th
e de
fens
e of
peac
e."
rbey
als
o re
sult
in
part
fro
m t
ensi
ons
betw
een
the
inte
rnat
iona
l m
eani
ng o
f sov
:r
eign
ty a
s op
pose
d to
its
sco
pe in
nat
iona
l la
w,
wbi
ch th
e w
ordi
ng o
f th
e co
nsti
ut
iona
l te
xts
awkw
ardJ
y m
ixes
up.
E
ow
ever
, th
e C
ounc
il 's
inve
ntio
n o
f a
noti
on o
f "e
ssen
tial
con
diti
ons
for
he e
xerc
ise
0 r n
atio
nal
sove
reig
nty"
pro
babl
y co
nsti
tute
s an
acc
epta
ble
and
al'h
er s
ucce
ssfu
l at
tem
pt t
o re
conc
ile
and
com
bine
bot
h m
eani
ngs
of
the
wor
d . so
ve.re
ign
ty. "
B
ut t
hjs
shre
wd
and
flex
ible
int
elle
ctua
l co
nstr
ucti
on h
as a
pri
ce.
Fir
st,
by
ts su
bjec
tivi
ty,
itta
ints
wit
h lL
Uce
rtai
nty
the
asse
ssm
ent
of
virt
uall
y ai
l im
por
:mt
trea
ties
' con
form
ity
wit
h th
e C
onst
itut
ion.
Thi
s m
akes
the
wor
k o
f F
renc
h eg
otia
rors
at
tJ1e
inte
rnat
iona
l le
vel
mor
e di
ffic
uIt s
ince
the
y ca
nnot
ass
ess
wit
h er
tain
ty t
he d
ecis
iol1
tha
t th
e C
onst
itut
iona
l C
ounc
il w
ill
take
con
cern
ing
the
onst
itut
iona
lity
of a
fut
ure
trea
ty.
Sec
ond
and
mo
re i
mpo
rtan
t, t
he r
ecen
t fi
nd
Jgs
by t
he C
ounc
il t
hat
the
Tre
atie
s o
f M
aast
rich
t an
d o
f A
mst
erda
m w
ere
ncon
stit
utio
nal
mad
e it
nec
essa
ry to
am
end
the
Con
stit
utio
n tw
ice6
0 in
ord
er to
58
CC
, D
ecis
ion
of
May
5,
1998
, su
pra
note
48.
59
Thi
s is
dif
ficu
lt to
rec
onci
le w
ith
the
absu
rd j
uris
prud
ence
of
the
Con
stit
utio
nal
Cou
ncil
y
virl
ue
of
whi
ch i
l re
fuse
s to
con
trol
the
con
form
ity
of
an a
ct i
n P
arli
amen
t to
the
tre
atie
s in
>r
ce i
n sp
lle
of
the
clea
r w
ordi
ng a
fart
. 55
of t
he C
onst
itut
ion
(see
tex
t, su
pra)
; cf
. D
ecis
ion
of
111.
15
, 19
75, u
r S
I/pr
a no
te 4
.
(,Q
Fol
low
lng
Il w
him
of
the
'·hen
Min
iste
r o
f th
e In
teri
or,
Mr.
pas
qulI
, B.
C
Oll
stit
utio
nal
Law
l' N
ov.
25
1993
. al
so u
dded
a n
ewar
t. 5
3-1
to t
he C
onst
'itut
ion,
sup
pose
dJy
to e
omp
!y w
ith
the
ecis
ion
of
tlle
onst
itut
iona
l ou
neil
No.
93-
325
of A
ug.
13,
1993
(C
C R
ep.2
14,
Eng
lish
"te
xt
1 C
C.
CO
IIS
lilllf;
ol1
al
Ca.
·e L
aw (
fIl.
J),
al'
110:
see
als
o co
mm
enlS
by
D.
Alla
nd.,
R.G
.D.J
.P.
)94.
205:
B.
Gen
evoi
s, I
UW
.A.
1993
.87
1; F
. L
ucha
ire
a.nd
M.
Rou
ssea
u, R
..D.P
. 19
94.5
~lI
1d \
03;
lath
ieu
and
Ver
peaL
Lx,
PlI
. 19
94.
No.
26.
p.
10),
whi
ch.
lega
l.ly
spea
king
, di
d nO
l im
pose
suc
h si
ep.
A F
renc
h P
ersp
ecti
ve o
n T
real
y Im
ple
men
tati
on
29
3
mak
e it
com
pati
ble
wit
h th
e pr
ovis
ions
of
thes
e ac
cord
s.61
A n
ew c
onst
itut
iona
l am
endm
ent
wil
l be
nec
essa
ry t
o ra
tify
the
Sta
tute
of
the
LC
.C.
beca
use
it h
as
been
fou
nd t
o je
opar
dize
in
part
the
ess
enti
al c
ondi
tion
s fo
r th
e ex
erci
se o
f na
tion
al s
over
eign
ty.
Thi
s is
not
sat
isfa
ctor
y. A
Con
stit
utio
n is
not
a s
crap
of
pape
r an
d it
is
depl
orab
le t
hat
the
Fre
nch
Con
stit
utio
n ha
s to
be
chan
ged
ever
y ti
me
Fran
ce e
nvis
ag
es t
he r
atif
icat
ion
of
a tr
eaty
by
whi
ch i
t tr
ansf
ers
pow
ers
to a
n in
tern
atio
nal
orga
n. N
o do
ubt
the
Con
stit
uent
Aut
hori
ty w
ould
be
wel
l ad
vise
d to
am
end
the
Con
stit
utio
n in
ord
er to
mak
e su
ch tr
ansf
ers
"con
stit
utio
nal"
onc
e an
d fo
r aI
l. T
he
odds
, ho
wev
er,
are
that
thi
s w
ill
not
be d
one
on t
he o
ccas
ion
of
the
new
am
end
men
t ne
cess
ary
in o
rder
to r
atifY
the
Sta
tute
of t
he L
C.C
.
61
See
Con
stit
utio
nal
Law
of
June
25,
199
2, a
ddin
g a
new
tit
le X
V t
o th
e C
onst
itut
ion:
"T
he
Eur
opea
n C
omm
unit
ies
and
the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
" (a
rts.
88
-1 t
o 8
8-4
) an
d C
onst
itut
iona
l L
aw
of
Jan.
18,
199
9, a
men
ding
art
. 8
8-2
.
