Date : 1999
Type : Livre / Book
Type : Thèse / ThesisLangue / Language : français / French
Résumé / Abstract : LE DISCOURS DOCTRINAL A UN CARACTERE THEORIQUE SINGULIER. DESCRIPTIONS DE L'ETAT DU DROIT POSITIF ET PRESCRIPTIONS POUR EN CHANGER S'Y CONJUGUENT INSEPARABLEMENT. TOUTES PRODUISENT DES REPRESENTATIONS DE LA REALITE QUE LA CONNAISSANCE JURIDIQUE VA ASSIMILER ET QUI JOUERONT UN ROLE CLE DANS SES MUTATIONS. MAIS LE DROIT TOUJOURS SE DEDOUBLE. SYSTEME FORMEL HIERARCHISE DE NORMES D'UNE PART, ENSEMBLE INFORMEL ANARCHIQUE DE QUESTIONS D'AUTRE PART. ET ENTRE LES DEUX, ENTRE LA VALIDITE DES REGLES ET LES AMBIGUITES DE LEUR CONTENU, ENTRE LA DETERMINATION DES REGLES APPLICABLES ET L'OPPORTUNITE POLITIQUE DE LEUR APPLICATION : IL Y AURA TOUJOURS L'ARGUMENTATION. L'EXAMEN DE L'USAGE DOCTRINAL DES CONCEPTS DE " PERMANENCE ", D'" UNITE " OU DE " SECURITE JURIDIQUE " MONTRE L'AMBIVALENCE DU DISCOURS DES JURISTES. EN TOUTE NEUTRALITE, LA DOCTRINE DECRIT ET PRESCRIT LES SOLUTIONS POSITIVES ET FUTURES PAR UN DISCOURS QUI MELE L'AMBIGU AU TABOU, L'INDICIBLE AU NON-DIT, ET LE MYTHE A L'ESPRIT DE LA LOI OU DE LA JURISPRUDENCE. EST-CE ALORS INFAMANT DE PRESENTER LA DOCTRINE DE DROIT PRIVE COMME GARDIENNE D'UN TEMPLE OU L'ON PRECHE LE CULTE DE LA SOLUTION UNIQUE ? SERAIT-CE UN BLASPHEME D'EN DENONCER LE DOGME ? SERAIT-IL HERETIQUE DE PENSER QUE LES JURISTES SE NOURRISSENT D'ILLUSIONS ? SERAIT-IL PLUS CALOMNIEUX ENCORE DE DIRE QUE LOIN DE SE BERCER D'ILLUSIONS, LES JURISTES SONT EN REALITE DES ILLUSIONNISTES ? LE DOGME DE LA SOLUTION UNIQUE EST UNE CROYANCE TROP SIMPLISTE AUJOURD'HUI POUR QUE LES JURISTES Y ADHERENT MAIS IL LES SERT ET LES RASSURE. C'EST UNE RHETORIQUE, VOIRE UNE SOPHISTIQUE, DE L'EVICTION DES SOLUTIONS POSSIBLES DONT ILS USENT COMME SUBSTITUT D'UNE THEORIE DE LEUR PROPRE DISCOURS.
Résumé / Abstract : IS IT DISHONOURABLE TO PRESENT THE "DOCTRINE" AS THE GUARDIAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE CULT OF THE UNIQUE SOLUTION ? WOULD IT BE BLASPHEMY TO DENOUNCE THIS AS DOGMA ? WOULD IT BE HERETICAL TO THINK THAT JURISTS LIVE OFF ILLUSIONS ? WOULD IT BE MORE SLANDEROUS TO SAY THAT FAR FROM DELUDING THEMSELVES WITH ILLUSIONS, THEY ARE IN FACT ILLUSIONISTS? DOCTRINAL DISCOURSE HAS A PECULIAR THEORETICAL NATURE: DESCRIPTIONS OF POSITIVE LAW AND PRESCRIPTIONS TO CHANGE IT ARE MUTUALLY INTERRELATED. BOTH PRODUCE REPRESENTATIONS OF REALITY WHICH ARE JOINED BY JURISPRUDENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND PLAY A MAJOR PART IN ITS TRANSFORMATION. HOWEVER LAW ALWAYS SPLITS IN TWO. ON THE ONE HAND, IT IS A HIERARCHICAL FORMAL SYSTEM OF NORMS AND ON THE OTHER, IT IS AN ANARCHISTIC INFORMAL SET OF QUESTIONS. ARGUMENTATION HAS UNTIL NOW FILLED THE GAP BETWEEN THESE TWO POLES, THAT IS, BETWEEN THE VALIDITY OF RULES AND THEIR AMBIGUOUS CONTENT, BETWEEN THE APPROPIATENESS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF RULES AND THE APPROPIATENESS OF THE THEIR POLITICAL APPLICATION. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE USE OF DOCTRINAL CONCEPTS SUCH AS "PERMANENCE", "UNITY" OR "JURIDICAL SECURITY" SHOWS THE AMBIVALENCE OF JURISTS' DISCOURSE. THE DOCTRINE, REMAINING NEUTRAL, DESCRIBES AND PRESCRIBES POSITIVE, FUTURE SOLUTIONS IN A DISCOURSE WHICH MIXES (UP) AMBIGUITY WITH TABOO, THE UNSPEAKABLE WITH THE UNSPOKEN, THE MYTH WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. IT IS HARD FOR JURISTS TO SUBSCRIBE NOWADAYS TO THE SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF THE DOGMA OF THE UNIQUE SOLUTION, BUT IT IS STILL USEFUL AND REASSURING FOR THEM. THEY MAKE USE OF IT AS AN ADEQUATE THEORETICAL SUBSTITUTE FOR THEIR OWN SPEECH TO RESTRICT THE DOMAIN OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS. IF THIS IS SO, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A USE OF RHETORICAL, NOT TO SAY SOPHISTIC, DISCOURSE.