Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros18/2Éditorial / EditorialRethinking institutions and deins...

Éditorial / Editorial

Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective

Interdisciplinary expertise and viewpoints from the field – The 2022 Alter Conference
Isabelle Hachez et Nicolas Marquis
p. 13-20

Texte intégral

1. The 2022 Alter Conference

1“Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective.” Such was the theme chosen for the 10th anniversary of the Alter Conference, which was held at the Université Saint-Louis Bruxelles in July 2022.1

2. The Conference Proceedings

  • 2 The work, which numbers over 1,200 pages, is published by the Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Br (...)

2“Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective” also serves as the title of a digital book, available in open-access, which brings together some sixty papers from the actors who took part in the Conference and who come from diverse backgrounds: academic, for the main part, but also non-profit sector, political, institutional and cultural.2 In French or in English, anchored within national, European and international legal systems, the viewpoints expressed in this book unfold, from their respective disciplines, the conceptual grammar of the theme in question: the institution, deinstitutionalisation and disability, but also concepts such as equality, autonomy and inclusion which are in play in the background. In this way, and on the basis of the different registers, they shed light on the uses and the consequences of the issue at the heart of the process of deinstitutionalisation: abolishing the segregation of persons with disabilities, as well as unacceptable forms of intervention on them. The ways of giving body to this shared purpose or of understanding it on the other hand vary depending on the contributor. Some advocate the complete closing of collective residencies for persons with a disability, in addition to renouncing all forms of depersonalising culture in the support made available to them, whilst others focus on the second aspect, regardless of the facility considered. Yet others emphasise the risks of confusion engendered by the use of the concept of deinstitutionalisation: as if it were possible to do without institutions, as they are defined within the human and social sciences, even though there is no society without institutions and that deinstitutionalisation, in itself, embodies a form of institution. In total, the texts brought together offer, via different entryways, the people who have an interest in this theme (people affected by disability, academics, activists, parliamentarians, judges, artists, etc.) an updated view of the principal tensions in play when one discusses deinstitutionalising and the potential avenues of action in this context.

3. The special issue of the Alter journal

3“Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective,” is also, finally, the title reserved for this special issue of the Alter journal, and for good reason: this review is intimately connected to the 2022 Alter Conference and its Proceedings. All the contributors to this special issue gave talks at the Conference and have mobilised their pens for the digital book, which includes at one and the same time separate, abridged or linguistically other versions of the five articles published here. The idea behind this issue is to offer in parallel, in the journal associated with the Conference of the same name, a condensed overview of the main elements and salient points which emerged over the Conference and are found in the digital book, whilst preserving the interdisciplinary character and variously situated viewpoints of the perspectives included. As the coordinators of this issue, we can only emphasise the quality of the authors here gathered, and the – to our knowledge – hitherto unseen character of the dialogue made possible by their successive arguments.

4. Entryway to the special issue

4The entryway to this special issue chimes with what, at the beginning, guided the choice of the theme of the Conference and led to its being inaugurated by a dialogue between two of its four keynote speakers: Rosemary Kayess, then-President of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Paul Lemmens, a Belgian former judge at the European Court of Human Rights. During the Conference, as in the present journal issue, it was purposely that the option was taken to situate the subject at the very beginning on the legal stage, by opening up to the viewpoints of two international supervisory bodies playing a major role in the theme we are focused on, in other words the contours of the process of deinstitutionalisation geared towards persons with disabilities.

  • 3 For the Committee, it consists of its “core-business,” whilst for the Strasbourg court, persons wit (...)
  • 4 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). (Gde Ch.), Rooman v. Belgium judgement of 31 January 2019, § (...)
  • 5 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). (Ch.), Caamaño Valle v. Spain judgement of 11 May 2021, § 54

5These two supervisory bodies are, on the one hand, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which, at United Nations level, ensures oversight of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by 191 parties (including the European Union), and, on the other, the European Court of Human Rights, responsible for monitoring the eponymous Convention (ECHR) at Council of Europe level, and for its part binding 46 States. Both bodies are called upon to rule on the rights of persons with disabilities,3 but the normative production of the United Nations Committee is not legally binding – it is what is called in the jargon “soft jurisprudence” – whilst the decisions given by the Strasbourg court are binding. But what is important is first and foremost to understand that the law of international rights is as of now written in a network, which is to say that it is nourished by different sources, hard or soft. Thereby, the European Court of Human Rights at times interprets the provisions of the Convention entrusted to its supervision in the light of the CRPD (hard law) or the soft law of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It can nevertheless also occur that it distances itself from them, implicitly or explicitly. This was the case with two recent judgements: the Rooman v. Belgique judgement, delivered in the Grand Chamber on January 31, 2019,4 and the Caamaño Valle v. Espagne judgement of May 11, 2021,5 accompanied by a remarkable dissenting opinion on the part of judge Lemmens, mobilising in particular the conceptual grammar of the system of the CRPD. This explains the option taken here to place these two law actors, Rosemary Kayess and Paul Lemmens, in a dialogue, in order to understand, from within the systems of the CRPD and the ECHR, the manner in which the respective supervisory bodies position themselves with regard to the fundamental rights of persons with disabilities. This understanding, on the basis of situated points of view brought face to face for the first time to our knowledge, will subsequently enable us to better explore the intelligibility of the underlying issues of the theme analysed, by rounding out the legal approach with sociological and philosophical perspectives.

5. Presentation of the authors and their contributions

  • 6 By which is meant the text of the United Nations Convention (legally binding and ratified by 191 pa (...)
  • 7 See, for a shorter version, the text which served as the support for their oral presentation during (...)
  • 8 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 5 (2017) on the right to (...)

6Given the central position held by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in the debate on deinstitutionalisation, this special issue begins with the contribution of Rosemary Kayess, professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales (UNSW, Australia) and Vice-President of the supervisory body of this United Nations Convention, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Her paper allows us to perfectly grasp, from within the system of the CRPD,6 the origin and the meaning bestowed on the concept of deinstitutionalisation, as well as the relationships which institutionalisation and its reverse, deinstitutionalisation, foster with the different approaches to disability – to be distinguished, insists the author, from the notion of impairment.7 In this regard, Rosemary Kayess identifies the Convention’s key provisions, to be understood as a coherent whole sustained by its own overall logic, and the interpretation which her official supervisory body has made of them. Amongst these, Article 19 of the CRPD, devoted to the right to live independently and be included in the community, receives particular attention, given that it is on this legal basis that the Committee has appropriated the concept of deinstitutionalisation within the context of an understanding of disability founded on the model of human rights. In the Committee’s view, the right to live autonomously and be a part of society calls for the defunding and closing of collective accommodation facilities, which are to be replaced by personalised support to enable living at home, as much as fostering the opportunity to choose all forms of home support.8 In the opinion of Rosemary Kayess, it is the conceptual confusion between impairment, central in the medical model, and disability, understood as a social construct, which, still today, would explain certain differences of opinion, notably between the system specific to the Convention and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

  • 9 Prior to the CRPD, the European Convention on Human Rights is binding on the Member States of the C (...)
  • 10 For an abridged version, cf. Lemmens (2024).
  • 11 See Beernaert & Hachez (2023: 735-7).
  • 12 European Court of Human Rights. (Gde Ch.), Rooman v. Belgium judgement of 31 January 2019, § 205 (f (...)

7The second contribution by Paul Lemmens precisely offers a 180 degree overview of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in terms of disability, this time rendered from within an instrument of universal effect: the eponymous Convention which covers every individual, including therefore, but not exclusively, persons with disabilities.9 His dual status as Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Law at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven, Belgium) and a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights, here also confers on the author a remarkable expertise in order to fulfil this exercise. After having recalled a certain number of the European Convention’s underlying principles (human dignity, personal autonomy, etc.), and having emphasised, in this context, similarities with the system internal to the CRPD, Paul Lemmens describes the state of Strasbourg jurisprudence through various disputes brought to the attention of the Court (removal of legal capacity, deprivation of liberty, material conditions of detention, etc.).10 In between the lines of this overview there emerge the points of convergence as well as the tensions which shape the two systems, that of the CRPD and that of the ECHR, whenever either of them is asked to rule on the rights of persons with disabilities and, in particular, the issue of deinstitutionalisation. Thereby, where, in keeping with article 1.2 of the CRPD, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was led to specify its understanding of disability, the Strasbourg judges do not systematically distinguish between illness – or mental disorder – and disability, which is hardly surprising, given the universal scope of the European Convention on Human Rights.11 Thus one can read concerning the Rooman v. Belgique judgement of the Strasbourg Court, delivered in the Grand Chamber on January 31, 2019, “that Article 5 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] as it is interpreted today does not contain a prohibition on detention on the basis of impairment, in contrast to what is proposed by the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in points 6-9 of its 2015 Guidelines concerning Article 14 of the CRPD of 2015.”12 Far from insisting on what one might term divergences, Paul Lemmens highlights the differences in perspectives between the ECHR and the CRPD, which, unlike the former, aims, as a priority and by the rights it protects, to correct the imbalance observed to the detriment of the rights and interests of persons with disabilities.

  • 13 See online: confcap-capdroits.org. See, for that matter, in the digital book in open-access of the (...)
  • 14 This question is also looked into by Paul Lemmens in the context of the European Convention on Huma (...)

8The third contribution, authored by Benoît Eyraud and Louis Triaille, combines the authors’ areas of expertise, from law to sociology and the history of ideas. A senior lecturer on sociology at the Université Lyon 2, affiliated with the Centre Max Weber, Benoît Eyraud is also involved in the CapDroits initiative, which is carrying out “a consideration on the conditions for exercising rights and assisted decision making when people’s capacities are weakened.”13 A doctoral student at the UCLouvain Saint-Louis Bruxelles, Louis Triaille is completing a thesis on the legal dilemmas and forms of deinstitutionalisation in international disability law. In their joint contribution, the authors look to shed light on, based on the CRPD’s article 12 (the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law equal conditions) and article 19 (living independently and being included in the community), the model of human rights employed in the system of the United Nations Convention. This contribution allows a contextualisation of the debates over the deinstitutionalisation policies called for by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in recalling their embeddedness in a dynamic of institutionalisation of the model of disability founded on human rights. There is a clear echo here with the contribution by Rosemary Kayess, who for her part also evokes the model of human rights and the indivisble link between article 12 and article 19 of the CRPD, the guarantee of freeedom of choice in terms of place of residence being conditioned by the recognition of legal capacity and the institutionalisation potentially favouring a negation of it.14 But unlike the author of the first contribution – much as, for that matter, Paul Lemmens –, Louis Triaille and Benoît Eyraud adopt a “meta” analysis position which in particular leads them to distinguish, in the way the two processes they analyse impact and shape each other, the political register of the semantics of de/institution/alisation from its analytical register. Particularly fertile, the distinction enables one to grasp the polysemy of the concept of institution in accordance with the contexts in which it is wielded; it also enables to resituate in a proper register the deinstitutionalisation advocated by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to be resituated. In doing so, it also allows one to get a better grasp of the issue of deinstitutionalisation (avoiding segregation and abolishing discriminatory forms of intervention on others), in contrast to some of the different possible ways of implementing it, which include the closing of collective accommodation establishments. In the light of the development of the international law on fundamental rights, this third contribution has the merit, amongst others, of illuminating the critique of “specialised institutions.”

  • 15 For an abridged version, in French, see in the 2022 Alter Conference Proceedings: Marquis (2024).
  • 16 Which tend to oppose the individual to society and, as far as we are concerned, to all forms of col (...)
  • 17 See the contours of the ERC Coaching Rituals project: coachingrituals-usaintlouis.be.
  • 18 An autonomy which, as the Committee underlines, “must not be solely interpreted as the ability to a (...)

9Whilst also written by a sociologist, the fourth contribution by Nicolas Marquis for its part deconstructs the representation or the “practical anthropology” of the person with disabilities (and more specifically one affected by intellectual disability or mental health disorders), such as it appears in the call for deinstitutionalisation backed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.15 In his paper, the author rolls out the expertise he has garnered around the notion of autonomy in the context of individualist societies16 in the domain of disability and mental health, where, in other facilities, he has also explored the impact of this context, for example in the areas of education and parenthood.17 His present contribution demonstrates the distance between the ideal of individual autonomy and the ways in which, in everyday situations, it is dependent on the perceptions of the care providers intervening on or acting with patients in the framework of the process he is analysing, namely “the partner-meetings” held in a mental health establishment. This facility claims to practice a relatively deinstitutionalised form of healthcare, as it views the “patient” as a “partner” within their healthcare. Using this empirical object as a platform, Nicolas Marquis questions the processes by which patients leave the institution at the end of their stay. He observes that establishing the patient as a partner presupposes that they demonstrate, in the eyes of the care providers, a yearning for and the capacities for autonomy. Taken for granted in the anthropology of persons with disabilities mobilised by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for the purposes of the deinstitutionalisation it is calling for, these two characteristics of a desire for and the capacity for autonomy18 are, in practice, subject to assessment, hesitation and negotiation, and are never either definitely given or once and for all denied. Not every person with a disability, underlines Nicolas Marquis, is capable of meeting the collective expectation society places on them as to the desire for autonomy and the skills to achieve it. From this arises the doubt the author shares, from his position as a sociologist, as to the applicable nature of a complete deinstitutionalisation as the unique means advocated by the Committee to create acceptable intervention on others.

  • 19 In English here. For the French version, see Stiker (2024).

10Last but not least, the fifth contribution to this special issue is authored by the philosopher Henri-Jacques Stiker, who is none other than the founder of the present journal, and who did us the honour of concluding the 2022 Alter Conference. Rather than a conclusion, we should really speak of a dialectic reopening as, both in his talk and in his text,19 the author insists on the indivisible link which this time unites, not, as Rosemary Kayess shows, legal capacity and the process of deinstitutionalisation, but the institution and deinstitutionalisation. In an analytical register, and drawing on various authors, including Castoriadis, Henri-Jacques Stiker retraces, supporting examples to hand, the ways societies throughout history go through an incessant movement of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation. “You cannot escape from institutions,” writes the author, before continuing: “If we want to avoid choosing between Scylla and Charybdis, a de-institutionalization process is needed, one that works on all institutions, both those that are created as alternatives to contested forms as those that are already there. De-institutionalization is a dynamic, a process that must be at work as soon as there is an institution.” We thereby understand that the deinstitutionalisation advocated by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in a political or even legal register, in that it is itself a process of institutionalisation, is not restricted to the closing of collective accommodation establishments but targets every institutional forms (including, for example, the family or living as a family), from the moment they have certain characteristics associated with forms of segregation, limitations and constraints, which tend to be considered as less acceptable in societies which value the potential within each individual, whatever their distinctive characteristics. It also becomes clear that as an institution, the process of deinstitutionalisation, no more than the family, does not evade the ambivalence of all institutional forms, which have a vocation as much for permitting as for preventing, opening up outwards as for closing inwards, whilst being always enjoined to be the subject of critique and reinventing itself. And Henri-Jacques Stiker, when all is said and done, places the individual person and their flourishing at the centre of any deinstitutionalisation policy which, on its terms, must remain a means at their service, and not become an end in itself.

11These five contributions, which each privilege a distinct means of access to rethink institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective, do not offer firm and definitive responses to the tensions traversing these terms. Together, they nevertheless offer the possibility of nourishing our reflexivity in the face of the complexity of these polysemic concepts, by linking them to the context which carries them and the impact their reading may have downstream. The debate is not new, the debate is not closed. But may this special issue, and the digital book which accompanies it in the wake of the 2022 Alter Conference, contribute to developing it further.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abdel-Salam Nadyah, Amaro Romain, Barber Yvette, et al. 2024. Instituer l’autonomie de vie. Une mise en perspective du livret contributif “L’autonomie de vie comme droit humain”. In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/29179.

