L\u2019\u00e9tude des d\u00e9cisions publiques en p\u00e9riode de pand\u00e9mie Covid-19 et des responsabilit\u00e9s aff\u00e9rentes a conduit \u00e0 reprendre, comme d\u2019ailleurs a commenc\u00e9 \u00e0 le faire le juge, le processus de la d\u00e9cision. La d\u00e9marche retenue \u00e0 consister \u00e0 combiner une approche \u00e0 la fois juridique et de gestion des organisations faisant ainsi travailler juristes et gestionnaires. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Il s\u2019est ainsi agi, d\u2019abord, d\u2019appr\u00e9hender et donc d\u2019analyser la d\u00e9cision publique qu\u2019elle soit issue de d\u00e9cideurs publics nationaux ou de d\u00e9cideurs publics locaux. Certains politistes ont fait \u00e9tat d’\u00ab un r\u00e9seau de validation \u00bb de la d\u00e9cision faisant intervenir des experts, la haute administration et le pouvoir politique, d\u2019abord national au regard de la nature de la crise apparue, mais aussi local eu \u00e9gard aux effets de celle-ci et \u00e0 la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de r\u00e9pondre aux attentes quotidiennes des administr\u00e9s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
La crise COVID-19 a-t-elle abouti \u00e0 une r\u00e9activation de ce sch\u00e9ma ? Au-del\u00e0 des controverses d\u2019experts, des dispositifs d\u2019exception parfois souples, parfois rigides, se sont succ\u00e9d\u00e9 sans qu\u2019il y ait de v\u00e9ritables validations ou \u00e0 tout le moins, une validation totalement institutionnalis\u00e9e dans le cadre d\u2019une proc\u00e9dure respect\u00e9e.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
D\u00e8s lors, afin de d\u00e9couper le processus de d\u00e9cision, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 n\u00e9cessaire de prendre en consid\u00e9ration plusieurs niveaux de r\u00e9flexion \u00e0 commencer par l\u2019appr\u00e9ciation du d\u00e9calage entre, d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9, l\u2019acceptabilit\u00e9 soci\u00e9tale des effets de la crise sanitaire, des mesures prises par les pouvoirs publics pour les contenir, et, d\u2019un autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, la possible qualification juridique du discours et des \u00e9v\u00e8nements qui ont \u00e9volu\u00e9s dans le temps au gr\u00e9 de l\u2019acquisition des connaissances scientifiques. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00c0 ce premier niveau, une r\u00e9flexion li\u00e9e au territoire pertinent de la prise de la d\u00e9cision, national ou local, et des circonstances particuli\u00e8res pouvant justifier des distinctions quant \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des d\u00e9cisions a
\u00e9t\u00e9 n\u00e9cessaire. Les r\u00e9sultats obtenus, ensuite, r\u00e9v\u00e8lent, d\u2019une part une recentralisation du pouvoir pour gagner en efficacit\u00e9 et ainsi une r\u00e9affirmation de l\u2019autorit\u00e9 centrale, laquelle ne gouverne plus seulement de loin, mais beaucoup plus localement et administre \u00e9galement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9chelle locale, d\u2019autre part une
difficile articulation verticale et horizontale des processus de d\u00e9cision, et enfin des prises de d\u00e9cisions hors des cadres existant sans m\u00e9thode et selon des processus au mieux empiriques mais le plus souvent purement intuitifs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Des propositions sont, enfin, pr\u00e9sent\u00e9es afin de renforcer les proc\u00e9dures de supervision et de contr\u00f4le dans la prise de d\u00e9cisions nationales articul\u00e9es avec les d\u00e9cisions locales. Il s\u2019agirait ainsi de donner naissance \u00e0 une Haute autorit\u00e9 publique des crises, ind\u00e9pendante et impartiale, \u00e0 la composition diversifi\u00e9e pour assurer la repr\u00e9sentation de tous les acteurs quelle que soit la nature de la crise. Cette autorit\u00e9 serait charg\u00e9e de r\u00e9aliser des analyses a priori, de contextualiser les situations \u00e0 venir, d\u2019aider \u00e0 la d\u00e9cision en situation d\u2019urgence et d\u2019incertitude scientifique, au moyen de recommandations, de lignes directrices interminist\u00e9rielles et de codes de bonne conduite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Il conviendrait \u00e9galement de consacrer une gouvernance locale de gestion de crise par le biais de Comit\u00e9s d\u2019experts locaux prenant place au niveau de l\u2019\u00e9chelon zonal, tout en \u00e9laborant un code de bonne conduite \u00e0 l\u2019attention des d\u00e9cideurs locaux et en transformant le Plan communal ou intercommunal de sauvegarde d\u00e9clin\u00e9 alors sous la forme d\u2019un plan d\u2019alerte et de gestion de crise \u00e9pousant la logique du dispositif ORSEC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Afin d\u2019instaurer la confiance des citoyens \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9gard des d\u00e9cideurs publics, il serait aussi utile d\u2019int\u00e9grer la d\u00e9marche de la compliance dans l\u2019approche de la d\u00e9cision publique sous le contr\u00f4le du juge administratif.