Manual Le territoire humain (French Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Le territoire humain (French Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Le territoire humain (French Edition) book. Happy reading Le territoire humain (French Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Le territoire humain (French Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Le territoire humain (French Edition) Pocket Guide.

Coleman trans. Great Narratives of the Past. Bauer D forthcoming Cromedeyre tout entier est une seule maison. In: Moran C ed. Bloomsbury : London forthcoming.

  • Collection Terre humaine — Wikipédia.
  • Silver Jewelry Making: An Easy & Complete Step by Step Guide (Ultimate How To Guides).
  • Communauté scolaire?
  • Somatosensory Rehabilitation Network!
  • Rising to the Surface.
  • Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir?

Bauer D Beyond the Frame. Case Studies. Academic and Scientific Publishers : Brussels, Belgium. Folklore ; 39 — : 5— In: Hopkin D and Baycroft T eds. Brill : Leiden-Boston, pp — Delon M Le boudoir Balzacien. Zulma : Paris, France. Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique : Paris, France. Les choses. Romanticism and Visual Culture, Palgrave: New York. Territoires-Carrefours et personnages mobiles. In: Dufour Ph and Mozet N ed. Christian Pirot : Paris, France, pp — Fritzsche P Stranded in the Present. Modern Time and the Melancholy of History. Harvard University Press : Cambridge and London.

Eneida : Madrid, Spain. Odile Jacob : Paris, France. Haag S Meisterwerke der Kunstkammer Wien. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien : Vienna, Austria. Suhrkamp Verlag : Frankfurt am Main, German. Kranz I Medium and Genre. Imprimerie Jouve : Arles. Gallimard : Paris, France. Meisel M Realizations. In: Dufour Ph and Mozet N eds. RMS: Paris: — Oettermann S Das Panorama.

Edit your profile

Die Geschichte eines Massenmediums. Syndikat : Frankfurt-am-Main, German. Le boudoir comme laboratoire. In: Gautier J-J ed. Seuil : Paris, France, pp 5— In: Lestringant F ed. Zur literarischen Inszenierung des Zeit-Raums bei Balzac. In: Hertrampf M and Schmelzer D ed. Download references. Correspondence to Dominique Bauer. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4. Article metrics. Advanced search. Skip to main content. Subjects History Literature. Abstract This article focuses on how Balzacian interiors and their dwellers signal a new experience and understanding of the past and the present that emerged during the Revolution and its aftermath.

Balzacian interior spaces. A modern sense of historicity. Absence and hybrid dwellers. The past made present in ecstatic imagination. The antique shop in La Peau de chagrin In La Peau de chagrin , the desperate Raphael de Valentin, who is on his way to commit suicide after losing what remains of his savings in a gambling house, somewhat by accident ends up in a peculiar antique shop.

Conclusion In Le cabinet des antiques, dealing with a social class that belonged to the past, the present in representation is revealed to be a fundamental absence. Data availability Data sharing is not applicable to this article. Notes 1. On time immemorial and the representation of culture with Mistral, see also: Bauer: forthcoming. For a historical overview of this development, see Bauer, Change history 11 May The paper previously contained errors within the main text.

Concerning age determination procedures, a law—adopted shortly after the CRC issued its recommendation on this issue—restricts the use of x-rays and forbids sexual maturity observations to determine the age of people who say they are under the age of The September immigration and asylum bill includes an amendment to CESEDA Article L on the need to take into consideration the situation of vulnerability and any handicap when placing people in detention.

In , eight percent of immigration detainees in mainland France were women.

While French and EU law provide EU citizens residence rights in all member states, they can still be subject to detention and deportation measures in France. This prohibition has far reaching consequences: in principle it applies to the entire Schengen territory so that EU citizens removed from France might effectively be barred from residing in other EU states.

In , 1, EU citizens 4. Interior Ministry circulars in October and November prioritised the removal of third country nationals and, in particular, foreigners who threaten public order or who recently completed a prison sentence. Foreigners have often experienced renewed deprivation of liberty as a double penalty double peine , especially after living in France for decades see section 3. It can be very difficult for prisoners to challenge expulsion decisions—largely due to the fact that they have just 48 hours to challenge expulsion orders upon termination of their prison sentence.

Reports also indicate that orders can be served just before weekends in an express manner and in a language not understood by prisoners. Unlike at immigration detention centres, NGOs are not present in prisons to provide legal advice, and prisoners often do not have sufficient time to request legal assistance. This generates an uneven access to procedural safeguards. In , in Palaiseau , a detention centre close to the large Fleury-Merogis prison, The legal maximum length for detention of irregular immigrants awaiting deportation was doubled to 90 days in September as per CESEDA Article L effective as of 1 January Immigration detainees spent an average of During , only a tiny fraction less than five percent of all detainees were held for the entire legal limit at that time, 45 days.

Observers contend that given this context, there was little reason to raise the legal detention. The draft law elicited amendments. The draft was heavily criticised by NGOs, lawyers, parliamentarians, and national human rights institutions. With the introduction of the Law on the Rights of Foreigners, jurisdictional control of detention was placed under the authority of the Judge of Liberty and Detention JLD who could decide on the prolongation of detention prior to deportation within hours of detention.

The judge can also order this first extension if removal cannot be executed because of delays in delivery of travel documents by a consulate or the lack of means of transport. Additional extensions can be ordered in certain cases, including if a non-citizen deliberately obstructs return or has filed an asylum request to prevent the expulsion.

Navigation menu

However, once the day limit is reached any non-citizen who has not been removed must be released. The seven-day waiting period can be waived if the foreigner had previously been placed in detention for non-respect of conditions when placed in an alternative measure to detention. The Global Detention Project has found few similarly explicit re-detention provisions in other countries. Detainees are also informed of their rights—including the right to apply for asylum—while in detention [] in a language they can understand and in a timely manner, as well as information regarding the reason for their detention and why their removal order cannot be implemented immediately.

This is partly because police officers operating inside the centres are insufficiently trained, and they instead tend to adopt an excessively security-oriented approach to their work. Detention decisions can be challenged before administrative courts within 48 hours, and an appeal has a suspensive effect. In , however, the CGLPL received complaints about detainees being deported from metropolitan France before their hour appeal period had expired or before a judge had ruled on their suspensive appeal. The Controller-General also observed that the right to appeal appeared ineffective in French overseas territories see section 2.

NGOs assist detainees in exercising their rights during detention procedures—from their hearing in front of a judge to their appeals in front of the JLD or administrative court see section 2. For many, especially those held near airports, videoconferences inside detention centres are often used for appeals in lieu of physical attendance before administrative courts—the purpose of which is supposedly to expedite appeal processes. However, following an Interior Ministry circular on 20 November that prioritised removals of foreigners who threaten public order or who have completed a prison sentence, as well as third country nationals, [] NGOs, lawyers, and magistrates Syndicat des avocats de France, Syndicat de la magistrature issued a joint statement denouncing the growing reliance upon videoconferences as it reportedly violates the legal requisite that courts should be open to the public.

The signatories also argued that a CRA is not a court, that the videoconference system offers no guarantee for fair trial, and that it severely prejudices right to defence. The CGLPL has also described issues of under-staffing at times of peak activity—for example, at the end of when large numbers were apprehended in Calais. Ministers of the interior, justice, defence, and social affairs are jointly responsible for establishing detention centres.

Ministerial decrees indicate which CRAs can accommodate families. Both forms of facility are under the responsibility of the territorially competent prefects , except in Paris where the prefect of police is responsible. The management of detention facilities, however, is under the authority of the national police see section 3. The administrative authorities may place a non-citizen under house arrest until: they are able to leave the territory; a transfer to another EU country or an expulsion from the EU under Schengen regulations is arranged; a transfer to another EU country under Dublin regulations is arranged; or the individual is removed as a result of an administrative or penal re-entry ban.

This type of house arrest can be ordered for six months. It can be renewed once—or, when the person is issued a re-entry ban or a circulation ban on the territory, several times—as long as the transfer, removal, or expulsion orders remain enforceable. Furthermore, in cases where a non-citizen cannot immediately leave the territory, but there is a reasonable prospect of removal, CESEDA Article L provides for house arrest for 45 days.

This can also be renewed once—or, when an EU member state asks for transfer under Dublin regulations, up to three times. This measure has been encouraged for families since the Circular on the implementation of alternatives to the detention of families. According to reports to the Senate, the use of house arrest as an alternative to detention is gradually increasing. This rose to 1, in , 2, in , and 4, out of 46, detainees in During the first half of , prefects ordered 4, house arrests: a 74 percent increase from the same period in French law does not impose an obligation to justify the impossibility of alternative measures before deciding to detain non-citizens.

Instead, the decision is left to the discretion of the administration. The judge must give a ruling within 96 hours. NGOs and the French Senate have raised some concerns with regard to the lack of access to legal and social support for people placed under house arrest upon release from immigration detention after the 45 days legal limit.

In , eight percent of expulsions 1, people were carried out through DPARs. According to French authorities, DPARs are open facilities and non-citizens housed in them are free to leave.

