from to
See also:

Seminar in the form of a colloquium.

The principle of responsibility will necessarily occupy a central place in the recomposition of the international legal order in the 21st century. Not only because the obligation to answer for one's actions is an inherent value of any organized community, but also because this obligation is all the greater the more interdependent the members of this community are. These interdependencies are increasingly strong and visible on a global scale, whether between individuals, between countries, or between humanity and the biosphere. Whether we're talking about climate change, work and health, international trade, financial markets or the activities of transnational corporations, the change in scale of the impact of human activities on the planet and on societies leads to a change in the scale and nature of responsibility.

The current inability of the international community to contain climate change, despite the threats it poses to entire countries, is a perfect illustration of the gap that has opened up between the scale of global interdependence and the state of international law. The principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" set out at the conclusion of the 1992 Earth Summit is undoubtedly necessary in view of the diversity of national contexts, but in practice it has led to widespread irresponsibility. States have pledged to adopt a new roadmap, in the face of climate change, at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to be held in Paris at the end of 2015 at the invitation of the French government. This could be an opportunity to bring about a significant advance in international liability law.

The same applies to healthcare, where there are obvious shortcomings, with the market reserving access to over 90% of medicines for just one-quarter of the population. Hence the debate, from the WTO to the WHO, on patents and compulsory licenses. This debate is continuing in the context of the post-2015 Development Agenda, with a consultation on health. While the WHO and other participants in this debate limit themselves to supporting universal health coverage, at the risk of favoring market interests, Brazil proposes the more ambitious formula of equitable and comprehensive coverage that characterizes its "Single Health System" (SUS).

At the same time, the implosion of the financial markets in 2008, far from leading to the adoption of common rules that would make market operators accountable for the risks they take, has resulted in a transfer of these risks to governments and populations. This financial crisis has also shown the damaging effects of financial market deregulation and the abandonment, by the new international accounting standards adopted at the end of the 20th century, of the principle of prudence in favor of that offair value.

Program