Ulteriori informazioni
There's one constitutional provision whose interpretation, while highly disputed politically, is not at all discussed scientifically, if at all. I'm talking about Article 64 of the February 18, 2006 Constitution, which assigns the citizen a duty to protect the Fundamental Law, and is the object of a clampdown by opponents who suspect or resent (rightly or wrongly) their failure to win each election. The temptation is then to use this provision to justify all kinds of subversive actions. A cold legal study is called for, and it is this challenge that this essay sets out to meet. What is the meaning of this provision? Is it the consecration of a right to civil disobedience, or the permission of a right to insurrection? Wouldn't it be the writing of the letter that betrays the understanding of the spirit? What adjustments could be made to remove any ambiguity (if any)?
Info autore
Joseph Madimba is a law researcher with a brilliant Bac +5 degree from the Catholic University of Congo. Winner of the Eiffel 2023 Excellence program, he is currently enrolled at the prestigious Université Paris-Saclay, where he is pursuing doctoral studies.