No detention centre mapping data

In practice, however, entry is prohibited for civil society organisations and outside visitors. The families had been led to believe that they were being placed in an emergency shelter for the homeless. However, the adults found themselves under a form of house arrest for 45 days, which was renewed once, and had to report to the police station twice a week. Civil society groups claimed that the families had been blackmailed into accepting placement in these facilities. Standards for detention centres include capping maximum capacity at ; ensuring that each detainee has a minimum 10m 2 of usable floor space including bedroom and common space accessible during working hours heures ouvrables ; ensuring that gender segregated collective bedrooms do not exceed six people per room; providing all detainees with free access to sanitation facilities one for 10 people and a telephone one for 50 people ; allocating space for visits from lawyers and medical staff, as well as allocating premises for the NGO operating in the centre; and providing common space, including outdoor space, for recreation.

Detention centres that are likely to receive families must also include specially designed rooms. This was first pioneered in by La Cimade who commenced operation in multiple centres. In , the government permitted other NGOs to operate in detention facilities. This was a bid to try and reduce NGO presence to a mere information mandate and the draft ministerial decree initially threatened to impose financial sanctions on NGOs who communicated externally about what was going on in the centres. These NGOs are present in the facilities for five to six days a week, and an agreement with the Interior Ministry permits them to remain for five years renewable for the same period of time.

Accredited NGOs may nominate a maximum of five national and local representatives for each detention centre. CRA authorities must be informed at least 24 hours in advance and LRAs must be notified at least 12 hours in advance. They can also meet with detainees in a confidential manner. France ratified the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture in However, the CPT does not provide information on the facilities it will visit. France is also party to all core international human rights treaties, excluding the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant Workers.

United Nations independent treaty monitoring bodies—including the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination , [] the Human Rights Committee , [] the Committee on Enforced Disappearances [] and the Committee on the Rights of the Child —have therefore visited detention centres among other sites and presented multiple recommendations to France in relation to its detention policies and practices. Irregular entry is punishable by a prison sentence of up to one-year and a 3, EUR fine. Non-citizens who remain irregularly on the territory after an expulsion order, or an administrative or judiciary interdiction from the territory, can also be sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a 3, EUR fine in-line with Article L Those who attempt to breach a re-entry ban may be sentenced to up to three years in prison Article L Meanwhile, those who fail to respect the requirements of electronic monitoring linked to an interdiction from the territory for acts of terrorism as provided in Title II of Book IV of the Penal Code are liable to a one-year prison sentence according to Article L CESEDA Article L also allows the administrative authorities to order a non-citizen to be placed under mobile electronic surveillance if they are sentenced to a prohibition of the territory for acts of terrorism, or if a deportation order has been pronounced against them for a behaviour related to terrorist activities.

This measure requires the non-citizen to consent, and may last for a period of three months extendable for a maximum of two years. According to official information, this has never been used. If a ban is ordered, it may be carried out immediately after the non-citizen has served their prison sentence. See section 2. The administrative authorities should adapt the length of the ban, depending on the length of presence on the territory and the nature and length of links with France CESEDA Article L Under certain conditions, re-entry bans can last up to ten years Article L Non-citizens in an irregular situation ordered to leave the territory, or unauthorised non-citizens apprehended at a border with a Schengen state, can be fingerprinted under CESEDA Article L Refusal to do so is punished by a 3, EUR fine and, following the adoption of the immigration bill, a ban of up to three years.

Private contractors provide food, laundry, and general maintenance at detention facilities in mainland France and French overseas territories. The management and security of facilities is, however, overseen by governmental entities throughout mainland France and overseas territories. The French draft budget law loi de finances for provides disaggregated data for detention. It earmarks This covers catering, laundry, preventative maintenance and repairs, and fire safety as well as 3. The budget also includes Delivery of medical care in CRAs amounts to A further 8.

Altogether these various budget items add up to However, this amount does not appear to include the cost for security and police services. There is also an additional France has also concluded bilateral readmission agreements with more than 50 countries around the world—many of which were signed in the s. France has contributed financing for legal and sanitary services, "housing," and forced returns of irregular migrants through the European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund AMIF.

The available data, however, does not provide disaggregated information on the allocation of funds.

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

The government publishes information on its legal framework, policies, and places of immigration detention, which is included in reports to the Senate on the implementation of immigration detention policies. NGOs authorised to provide legal and social assistance to people in immigration detention publish a yearly authoritative report with analysis of policies, trends, and statistical data, as well as detailed information on places of detention in mainland France and overseas territories.

French authorities can be less forthcoming in their reporting on overseas territories, including in particular Mayotte, where there are important derogations in the application of immigration laws. In , the GDP and Access Info Europe, a transparency organisation based in Spain, jointly published a report detailing results from freedom of information requests they submitted to several dozen European countries.

