Le droit au respect des modes de vie minoritaires et autochtones dans les contentieux internationaux des droits de l'homme

This research aims to explain and evaluate the emergence of a right of minorities and indigenous peoples to the respect of their ways of life, appearing before the European court of human rights, the Inter-American court of human rights and the United Nations Human rights Committee. The decisions and communications stemming from these tribunals will be analyzed and compared.  This topic raises several questions regarding the legality of this norm, its meaning, effectiveness and limits, but also its implementation. In order to offer an interpretation of the content of that right, we need to evaluate the references made to it by the claimants, the judges and experts, which implicates an interdisciplinary approach focused on anthropological studies of law. This leads us to examine the discourses of judges, experts and claimants, to compare them and to observe their confluences and discrepancies.  The results of this study show us that the emergence of this new norm is dependent upon the intervention of several agents – the claimants, the judges, the experts of the Committee and the States. This observation therefore confirms the polycentric process of construction of international legal rules. As to the legality and the effectiveness of the right of minorities and indigenous peoples to their ways of life, they vary according to the legal system, even if this right always corresponds to a legal rule. This rule consecrates a specific right belonging to indigenous and tribal people or to the members of indigenous people and minorities. It protects a relationship to the territory, i.e. a way to comprehend and to exploit it, to circulate on it and to inhabitate it. It also protects some activities. The indigenous, tribal and romas applicants unofficially take part in the legal definition of their ways of life, as the requests they submit to the international tribunals are cornerstones of judicial interpretations. In spite of a process of co-determination of the norm, gaps are observed between the positions of the different actors participating to the determination of the norm. They are either related to the impossibility for some judges to apply the right to a way of life to the case, to the distance between the positions of the claimants and the states, or to the protection of third parties. Consequently, a process of double distortion of the content of the norm appears, due to the judges’ or experts’ conceptions, but also to those of the claimants. It leads to the emergence of several problems, such as essentialism and the idealization of minorities and indigenous ways of life, paternalism, victimization or discrimination towards the claimants or their communities. These problems can alter the meaning and the impact of the norm. Nonetheless, the right to the respect of those ways of life has some theoretical effects related first to the coexistence, on a same piece of land, of different groups possessing diverse identities. They are also related to the improvement of the applicants’ quality of life and to the recognition process. However, the State’s willingness still occupies a large space in international law, as does the importance, for judges, to protect their own legitimacy. Moreover, some decisions seem too ideal or dogmatic. Those factors limit the effect of the norm. Thus, the articulation of judicial discourses and the efficiency of the norm are first contingent to the enunciation and to the clarity of the claimants’ requests. They are dependant of the receptivity of the agents whose role it is to receive them (judges and experts) and to the political, social and cultural context within which they take place. This last factor brings to light the importance for each agent participating to the elaboration of the norm to use, as much as he can, the margins he possesses.

Keyphrases: Way of life, Minorities, Indigenous peoples, International human rights law, Emergence, meaning of a norm, Efficiency, Distortion, Co-determination, Essentialism