341 Voir C.I.J., Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies, avis consultatif du 11 avril
1949, C.I.J. Recueil 1949, not.pp.174-188 et C.I.J., Licéité de la menace ou de l’emploi d’armes
nucléaires, avis consultatif du 8 juillet 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996, p.78.
342 ALLAND, (D.), Droit international…, précité, p.200. Toute introduction d’une dimension territoriale
du pouvoir d’une organisation internationale perturbe la théorie habituelle de leur statut juridique : un bon exemple des difficultés théoriques posées est ce passage – très confus – dans lequel Schmitt tente de donner une explication du régime des mandats dans le cadre de la S.D.N. : voir SCHMITT, (C.), Théorie
de la Constitution (1989), Paris, PUF 2008 (traduit de l’allemand par L.Deroche), p.532 : Schmitt oppose
la S.D.N. à une fédération pour démontrer qu’il n’est pas possible de considérer les territoires sous mandat comme des territoires de la S.D.N..
343 Cité par BROWN, (E.S.), The Constitutional History…, précité, p.18 : « The idea is that for the
common advantage of having great, fixed, and natural boundaries between the territory of France and the United Stats, and to secure to the latter, the full and unimpeded navigation of, maritime & commercial rights important, and naturally appurtenance to a country bordering on navigable rivers, in the neighborhood of a sea coast, and from the interior of which country, navigable rivers empty themselves into a neighboring sea, France agrees to extend the boundaries of the Mississippi Territory, and of the State of Georgia (…). By this indirect mode, if it is feasible, would not the General Governement avoid some constitutional, and some political embarrassments, which a direct acquisition of a foreign territory by the Governement of the United States might occasion ? ».
344 Cf. infra, Chapitre 2, Section 1.
345 Cité par id., p.20 : « It is not necessary to point out the obvious weakness in Lincoln’s plan. The best
possible reply is that of Gallatin, to whom Jefferson submitted Lincoln’s letter. Gallatin laid down a clear statement of broad construction of the Constitution. He could see no difference ‘’between a power to acquire territory for the United States and the power to extend by treaty the territory of the United States’’. Annexation of new territory to a state was no more acceptable than the plan to extend the boundaries. If the Legislature and Executive could not acquire territory under the Constitution for the use of the Union, certainly, contended Gallatin, they could not acquire it for the use of one state ».
que soit obtenu le consentement des « partenaires » de l’Union
346: sans cette restriction,
c’est la nature de l’Union qui change, et les Pères fondateurs n’auraient pu imaginer
conférer au gouvernement fédéral un tel pouvoir car il est, « par sa nature », « dangereux
pour la liberté », et « susceptible de mener à la dissolution de l’Union ». En effet,
poursuit Story, l’auteur de ces lignes, si le Congrès avait ce pouvoir, « il pourrait unir le
propre territoire [des États-Unis] à celui d’une Nation étrangère, quelle que soit sa
situation, sa population, et sa puissance » ; si le gouvernement fédéral pouvait
« admettre un État étranger dans l’Union », alors la « balance établie par la constitution
serait détruite » et les « États originaires pourraient devenir insignifiants »
347.
J.Q.Adams lui, fit valoir qu’admettre ce pouvoir, ce serait donner force obligatoire, au
sein de l’Union à « des lois espagnoles ou françaises », jugées « incompatibles » avec
« l’esprit » et le « caractère » de l’Union américaine
348.
346 Intervention de Mr Thatcher, « On the Louisiana Treaty, Oct.25, 1803 », Ann. Cong. (House of
Representatives), 8th Cong. 1st Sess., p.454 : « The Confederation under which we now live is a
partnership of States, and it is not competent to it to admit a new partner but with the consent of all the partners. If such a power exist, it does not reside in the President and Senate ». Voir aussi l’opinion de Pickering, citée par ADAMS, (H.), History of the United States during the Administrations of Thomas
Jefferson (1889), New York, Literary Classics of the United States 1986, p.373 : « I believe the assent of
each individual State to be necessary for the admission of a foreign country as an associate in the Union, in like manner as in a commercial house the consent of each member would be necessary to admit a new partner into the company ».
347 STORY, (J.), Commentaries…, précité, vol.3, p.157 : « There is no pretence, that the purchase, or
cession of any foreign territory is within any of the powers expressly enumerated in the constitution. It is no where in that instrument said, that congress, or any other department of the national government, shall have a right to purchase, or accept of any cession of foreign territory. The power itself (it has been said) could scarcely have been in the contemplation of the framers of it. It is, in its own nature, as dangerous to liberty, as susceptible of abuse in its actual application, and as likely as any, which could be imagined, to lead to a dissolution of the Union. If congress has the power, it may unite any foreign territory whatsoever to our own however distant, however populous, and however powerful. Under the form of a cession, we may become united to a more powerful neighbour or rival ; and be involved in European, or other foreign interests, and contests, to an interminable extent. And if there may be a stipulation for the admission of foreign states into the Union, the whole balance of the constitution may be destroyed, and the old states sunk into utter insignificance. It is incredible, that it should have been contemplated, that any such overwhelming authority should be confided to the national government with the consent of the people of the old states. If it exists at all, it is unforessen, and the result of a sovereignty, intended to be limited, and yet not sufficiently guarded ». Sur l’argument de la « balance du pouvoir », avancé par les Républicains des États de Nouvelle Angleterre – qui craignaient que l’achat de la Louisiane ne favorise le « Sud » au profit du « Nord », voir FARNHAM, (T.J.), « The Federal-State Issue and the Louisiana Purchase », précité, pp.5-25.
348 ADAMS, (J.Q.), « The Department of State – First term » in ADAMS, (C.F.), (ed.), Memoirs of John
Quincy Adams, Philadelphia, J.B.Lippincott & Co. 1875, vol.5, p.401 : « It made a Union totally
different from that for which the Constitution had been formed. It gives despotic powers over the territories purchased. It naturalizes foreign Nations in a mass. It makes French and Spanish laws a part of the laws of the Union. It introduces whole systems of legislation abhorrent to the spirit and character of our institutions, and all this done by an Administration which came in blowing a trumpet against implied powers. After this, to nibble at a bank, a road, a canal, the mere mint and cummin of the law, was but glorious inconsistency » Voir contra la remarque du Père de J.Q.Adams, John Adams : ADAMS, (J.), « Letter to Josiah Quincy Adams, February 9, 1811 », in ADAMS, (C.F.), (ed.), The Works of John
Thibaut FLEURY | Thèse de Doctorat | Juin 2011 Partie 1 – Construction des conditions d’acquisition du titre