L’écriture juridique autochtone : manifestation et gestion du pluralisme juridique

S’appuyant sur trois études de cas réalisées avec des partenaires autochtones, cet article montre que le choix par un peuple autochtone de recourir à l’écriture juridique peut constituer à la fois une manifestation forte du pluralisme juridique et une démarche de gestion de ce pluralisme, c’est-à-dire un moyen de prendre acte de la coexistence concurrentielle des systèmes juridiques autochtone et étatique et d’en tirer des conséquences aux fins de la normativité autochtone.L’originalité des cas étudiés réside dans le fait qu’ils donnent à voir une écriture juridique par et pour un peuple autochtone, en marge du droit officiel, ce qui exprime fortement la réalité du pluralisme juridique. L’examen des cas à l’étude par l’entremise de la théorie de la gestion du pluralisme juridique fera notamment ressortir le fait que les opérateurs des systèmes juridiques autochtones mobilisent, lors de la mise à l’écrit du droit autochtone, une gamme de procédés de gestion du pluralisme juridique à partir de stratégies qu’ils ont eux-mêmes définies et en tenant compte de l’évaluation qu’ils font des rapports de force entre les systèmes juridiques en présence. Ainsi, plus le système juridique autochtone, par la façon dont il gère le pluralisme juridique, renforce sa légitimité et son effectivité, plus le droit étatique sera susceptible d’en prendre acte. Or il sera montré que l’écriture juridique autochtone ne laisse pas l’État indifférent.Based on three case studies made with Indigenous partners, this article illustrates that the choice made by an Indigenous People to use legal writing can be understood both as a strong manifestation of legal pluralism and as a way to manage such pluralism, i.e. as a means to acknowledge the concurring coexistence of Indigenous and State legal systems and to draw consequences for Indigenous normativity.The uniqueness of the cases studied resides in the fact that they display a form of legal writing by and for an Indigenous People, parallel to the official legal system, which strongly expresses the reality of legal pluralism. Examining those cases through legal pluralism management theory sheds light on the fact that operators of Indigenous legal systems request, during the Indigenous legal writing process, a variety of legal pluralism management processes, based on strategies that they themselves have defined, as well as on their own assessment of the existing power struggles between the legal systems at play. Therefore, the more the Indigenous legal system reinforces its legitimacy and efficiency, in the way it deals with legal pluralism, the more the State legal system is likely to take it into account. However Indigenous legal writing has proven to be of great interest to the State as this paper will show

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement

Geerts JM, Kinnair D, Taheri P, et al. Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement. JAMA network open. 2021;4(7):e2120295.Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage.; Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic.; Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives.; Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide.; Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities