What is the difference between these two organizations: la Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) et la Cour pénale internationale (CPI), toutes deux basées à La Haye, aux Pays-Bas.
Très bonne question, Louise! 🌍 Ces deux cours ont des noms similaires et partagent le même siège à La Haye, mais leurs rôles sont fondamentalement différents.
⚖️ Cour internationale de justice (CIJ)
Mission principale : Résoudre les différends juridiques entre États.
Organisme : Organe judiciaire principal des Nations Unies.
Compétence : Traite des conflits comme les frontières, les traités, ou les responsabilités internationales.
Parties impliquées : Uniquement des États souverains — pas d’individus.
Création : 1945, avec la Charte des Nations Unies.
⚔️ Cour pénale internationale (CPI)
Mission principale : Juger les individus pour des crimes graves comme :
Génocide
Crimes contre l’humanité
Crimes de guerre
Agression
Organisme : Indépendant des Nations Unies, basé sur le Statut de Rome (1998).
Compétence : Elle poursuit des personnes individuelles, pas des États.
Parties impliquées : Les États qui ont ratifié le Statut de Rome (pas tous les pays l'ont fait).
💡 Résumé express : La CIJ règle des disputes entre pays, tandis que la CPI poursuit des personnes pour des crimes majeurs.
Si tu veux, je peux te donner des exemples concrets de cas célèbres traités par chaque cour — ça les rend encore plus claires!
Oui, merci...
Avec plaisir, Louise! 😊 Voici quelques exemples marquants qui illustrent bien le rôle de chaque cour :
🔹 Cour internationale de justice (CIJ) — Cas célèbre
Affaire du mur en territoire palestinien occupé (2004)
La CIJ a rendu un avis consultatif sur la légalité du mur construit par Israël en Cisjordanie.
Elle a conclu que le mur violait le droit international et devait être démantelé.
Ce n’était pas un procès mais une analyse juridique demandée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies.
🔸 Cour pénale internationale (CPI) — Cas marquant
Procès de Thomas Lubanga (République démocratique du Congo)
Premier procès de la CPI, jugé en 2012.
Lubanga a été reconnu coupable d’avoir enrôlé des enfants soldats dans un conflit armé.
Il a été condamné à 14 ans de prison.
Ce jugement a marqué un tournant historique dans la lutte contre l’impunité des crimes de guerre.
Si tu veux, je peux aussi t'expliquer comment ces cours collaborent (ou pas), ou te parler des critiques que chacune a reçues. Ça te dit ? 🌐🔍
Were the two judgments carried out?
Great follow-up, Louise! Let’s look at how those two landmark decisions played out in real life:
🧱 CIJ 2004 — Mur en territoire palestinien occupé
Type de jugement : Avis consultatif, donc non contraignant.
Résultat : La CIJ a déclaré que le mur construit par Israël violait le droit international et devait être démantelé2.
Mise en œuvre : Israël n’a pas démantelé le mur. L’avis a eu un impact diplomatique et symbolique, mais pas d’effet juridique direct. Des ONG ont tenté d’utiliser l’avis pour faire pression sur des gouvernements, mais sans succès judiciaire.
⚖️ CPI 2012 — Procès de Thomas Lubanga
Type de jugement : Condamnation pénale contraignante.
Résultat : Lubanga a été condamné à 14 ans de prison pour avoir enrôlé des enfants soldats5.
Mise en œuvre : Il a effectivement purgé sa peine à La Haye. Les 6 années passées en détention préventive ont été déduites, donc il a servi environ 8 années supplémentaires.
💡 En résumé :
La CIJ donne des avis juridiques aux États, mais ne peut pas les forcer à agir.
La CPI juge des individus, et ses décisions sont exécutées comme dans un système pénal classique.
Si tu veux, je peux te montrer comment ces décisions ont influencé le droit international ou les débats politiques. Tu veux creuser ça ? 🌐📚
August 1 looms for many of the USA's trade partners, including Canada, when large tariffs threaten
if an agreement has not been reached. This morning, an interesting insight into what the EU could
do.
In effect, European lawmakers have not been idle on the trade relationship front. Passed in 2023,
the EUpossesses an Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), meant to respond to excessive demands from
trade partners:
"Those responses — whose aim is "always to induce the cessation of the coercion" can go beyond retaliatory counter-tariffs, with the instrument also allowing for import and export restrictions on goods and services, but also on intellectual property rights and foreign direct investment.
Additionally, the anti-coercion measures allow the EU to impose various restrictions on access to the EU market, notably to public procurement, as well as the ability of U.S. suppliers to sell food and chemicals in the bloc.
Use of the instrument could also lead to measures affecting services in which the U.S. has a trade surplus with the EU, according to Reuters, including those from digital services providers Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix or Uber.
The European Commission notes that the EU's response measures must be "proportionate to the harm they counter, and must be targeted and temporary," applying as long as the perceived coercion prevails."
Below, a translation by Perplexity AI of a piece on the governing style of Mark Carney,
from MSN...
Here is an English translation of the article titled:
Mark Carney, the Shadow at the Summit: The Art of Quiet Power By Jacques Pj Provost
Introduction: A Prime Minister More Sought Than Seen
The Surprising Silence of a Head of State In today's hyper-mediated political arena, it’s almost unreal to see a prime minister opt for obscurity, meticulous discretion—and yet, Mark Carney is the living exception. Rarely in the spotlight, he shuns attention as others chase controversy. His daily rhythm: brief, calculated statements, skillfully avoiding the media whirlwind with a strategy-like finesse. Even when announcing matters of national importance, his public appearances remain minimal, almost fleeting—barely a ripple in the anxiety-filled flood of continuous news.
Media Exposure by the Drop One might think that Mark Carney has institutionalized the art of discretion: grandiose press conferences are rare, in-depth TV debates even rarer. He focuses on the essentials, stepping aside once the message is delivered, letting his teams or ministers explain the rest. This minimalism surprises—and sometimes unsettles—a public used to omnipresent leaders quick to offer opinions on everything—and nothing. Within that restraint lies discipline, or perhaps a sharp mistrust of the superficiality of modern media flow.
The Tactic of Intentional Invisibility Some say Carney dislikes the spotlight; others see in his discretion a tried-and-true tactic, inherited from his years in finance, where every word has weight—sometimes too much. Here, each announcement seems weighed like gold dust: the essentials are said, without flourish, quickly, precisely, and then—exit stage left. This style stands in sharp contrast with other heads of state: no theatrics, no grandstanding—just precision and conciseness—almost to the point of coldness. For Carney, political spectacle has no place.
Subtle Imprint on Politics
Important Decisions, Fleeting Announcements Despite staying away from the limelight, Carney makes impactful decisions—economic reforms, key diplomatic choices, public budget guidelines—but always cloaked in an aversion to fanfare. Often, his decisions come to light through dry releases, quietly published documents, or post hoc analysis by sharp observers. His style doesn’t erase substance—it simply avoids the performance. It leaves journalists, citizens, silent clue-hunters, to reconstruct a leadership that waves no flag, swings no hammer, yet still shapes reality.
When Silence Becomes a Management Style His staff report that Carney practices extreme delegation: he sets a direction, then disappears from radar, allowing others to implement, adjust, shape the story. That strict absence is not a weakness but a signature: calm steadies the public, talents rise to the fore, while the top office handles synthesis and validation—never noise. It's a curious kind of modernity: a power revealed only in homeopathic doses.
The Paradox of Invisible Stability One side effect of this approach: apparent stability. No scandals, no slip-ups, no verbal blunders needing damage control. Politics under Carney can feel like a still lake—calm on the surface, even as strong currents shape the banks from below. For many, this is peak efficiency; for others, a frustrating “low-profile” democracy, missing emotional resonance or a unifying narrative.
The Media Relationship: Calculated Distance
Minimalist, Laser-Sharp Communication Every public statement by Carney is treated like a surgical strike: few words, no overspill, just what's necessary. Government communication in his era favors written formats, technical briefs, anonymized Q&As over flashy press events. He frames media interaction as necessity—not camaraderie—cutting short the endless loops of commentary. Some see this as veiled contempt; others call it a noble attempt to elevate the national conversation above the din.
Rare Long-Form Appearances, Always Controlled When Carney grants a long interview or appears in a documentary, the scene is micromanaged: no off-topic moments, no adversarial debates, zero improvisation. The interviewer faces a leader who calmly lays out his logic and ends the exchange before controversy can take root. Even his live social media appearances are short on spontaneity—tightly framed and polygonal.
Absent or Admired? It’s a paradox: a growing portion of the public wishes their leader would speak out during every crisis, every national moment. Critics decry his coldness, calling him an “on-and-off” head of state meant to embody, not vanish. Others, however, praise his focus and seriousness—they want results, not rhetoric. The space left open in political advertising is filled instead by opponents and secondary figures.
The Strategy of Rarity: Effects and Risks
Stability or Stagnation? By speaking modestly and infrequently, Carney brings sustained calm. Markets, leaders, even opposition parties agree the political environment is more predictable, less prone to the noise and chaos affecting other Western democracies. But there’s a tradeoff: the public, at times, is concerned by the lack of emotional leadership, of a shared national story. Politics becomes a string of technical orders, divorced from the narrative that binds a nation.
