Nov. 21, 2018
Référence générale : Frison-Roche M.-A., Pour protéger les êtres humains, l'impératif éthique de la notion juridique de personne, in in "Droit et Ethique" (dossier spécial des Archives de Philosophie du Droit) Archives de Philosophie du droit (APD), La justice prédictive, Dalloz, 2018, z, pp. 363-378.
Résumé : C'est par le Droit que l'être humain a acquis en Occident une unité (I). Ce que la Religion avait pu faire, le Droit l'a également fait en posant sur chaque être humain la notion indétachable de lui de « personne » (I.A). Mais c'est cela qui est remis en cause aujourd'hui, non pas la personnalité et le pouvoir que l'être humain a d'exprimer sa liberté mais l'unité que cela implique dans la disposition que l'on a de soir en repoussant le désir qu'autrui a toujours eu de disposer de nous. Le Droit actuel tend en effet à « pulvériser » les êtres humains en données et à transformer en prestations juridique de « consentement », cessant d'être une preuve d'une volonté libre mais devenue une notion autonome , y suffirait (I.B.).
Pour empêcher que ne règne plus que la « loi des désirs », laquelle ne fait que traduire l'ajustement des forces, il faut requérir ici et maintenant la souveraineté éthique du Droit, parce que le Droit ne peut pas être qu'une technique d'ajustement des intérêts (II). L'on peut former cette requête si l'on ne veut pas vivre dans un univers a-moral (II.A), si l'on constate que l'unité de la personne est l'invention juridique qui protège l'être humain faible (II.B.). Si on en admet l'impératif, il faut alors se demander enfin qui en Droit va l'exprimer et l'imposer, notamment de la Loi, ou du Juge, car nous semblons avoir perdu la capacité de rappeler ce principe de la Personne sur laquelle l'Occident fut si centré. Or, les principes qui ne sont plus dits disparaissent. Il ne resterait plus alors que l'ajustement au cas par cas des intérêts entre êtres humains dans champ mondial des forces particulières. À cette aune, le Droit ne serait plus qu'une technique de sécurisation des ajustements particuliers. (II.C). Réduit à cela, le Droit aurait perdu son lien avec l'Éthique.
Lire le document de travail ayant servi de base à l'article rédigée par Marie-Anne Frison-Roche, enrichie dans sa version numérique par des notes de bas de page, des références techniques et de liens hypertextes.
Voir la présentation d'autres tomes des Archives de Philosophie du Droit.
Updated: Sept. 8, 2018 (Initial publication: April 30, 2018)
► This working document was intended to serve as a support for a conference pronounced in French in the conference Droit et Ethique ( Law & Ethics) of May 31, 2018 in a symposium organized by the Court of Cassation and the Association Française de Philosophie du Droit. French Association of Philosophy of Law on the general theme Law & Ethics.
Rather, it has served as a support for the article to be published in the Archives de Philosophie du Droit (APD). This article is written in French.
► Summary: It is through the Law that the human being has acquired a unity in the West (I). What religion could have done, the Law also did by posing on each human being the indetachable notion of him of "person" (I.A). But this is what is challenged today, not the personality and the power that the human being has to express his freedom but the unity that implies in the disposition that we have of ourselves in repelling the desire that others have always had to dispose of us. Current law tends to "pulverize" human beings into data and transform into neutral legal services what was considered before as the devouring of others. The legal concept of "consent", ceasing to be proof of a free will but becoming an autonomous concept, would suffice (I.B.).
To prevent the reigning of the "law of desires", which merely reflects the adjustment of forces, we must demand here and now the ethical sovereignty of Law, because Law can not be just just be just the interests adjustment (II). We can form this request if we do not want to live in an a-moral universe (II.A), if we see that the unity of the person is the legal invention that protects the weak human being (II.B.). If we admit this imperative, then we must finally ask who in the legal system will express and impose it, especially the legislator or the judge, because we seem to have lost the ability to recall this principle of the Person on which the West was so centered. But the principles that are no longer said disappear. There would then remain only the case-by-case adjustment of interests between human beings in the world field of particular forces. At this yardstick, Law would be more than a technique of securisation of particular adjustments. Law would be reduced at that and would have lost its link with Ethics. (II.C).
Updated: Oct. 25, 2017 (Initial publication: May 27, 2016)
This working paper initially served as a basis for a synthesis report made in French in the colloquium organized by the Association Henri Capitant in the International German Days on the subject of "Le Droit et la Mondialisation" (Law and Globalization).
It serves as a second basis for the article (written in English, with a Spanish Summary) to be published in the Brezilian journal Rarb - Revista de Arbitragem e Mediação (Revue d`Arbitrage et Médiation).
In it French version, it serves as a basis for the article, written in French, to be published in the book La Mondialisation.
In this working paper, notes are included, including developments, references and links to work and reflections on the theme of globalization.
It uses the Bilingual Dictionary of the Law of Regulation and Compliance.
To access the French version of the working paper, click on the French flag.
Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for the jurist. The first thing to do is to take its measure. Once it has been taken, it is essential that we allow ourselves to think of something about it, even if we have to think about it. For example, on whether the phenomenon is new or not, which allows a second assessment of what is taking place. If, in so far as the law can and must "pretend" to defend every being, a universal claim destined to face the global field of forces, the following question - but secondary - is formulated: quid facere? Nothing ? Next to nothing ? Or regulate? Or can we still claim that the Law fulfills its primary duty, which is to protect the weak, including the forces of globalization?
Let us begin the peripheries of Law in globalization.
Globalization is a confusing phenomenon for everyone. It is no doubt even more so for the jurist for whom words are normative acts and which stumbles on the definition of globalization
Perhaps this is why lawyers are as impressed by the argument of globalization, which is often cited to argue that the time of imperative legislations is over, or that Roman law may well turn into its grave, Globalization would pass over the corpse of the Civil Code. The more mysterious the notion is, the more names it has, the more it sets back the jurist of good tradition, global trade being as upgraded when it is designated as "globalization", the zest of English leading to the globalization that parses Of reports, even written in French or Spanish or Italian. . The global language being English, the Globalization is English also.
If we take up the movement of this wave, it is appropriate first of all to take stock of what is globalization (I). It is only relevant that the usefulness, if not necessity, is posed to think about this movement of globalization. There is a legal imperative to formulate an assessment if it is posited that the Law has the mission of protecting every human being, a concern that is supported by the Law. Then, because Law is also a technique, we can ask ourselves the question of Quid facere? But in practice it can not be said that under the pretext that the field of the world forces is very powerful and that the Law appears to be very weak in its claims to protect every human being in its dignity, it would for this reason disappear from the World stage (II).
On the contrary. It is at the foot of the wall of Globalization that today we can measure the claim of Law to defend humanity.
See for ex. Marie-Anne, Frison-Roche, Le droit des deux mondialisations, in Terré, F., (dir), La mondialisation entre illusion et utopie, Archives de Philosophie du Droit, Tome 47, Dalloz, pp. 17-23.
April 21, 2017
Through the Open Culture website, it is possible to listen to Hayao Miyazaki who, in March 2017, claimed that video games whose drawings are made on Artificial Intelligence basis are "insults to life".
Read below the history, the words that the Master has held, his conception of what is creation and "truly human" work, which is echoed by the definitions given by Alain Supiot, who also reflected on what robots do.
This brings us back to the very notion of "creation" and creative work.
Updated: July 31, 2013 (Initial publication: Dec. 6, 2011)
Teachings : Les Grandes Questions du Droit, semestre d'automne 2011