Exemples de présentation pour l’oral d’anglais du CRFPA, commentés phrase par phrase

Introduction

Good morning. The subject I have drawn is parliamentary sovereignty. In 1885, the jurist Albert Venn Dicey defined it in words that every British law student knows: Parliament has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever", and no person or body may override or set aside its legislation. In a country without a written constitution, this doctrine has long been the cornerstone of the legal order. The question I would like to address is whether it still describes the British constitution accurately. I will first present the traditional doctrine, and then examine three developments that have qualified it: European Union membership, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the growing role of the courts.

Partie I : la doctrine classique

Let me start with the classic doctrine. According to Dicey, sovereignty has two sides. On the positive side, Parliament can legislate on any subject. On the negative side, no court can declare an Act of Parliament invalid. A corollary is that Parliament cannot bind its successors: a later Act prevails over an earlier one, which is known as implied repeal. This explains why the United Kingdom has no constitutional court comparable to the French Conseil constitutionnel. The doctrine rests on democratic legitimacy: the House of Commons is elected, and the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 confirmed that it has the last word over the House of Lords.

Partie II, A : l’Europe

However, the doctrine has been put under pressure. The first challenge came from Europe. When the UK joined the European Communities in 1973, under the European Communities Act 1972, it accepted the primacy of Community law. In the Factortame litigation, the House of Lords went as far as disapplying provisions of an Act of Parliament, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, because they conflicted with Community law. For a British court, this was a revolution. Brexit has removed this limit: the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 abolished the supremacy of EU law in the UK from 1 January 2024.

Partie II, B : le Human Rights Act

The second development is the Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force in October 2000. The Act was carefully designed to preserve sovereignty. Under section 3, courts must interpret legislation compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights "so far as it is possible to do so". If that is not possible, a higher court may make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4. But this declaration does not affect the validity of the Act: it is for Parliament to decide whether to change the law. In the Belmarsh case in 2004, the House of Lords declared the indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects incompatible with the Convention, and Parliament replaced the scheme the following year.

Partie II, C : les juges

Finally, the courts themselves have become more assertive. Since 2009, the UK has had a Supreme Court, separate from the House of Lords. In the first Miller case, in 2017, it held that the government could not trigger Article 50 using the royal prerogative alone: an Act of Parliament was required. In 2019, it ruled unanimously that the prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. Paradoxically, in both cases the judges were protecting parliamentary sovereignty against the executive, not limiting it.

Conclusion

To conclude, parliamentary sovereignty is still the formal rule of the British constitution: no court can strike down an Act of Parliament. In practice, however, it now coexists with human rights review, devolution and a stronger Supreme Court. Compared with France, where the Conseil constitutionnel can strike down a statute before or after it comes into force, the British model relies on political rather than judicial checks. One may wonder whether this model would hold against a government determined to use its majority without restraint. Thank you.

Introduction

Good morning. My subject is the US Supreme Court and judicial review. Few courts in the world have as much influence on daily life: in the last few years alone, the Supreme Court has ruled on abortion, gun rights and presidential immunity. Yet the power that makes this possible, judicial review, is not written in the Constitution. I would like to explain where this power comes from, and why it gives the Court such a central and controversial role in American political life. First, I will present the Court and the origins of judicial review. Second, I will show how the Court has used this power, and the criticism it faces today.

Partie I, A : la Cour

The Supreme Court is created by Article III of the Constitution, which vests "the judicial power of the United States" in "one supreme Court". It has nine Justices, a number fixed by Congress since 1869. They are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and they hold office "during good behaviour", which in practice means for life. The Court also chooses its cases: it receives thousands of petitions every year and agrees to hear only a small fraction of them.

Partie I, B : Marbury v. Madison

Judicial review, the power to set aside a law that violates the Constitution, was established by the Court itself in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that the Constitution is the supreme law, that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is", and that a statute contrary to the Constitution cannot be applied. Since then, any American court can refuse to apply an unconstitutional law, but the Supreme Court has the final word.

Partie II, A : les grandes décisions

This power has produced some of the most important decisions in American history. In Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954, the Court held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, overruling Plessy v. Ferguson. In Obergefell v. Hodges, in 2015, it recognised a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But judicial review can also move in the other direction. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, in 2022, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and returned the regulation of abortion to the states. And in 2024, in Loper Bright, it put an end to the Chevron doctrine, under which judges had deferred to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous statutes for forty years.

Partie II, B : les critiques

This explains why the Court is so often criticised. Because Justices are appointed for life, each vacancy becomes a major political battle, and the composition of the Court can shape the law for a generation. Scholars speak of the "counter-majoritarian difficulty": nine unelected judges can overturn the choices of elected representatives. Reform proposals, such as term limits or adding seats to the Court, come back regularly, but none has been adopted. Franklin Roosevelt's plan to enlarge the Court in 1937 failed.

Conclusion

To conclude, judicial review has turned the Supreme Court into a full player in American democracy, both a guardian of rights and a source of political conflict. The French model is very different: the nine members of the Conseil constitutionnel are appointed for a single nine-year term, and since 2010 the QPC procedure allows it to review a statute already in force. In my view, the real question is whether life tenure is still compatible with the Court's legitimacy. Thank you.

Présenter le texte

The text I have been given deals with the first climate change judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, delivered by the Grand Chamber on 9 April 2024. It explains that an association of older Swiss women complained that the State was not doing enough to protect them from heatwaves, and that the Court partly agreed with them.

Dégager l’enjeu

The main idea is that climate change is no longer only a political issue: it has become a human rights issue that judges can review. The legal question behind the text is whether a State can violate the Convention by failing to act against global warming, and who is entitled to bring such a claim.

Partie I : ce que dit la Cour

First, the Court answered the substantive question. It interpreted Article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, as including a right to effective protection from the serious effects of climate change. Switzerland was found in breach because its climate policy had gaps, in particular the lack of a carbon budget. This is a good example of the "living instrument" approach: the Convention, signed in 1950, is read in the light of present-day conditions.

Partie II : qui peut agir

Second, the text shows that the Court was careful to limit access. The four individual women were not recognised as victims, because they were not affected with sufficient intensity. Only the association was allowed to bring the claim. On the same day, the case brought against France by the former mayor of Grande-Synthe was declared inadmissible. In other words, the Court opened the door to climate litigation, but only to collective actions.

Avis personnel et comparaison

In my opinion, this judgment is legitimate but fragile. It is legitimate because the effects of global warming on health are well documented, and the Court did not tell Switzerland which measures to adopt. It is fragile because it fuels the criticism of a court accused of going beyond its role, as the reaction in Switzerland shows. In France, the administrative courts had already gone in the same direction: the Conseil d'État ordered the government to take additional measures in the Grande-Synthe case in 2021, and the Paris Administrative Court recognised the State's responsibility in the "Affaire du siècle" the same year. Thank you.