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cette recherche est issue de l\u2019appel \u00e0 projet lanc\u00e9 en 2021 sur le th\u00e8me : Responsabilit\u00e9(s) des gouvernants et des d\u00e9cideurs publics face \u00e0 la pand\u00e9mie Covid-19<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n The study of public decisions during the Covid-19 pandemic, and of the related responsibilities, has led us to re-examine the decision-making process, as judges have already begun to do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The approach adopted was to combine both a legal and an organizational management approach, bringing together lawyers and managers. First and foremost, the aim was to understand and analyze public decisions, whether made by national or local public decision\u0002makers. Some political scientists have described a \u201cnetwork of validation\u201d of the decision, involving experts, senior administration and political power, at national level in view of the nature of the crisis, but also at local level in view of the effects of the crisis and the need to meet the day-to-day expectations of citizens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Has the COVID-19 crisis led to a reactivation of this pattern? Beyond the controversies between experts, a succession of sometimes flexible, sometimes rigid exception mechanisms have been put in place, without any real validation or, at the very least, fully institutionalized validation within the framework of a respected procedure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, in order to break down the decision-making process, it was necessary to consider several levels of reflection, starting with an assessment of the gap between, on the one hand, the societal acceptability of the effects of the health crisis and the measures taken by the public authorities to contain them, and, on the other hand, the possible legal qualification of the discourse and events that have evolved over time in line with the acquisition of scientific knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At this first level, it was necessary to reflect on the relevant national or local decision-making territory, and on the particular circumstances that could justify distinctions in the execution of decisions. The results obtained, then, reveal, on the one hand, a recentralization of power to gain in efficiency and thus a reaffirmation of central authority, which no longer governs only from afar, but much more locally and also administers on a local scale; on the other hand, a difficult vertical and horizontal articulation of decision-making processes, and finally decision\u0002making outside existing frameworks without method and according to processes that are at best empirical but more often than not purely intuitive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, proposals are put forward to strengthen supervision and control procedures in national decision-making, articulated with local decisions. The aim would be to create an independent and impartial public High Authority for crises, with a diversified membership to ensure the representation of all players, whatever the nature of the crisis. This authority would be responsible for carrying out a priori analyses, contextualizing future situations, and assisting decision-making in situations of emergency and scientific uncertainty, by means of recommendations, interministerial guidelines and codes of good conduct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It would also be advisable to establish local crisis management governance through local expert committees at zonal level, while drawing up a code of good conduct for local decision-makers and transforming the communal or inter-communal safeguard plan into an alert and crisis management plan in line with the ORSEC system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To build citizens’ trust in public decision-makers, it would also be useful to integrate the compliance approach into the public decision-making process, under the supervision of the administrative judge.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":17413,"template":"","disciplines":[114,109],"collections":[119],"publication_tag":[3346,3243,1072,3348,3349,3350,3347,2889],"auteurs":[3351,3352],"class_list":["post-17410","publications","type-publications","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","disciplines-droit","disciplines-sciences-de-gestion","collections-rapports-de-recherche","publication_tag-acceptabilite-des-risques","publication_tag-crise-sanitaire","publication_tag-decideurs-publics","publication_tag-decision-comportementale","publication_tag-faute","publication_tag-gestion-de-crise","publication_tag-gouvernance-des-risques","publication_tag-responsabilites","auteurs-herve-arbousset","auteurs-karine-favro"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n R\u00e9sum\u00e9 en Anglais \/ English version below <\/summary>\n