1,720,961 research outputs found
Le référendum : quel remède pour quelle crise ?
No full textRevon Mathias. Le référendum : quel remède pour quelle crise ?. In: Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, 32-2016, 2017. Migrations internationales et justice constitutionnelle - Référendums et justice constitutionnelle. pp. 665-670
Compte rendu des débats et discussions
No full textBonnet Manon, Léothier Laurent, Revon Mathias. Compte rendu des débats et discussions. In: Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, 32-2016, 2017. Migrations internationales et justice constitutionnelle - Référendums et justice constitutionnelle. pp. 517-583
Index
No full textBonnet Manon, Léothier Laurent, Méthivier Marine, Revon Mathias. Index. In: Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, 31-2015, 2016. Constitution et droits sociaux - Constitution et sécurité extérieure. pp. 913-917
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
L'indétermination du statut du peuple en droit constitutionnel : réflexions à partir des tensions entre référendum et État de droit
No full textThèse en cotutelle, Université Laval, Québec et Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille.À l'image de l'expérience du « chat de Schrödinger » qui met en évidence la situation paradoxale dans laquelle un sujet se trouve simultanément dans deux états incompatibles, deux statuts du peuple coexistent au sein d'une démocratie libérale. D'une part, la souveraineté du peuple est le socle théorique à partir duquel la démocratie libérale a été façonnée. En principe, elle confère au peuple un pouvoir illimité. D'autre part, l'État de droit, qui s'est considérablement développé depuis la seconde moitié du XXe siècle, impose au pouvoir politique de respecter certaines limites. Cela suppose que le peuple s'y soumette également. Une telle situation semble paradoxale, car elle implique que le peuple soit à la fois souverain et limité. La thèse soutenue est qu'une telle coexistence est possible, parce qu'il existe une indétermination du statut du peuple. Autrement dit, il s'agit de démontrer qu'au sein d'une démocratie libérale, le peuple n'est ni souverain, ni limité, mais potentiellement les deux. Ainsi, l'incompatibilité entre souveraineté du peuple et État de droit demeure, mais elle est maintenue en suspens. Dans ce cadre que nous qualifierons de compromis dilatoire, des rapports complexes faits de tensions et de complémentarité peuvent se développer entre démocratie et libéralisme. Dès lors, le recours au concept d'indétermination en droit constitutionnel permet de renouveler en profondeur la définition de la démocratie libérale. Cette indétermination a cependant des limites. En effet, l'incompatibilité sous-jacente peut être révélée, lorsqu'à l'occasion d'un référendum, la volonté exprimée par le peuple apparaît potentiellement contraire à l'État de droit. Les scrutins provoquant de telles tensions sont au cœur de la démonstration et seront appréhendés à travers le concept de référendum illibéral. Ce dernier a pour conséquence de lever l'indétermination et, ce faisant, de rompre l'équilibre sur lequel repose la démocratie libérale.Like the “Schrödinger’s cat” experiment, which highlights the paradoxical situation in which a subject is simultaneously in two incompatible states, two statuses of the people coexist within a liberal democracy. On the one hand, the sovereignty of the people is the theoretical basis on which liberal democracy has been shaped. In principle, it gives the people unlimited power. On the other hand, the rule of law, which has developed considerably since the second half of the 20th century, imposes certain limits on political power. This presupposes that the people are also subject to them. Such a situation seems paradoxical, since it implies that the people are both sovereign and limited. The thesis is that such coexistence is possible because there is an indeterminacy of the status of the people. In other words, it is to demonstrate that in a liberal democracy, the people are neither sovereign nor limited, but potentially both. Consequently, the incompatibility between the sovereignty of the people and the rule of law remains, but it is kept in abeyance. In this framework, which we shall describe as a dilatory compromise, complex relations made up of tensions and complementarities can develop between democracy and liberalism. That is why the use of the concept of indeterminacy in constitutional law makes it possible to renew in depth the definition of liberal democracy. However, this indeterminacy has its limits. Indeed, the underlying incompatibility may be revealed when, on the occasion of a referendum, the will expressed by the people appears potentially contrary to the rule of law. Polls that provoke such tensions are at the heart of the demonstration and will be apprehended through the concept of illiberal referendum. The latter has the consequence of removing indeterminacy and, in so doing, of breaking the balance on which liberal democracy rests
La saisine directe du Conseil constitutionnel par un justiciable est-elle possible ? : Commentaire de la décision n°2015-491 QPC du 14 octobre 2015, M. Pierre G.
No full textNational audienc
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
The indeterminacy of the people's status in constitutional law : reflexions based on the tensions between referendum and the rule of law
No full textÀ l’image de l’expérience du « chat de Schrödinger » qui met en évidence la situation paradoxale dans laquelle un sujet se trouve simultanément dans deux états incompatibles, deux statuts du peuple coexistent au sein d’une démocratie libérale. D’une part, la souveraineté du peuple est le socle théorique à partir duquel la démocratie libérale a été façonnée. D’autre part, l’État de droit, qui s’est considérablement développé au XXe siècle, impose de respecter certaines limites. Cela suppose que le peuple s’y soumette également. Une telle situation semble paradoxale, car elle implique que le peuple soit à la fois souverain et limité. La thèse soutenue est qu’une telle coexistence est possible, parce qu’il existe une indétermination du statut du peuple. Autrement dit, il s’agit de démontrer qu’au sein d’une démocratie libérale, le peuple n’est ni souverain, ni limité, mais potentiellement les deux. Ainsi, l’incompatibilité entre souveraineté du peuple et État de droit demeure, mais elle est maintenue en suspens. Dans ce cadre que nous qualifierons de compromis dilatoire, des rapports complexes faits de tensions et de complémentarité peuvent se développer entre démocratie et libéralisme. Cette indétermination a cependant des limites. En effet, l’incompatibilité sous-jacente peut être révélée, lorsqu’à l’occasion d’un référendum, la volonté exprimée par le peuple apparaît potentiellement contraire à l’État de droit. Ce type de scrutin est au cœur de la démonstration et sera appréhendé à travers le concept de référendum illibéral. Ce dernier a pour conséquence de lever l’indétermination et, ce faisant, de rompre l’équilibre sur lequel repose la démocratie libéraleLike the "Schrödinger's cat" experiment, which highlights the paradoxical situation in which a subject is simultaneously in two incompatible states, two statuses of the people coexist within a liberal democracy. On the one hand, the sovereignty of the people is the theoretical basis on which liberal democracy has been shaped. On the other hand, the rule of law, which has developed considerably since the 20th century, imposes certain limits on political power. This presupposes that the people are also subject to them. Such a situation seems paradoxical, since it implies that the people are both sovereign and limited. The thesis is that such coexistence is possible because there is an indeterminacy of the status of the people. In other words, it is to demonstrate that in a liberal democracy, the people are neither sovereign nor limited, but potentially both. Consequently, the incompatibility between the sovereignty of the people and the rule of law remains, but it is kept in abeyance. In this framework, which we shall describe as a dilatory compromise, complex relations made up of tensions and complementarities can develop between democracy and liberalism. However, this indeterminacy has its limits. Indeed, the underlying incompatibility may be revealed when, on the occasion of a referendum, the will expressed by the people appears potentially contrary to the rule of law. Polls that provoke such tensions are at the heart of the demonstration and will be apprehended through the concept of illiberal referendum. The latter has the consequence of removing indeterminacy and, in so doing, of breaking the balance on which liberal democracy rest
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
- …