The requested information included basic data about where and how many people are detained, as well as disaggregated statistics concerning the detention of asylum seekers and children. In , France placed 46, people in immigration detention. Out of 14, people removed in , less than half were expelled to non-EU countries and 71 percent were directly expelled out of detention. In , 22, people were expelled from overseas territories. The French Constitution and successive immigration laws authorise important derogations in the application of immigration law in Mayotte, a French overseas territory in the Indian Ocean.

Nearly half its population approximately , are foreigners who do not have proper residence documents, including large numbers of people from the Comoros Islands who cross a strip of the Mozambique channel to reach Mayotte aboard fishing vessels. The derogations in immigration law on this territory have important impacts on vulnerable migrants. For example, in , when French authorities issued a Circular intended to harmonise reception and assistance for unaccompanied children, [] it did not apply in Mayotte, which detains thousands of children every year.

In , 17, people were detained in Mayotte accounting for nearly 40 percent of all detainees in France that year , including 2, children. Diminished procedural safeguards take many forms. For instance, Mayotte arbitrarily detains minors with unrelated adults who are arrested at the same time. PAF officers process 30 people within two hours without any justification in either fact or in law. NGOs observed that the budgetary argument did not seem to hold in when 44 extra PAF officers were recruited in Mayotte. This five-day rule is particularly damaging as, on average, removals occur less than 24 hours after detention in Mayotte.

  • Sonatina in C Major, Op. 36, No. 3.
  • Without You!
  • Seven Inspiring Steps to Addiction Recovery: Principles for Addiction Recovery and Success in Life.
  • Cello Sonata in C Major - Piano Score!
  • Balzacian interior spaces. Places, traces and representation in a fragile present;
  • Georges Bensoussan : des « Territoires perdus » à « Une France soumise »;
  • Conquering Lions Faith;

Administrative detention facilities for non-citizens were officially created by the Law of 29 October The country does not use prisons for the purpose of immigration detention. In both metropolitan France and its overseas territories, the total immigration detention capacity is 1, beds. In , a number of facilities—including Vincennes 3 and Perpignan—had to be temporarily closed for repairs after fire incidents, many of which were due to tensions and unrest.

This is respected in practice and is much less than other EU countries with large detention estates such as Greece and the United Kingdom where detention facilities can hold several hundred people at once. According to NGOs working in detention facilities, a number of CRAs registered an increase in occupancy level in —including a 26 percent increase in Coquelles and 24 percent in Lille—as the authorities were using detention as a means to keep non-citizens away from Calais. During the debate for the adoption of the budget loi de finance , a rapporteur to the French Senate denounced the constant under-occupation of CRAs—reportedly at In September , La Cimade called on the government to take urgent measures to put an end to mounting situations of violence and tensions in CRAs resulting from increased detention rates.

Detention in LRAs is limited to short-term detention 24 hours in the case of Mayotte and less than 48 hours for others. According to NGOs, authorities detained close to 2, people in LRAs—including 73 children—in , in conditions that resembled police custody. The Mayotte prefect regularly opens LRAs to provide makeshift surge space, when and as needed. At times, LRAs have been used for longer than the allotted 48 hours—such as on four occasions between 5 March and 6 March at the Maritime station of Dzaoudzi, the Pamandzi gendarmerie , the waiting zone of Mayotte, and on premises of the Dzaoudzi hospital.

Waiting zones. In , 8, people were held in waiting zones including 6, at Charles de Gaulle Airport and at Paris Orly Airport and 5, people were held during the first six months of including 4, at Charles de Gaulle Airport. The Interior Ministry does not publish a full list of waiting zones, however it is known that the key zones are located within the international airports of Charles de Gaulle and Orly, just outside Paris.

Non-citizens are held in a waiting zone for an initial duration of four days—although this time frame may be extended with court orders to a total of 26 days. However, some of the procedural standards that are available for detainees in CRAs do not apply to waiting zones. For instance, although immigration law prohibits the deportation of foreign minors, minors are deported from the border and no frameworks exist to challenge this type of deportation.

It has a capacity of 20 and throughout it held men, a 42 percent increase over including five people who declared themselves minors but were deemed adults by the administration in five rooms with four beds; one isolation cell with one bed; a common area with a TV set as well as two showers and two toilets at both ends; a dining area with two TV sets; and a fenced courtyard with table football facilities. Both the common area and the courtyard are accessible at all times.

Nurses are available every day and doctors are available three half-days per week. In , the average detention time was According to La Cimade , the NGO present in the CRA, in April asylum seekers were removed from a state shelter and placed in detention, although most of them had not opposed their transfer under Dublin proceedings. In , Some former prisoners who could not be expelled in were, at times, held up to 45 days in the cramped basement of the Bordeaux police station, and were freed without any possibility of regularising their situation.

In , the CRA held 3, men a 26 percent increase over which had been a record year , including people who declared to be minors but were considered as adults by the administration compared to 33 people in Of these detainees, The average length of detention was particularly low in —just 6. Mass detention included asylum seekers in Dublin proceedings, then deemed illegal by the French Supreme Court Cour de cassation. There are 25 rooms with two to five beds, sanitation facilities in each of the three sectors, and one toilet per room.

Each sector has a TV room and a common space—to which detainees have free access—with one phone booth; as well as a cement courtyard with several benches. Two medical staff—doctors or nurses—are available every day. When the team requested documents, they had to wait for two days before the officials handed them over—prompting the team to remind officials and their central director that the law must prevail over internal service instructions.

They also observed that the registers were very badly maintained, and that a team of guards displayed unjustifiable and inappropriate behaviour towards the detainees. Many detainees have complained about the cold, they often have to wait for hours to be able to access telephones, and NGOs and other personnel—including medical staff—often have to wait at length for guards to open doors to the various shared zones due to the doors regularly being damaged.

NGOs have denounced the weakened access to rights, lack of interpreters, and long delays before judges confirm detention orders. Furthermore, they have criticised local authorities' illegal actions, including simultaneously issuing orders to leave the territory while filing Dublin transfers that have been regularly cancelled by the administrative tribunal.

The public prosecutor visited the CRA in It has a capacity of 40 and held people in — In particular, they highlight weakened safeguards, lack of access to appeal, and discriminatory expulsions of Dominicans compared to Haitians. La Cimade reports that people transferred to the CRA from LRAs in Saint Martin are often not informed of their rights, face obstacles when accessing legal counsel, and are at times abused by police prior to their transfer.

There are also concerns regarding the lack of adequate health care access in the centre and unchecked mosquito infestations. However, according to La Cimade, this can only be activated in exceptional cases. The new facility has a capacity of 45 33 spaces for men and 12 spaces for women and held 1, individuals in La Cimade, the NGO present in the centre, has reported that individuals are arrested based on a derogatory regime applicable to land and sea borders. Similar to Mayotte, detention tends to be very short 1.

Moreover, La Cimade has reported that access to suspensive appeals, medical assistance, and asylum can be very difficult, especially given that the possibility of seeking asylum in French Guyana has been severely curtailed. It has a capacity of 86—although the government plans to extend this to by In , 2, people were detained at the CRA a 29 percent increase on for an average of 7.

Throughout over half of the detainees were arrested at the border, and the main nationalities were Albanian and Iraqi. In , the Ordre de Malte France, the NGO present in the centre, welcomed the fact that no families had been detained since They also noted a sharp increase in the number of detentions, as well as a fast turnover from November onwards. This was the result of the law reform, which transferred authority from the administrative judge to the JLD, who was able to order a large number of releases In the case of Afghan and Iraqi nationals, who represented 22 percent of detainees in and were arrested on the Calais seafront, 83 percent were released following orders from the judiciary judge of the court of appeal.

However, local authorities continued to arrest non-citizens from these countries. This reform was partly in response to some prefects issuing expulsion orders OQTF without indicating the destination country—contrary to requisites in CESEDA Article L—an unhelpful practice as people remain in detention without any hope of being removed other than by being freed. Moreover, the JLD ordered young people who had undergone illegal age-assessment puberty tests to be freed. However, some prefects also ordered the detention of unaccompanied minors in contravention of regulations see section 2.

The CRA has a capacity and in , it held 1, people a 15 percent increase from —92 percent of whom were men—for an average of 16 days. That same year, there was a sharp decrease in the number of families detained in the facility: in total, three families, including five children, were detained, compared to 11 families in The number of asylum seekers in Dublin proceedings placed in detention doubled in and reached people. As per usual regulations, detainees can keep their mobile phones so long as they do not include a camera.

However, as most phones now have cameras, the majority of detainees have to deposit theirs with the police CRA guards. Blanchard, Berger et alii , Flahaut, Latouche, Glon, J-P Renard, Courlet , P. Mentionnons quelques-unes. Tout notre raisonnement met au contraire en valeur la notion de territoire qui se construit en permanence. Marty, F. D Vivien, J. Lepart, R. Boyer et Y. GLON E. Sous la direction de R. LEVY J. Neboit Guilhot et L.