Question posed by bardoul on 12/05/2018
Your question has been reformulated, here it is in full: "What about the UN migration pact that Macron is going to sign? Did you talk to these fellow citizens?"
Refers to "global pact for safe, orderly and regular migration", A draft agreement between the member countries of the United Nations on the issue of migration .. Public since July 2018, the text, also called"pact of Marrakech", To be adopted on 10 and 11 December in the Moroccan city Emmanuel Macron should have gone there, but AFP announced today that he was finally delegating"Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs".
"The Global Compact reiterates the sovereign right of States to define their national migration policies and their right to manage migration within their jurisdiction, in accordance with international law", Reads the document, available on the United Nations website, for example, it is necessary to provide all migrants with identity documents to facilitate their control and management of administrations and borders, contrary to what some extreme websites suggest right, the text is not legally binding.
To read also: The far right shakes the specter of the Marrakesh pact
You wonder if Emmanuel Macron can "signThis pact alone, obviously, without going through the parliament or the citizens (referendum).
First clarification: as stated by AFP, there will actually be no signature in the upper part of Marrakech. The text must be thereformally approved without signatureBefore a "resolution provided to the General AssemblyOf the United Nations. What is the nature of this covenant? The UN special representative for migration, the Canadian Louise Arbor, made it clear that the pact was notnot a treaty but a structure"Contacted by is buzzing, the Quai d'Orsay indicates for its part simply that the pact is "approved and not ratified".
"All of this does not mean anything, considers the constitutionalist Didier Maus. In France, the content of a commitment counts and not its form.As stated on the website of the National Assembly, "no differenceIt is made between treaties, agreements or pacts, since according to the jurisprudencethe criterion that an international commitment must or should not be presented to Parliament is material and non-formal"Clearly, it is the content that matters.
No obligation (but the possibility exists)
In this case, it is "evidentIn the eyes of Didier Maus there is no obligation for the executive to report to the parliament on the Marrakesh pact: "It is not binding, there is no institution or other institution.The article 53 of the Constitution lists the treaties that "can be ratified or approved only by law"(Voted by parliament): there are peace treaties, commercial treaties, treaties or agreements related to the international organization, those who commit state finances, those who modify the provisions of nature those relating to the status of persons and those related to the assignment, to the exchange or to the addition of territory, therefore nothing concerns the pact in question, according to Didier Maus.
"There is no obligation and, at the same time, nothing prevents the government from doing so. You can make a statement at the National Assembly, explain why you are in favor of this deal and allow a debate of a few hours, even a vote, he believes in the constitutionalist. The article 50-1 of the constitution allows it to do so. The executive recently used it for a debate on the crisis in yellow jackets. In the current climate, it would be a good solution to respond to criticism. This is a good argument [des opposants au pacte] to say that the parliament takes place outside the debate."
This possibility of a passage in parliament is not however considered by the executive "at this point", Says one to the Quai d'Orsay.
Italy, Belgium or Switzerland: parliaments in the circuit
Some European governments have already decided to postpone their parliaments, usually for political reasons. This is the case, for example, of Italy (whose right-wing right-wing minister is against the text), of Belgium (where the pact led to a crisis in the government) or of Switzerland. , where the National Council (the equivalent of the National Assembly) is currently examining the pact for an application for approval. The Swiss right opposes this, considering that if the text "it is not legally binding, it is politicallyAs detailed of the morning.
"We still have to be wary of the topic "another country has done so, so it must be done in France". The frame can be very different", Says Didier Maus In Germany, for example, it is very difficult for the executive to do anything in terms of international commitments without the prior consent of the parliament, while in France the executive has much more freedom, he explains. .
The hypothesis of submitting the Marrakesh pact to a referendum seems, on the other hand, in particularcomplicated& # 39; "Article 11 of the Constitution provides that the President of the Republic may submit to referendum "any invoice […] to ratify a treaty which, without being contrary to the Constitution, would undermine the functioning of the". This is clearly not the case here. Beyond the political opportunity, a sensitive issue when we speak of a referendum, I do not see how we would bring the covenant in this frame »concludes the constitutional expert.
After Monday's adoption at the Marrakesh Intergovernmental Conference (without a formal vote like this, or a signature), the pact will be approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 19th. If there is no consensus (some countries have already announced their opposition to the text), "the majority is a priori acquired»Indicates the Quai d'Orsay is buzzing.
To read also: Which countries have withdrawn from the "Marrakesh pact" and why?