The Art of Lasting Without Wearing Out Another benefit of his deliberate discretion is political longevity. The media wear-and-tear that shortens so many careers seems not to touch Carney. When he does speak, it never feels repetitive. The lack of visibility builds a certain anticipation—and sometimes, greater effectiveness. But there’s a trap in scarcity: too little presence may lead to indifference, misunderstanding, or loss of civic oxygen.
The Anti-Populist Answer In a world swamped with loud, omnipresent populist leaders, Carney is the perfect foil: no reactive tweeting, no daily broadcast overload, no quick-and-dirty storytelling. This stance—chosen or imposed—gives his leadership a unique contrast: it intrigues through absence, sometimes annoys a public hooked on overexposure. Yet paradoxically, it restores some dignity to political silence, to the long pace of thoughtful governance.
Invisible Governance: Leadership Through Consensus
Empowering Teams, Avoiding the Cult of Personality Carney builds strong teams: independent ministers, accountable agencies, a government where civil service is more visible than the leader himself. Decisions are deliberately diluted through working groups and independent commissions. He resists personalization, giving priority to “we,” not “I.” Even when he makes the final decision, he avoids public credit. Collective virtue replaces individual glory.
Listening and Consultation Over Proclamation His method is based on listening: before any reform, insiders say he consults widely, gathers data, weighs opposing views. Fewer announcements, more internal debate. The result is public policy shaped by compromise, thoughtfully drafted, rarely improvised. This studious pace struggles to keep up with today’s urgency—but produces durable outcomes.
Less Slogan, More Quiet Repair Where other leaders lean on dramatic soundbites, Carney prefers slow, under-publicized repair of social and economic fabrics. He favors patient persuasion over noisy conquest; discreet implementation over performative gestures. Many don’t understand—and he uses that. When public opinion spits fire, he lets the storm pass, and calmly retakes control, with minimal explanation.
Public Perception: Absent Leader or Silent Strategist?
A Country Growing Used to Rarity Polls show a population increasingly divided: many admire Carney’s restraint and discipline, appreciating the absence of ego-driven drama. But some long for a stronger personal presence. Across France, Canada, Italy, and Spain, democracies watch this phenomenon with intrigue and skepticism. Can it last?
Silence Breeds Rumor But silence has its dangers: a visibly absent leader invites “white noise”—social media speculation, media suspicion. When the prime minister says nothing during a crisis, rumor fills the gap, exaggerating missteps or imagining motives behind routine. The people worry when key moments pass without voice or gesture. Some mistake his reserve for malfunction.
A Cultural Shift in Politics In the background, Carney’s posture begins to forge a politics of self-effacement. We talk less about individuals, more about decisions—less figurehead, more infrastructure. It’s a quiet revolution. Traditionalists may bristle—but it could reeducate society toward reflection and collective caution. People rarely like silence—but it’s often what earns long-term respect.
Conclusion: Quiet Grandeur or Presence Deficit?
The Triumph of the Subtle Gesture Mark Carney embodies the kind of leader we wait for, who never hogs the stage for more than a few minutes. His trademark: calm, rigor, effective minimalism. He is not a storyteller, nor an agent of rupture—but of controlled tempo. Perhaps too much, perhaps just enough.
The Challenge of Leading from the Shadows The massive question remains: Can one lead a nation, in an era of relentless transparency and nonstop live-feed, through chosen anonymity? Can we recognize substance where there's no show? Admire precision as much as panache? No one knows. But tomorrow’s politics will also need to accommodate such hollowed-out figures, inhabited silences—leaders we forget to listen to…
Copilot:
What can you tell me about the author Jacques Provost...
Jacques PJ Provost is a versatile and prolific writer whose work spans political commentary, adventure journalism, and extreme sports storytelling. 🏔️✍️
🧠 Academic & Political Insight
He teaches political science at the Cégep Édouard-Montpetit in Quebec and has been doing so since 1989.
Passionate about media and political information, he’s known for creating innovative educational experiences—like student study trips to Belgium, Switzerland, and even Canada’s intelligence services.
He’s also produced international-themed TV shows with graduating students, blending pedagogy with real-world engagement.
🏂 Adventure & Sports Journalism
As a contributor to 33mag, he’s written extensively on freeride skiing, motocross, BMX, hang gliding, and skyrunning.
His articles often highlight the physical and emotional intensity of these sports, celebrating athletes like Justine Dufour-Lapointe and Frédéric Dion.
🧭 Writing Style
Whether profiling public figures like Mark Carney or chronicling high-altitude expeditions, Provost’s tone is often reflective, precise, and rich in metaphor.
He’s especially drawn to themes of discretion, strategy, and authenticity, as seen in his recent piece on Carney’s understated leadership.
Would you like a deeper dive into one of his articles or perhaps a summary of his work on political education?