Beernaert Marie-Aude & Isabelle Hachez. 2020. Droits fondamentaux et lieux privatifs de liberté (internement excepté), obs. sous CE, Guenfoudi, CEDH, Bamouhammad c. Belgique. In Isabelle Hachez & Jogchum Vrielink (eds). Les grands arrêts en matière de handicap: 734-49. Bruxelles: Larcier.

Cartuyvels Yves. 2022. La privation de liberté des auteurs d’infraction atteints d’un trouble mental en Belgique au prisme du droit des droits fondamentaux: CEDH versus CDPH. Archives de Politique Criminelle, 44: 87-103.

Hachez Isabelle & Nicolas Marquis. 2024. Une inclusion qui fédère, une institution qui divise? Pour une lecture ancrée, pragmatique et graduelle de la désinstitutionnalisation. In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/30716.

Kayess Rosemary. 2024. Impairment and disability after the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/29114.

Lemmens Paul. 2024. The European Convention on Human Rights: What meaning does it have for persons with a disability? In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/29166.

Marquis Nicolas. 2024. Quand la sortie de l’institution est inévitable: les soignants en santé mentale entre assurance et inquiétude. In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/30607.

Stiker Henri-Jacques. 2024. Institution et désinstitutionnalisation. In: Repenser l’institution et la désinstitutionnalisation à partir du handicap: Actes de la Conférence Alter 2022. Bruxelles: Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles. Online: books.openedition.org/pusl/29099.

Haut de page

Notes

1 See online: alterconf2022.sciencesconf.org.

2 The work, which numbers over 1,200 pages, is published by the Presses universitaires Saint-Louis Bruxelles (PUSL), and is available on free-access in two formats, via the OpenEdition platform, for the entire work and for each chapter, at: books.openedition.org/pusl/29057?lang=fr; then, in downloadable PDF format for the work in its entirety and for each chapter, in the page layout worked on with Ateliers Indigo (one of the Conference’s cultural partners) and the Bravas team, via the “PDF of the book” and/or “PDF of the chapter” tabs. The book moreover offers an overview of the works exhibited at the Conference, in July 2022, by the artists working at Ateliers Indigo, the Art et Marges Musée and the S Grand Atelier, identified by the FACE B non-profit association, of which Assal Sharifrazi is the co-founder.

3 For the Committee, it consists of its “core-business,” whilst for the Strasbourg court, persons with disabilities are beneficiaries amongst others, who may enjoy the rights guaranteed by the European Convention to all people.

4 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). (Gde Ch.), Rooman v. Belgium judgement of 31 January 2019, § 205.

5 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). (Ch.), Caamaño Valle v. Spain judgement of 11 May 2021, § 54.

6 By which is meant the text of the United Nations Convention (legally binding and ratified by 191 parties, including the European Union), as interpreted in the normative production of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (for its part lacking binding legal effect).

7 See, for a shorter version, the text which served as the support for their oral presentation during the 2022 Alter Conference and which is published in the 2022 Alter Conference Proceedings: Kayess (2024).

8 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General Comment No. 5 (2017) on the right to live independently and be included in the community, CRPD/C/GC/5 (documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/328/88/PDF/G1732888.pdf?OpenElement); Guidelines for deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies (2022), CRPD/C/5 (tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRPD/C/5).

9 Prior to the CRPD, the European Convention on Human Rights is binding on the Member States of the Council of Europe, with the exception, as of now, of the Russian Federation, following its exclusion from the Council of Europe. The judgements handed down by the European Court of Human Rights have the force of “res judicata.

10 For an abridged version, cf. Lemmens (2024).

11 See Beernaert & Hachez (2023: 735-7).

12 European Court of Human Rights. (Gde Ch.), Rooman v. Belgium judgement of 31 January 2019, § 205 (for a commentary, see in this regard in particular: Cartuyvels, 2022). Cf. also European Court of Human Rights (Ch.), Caamaño Valle v. Spain judgement of 11 May 2021, § 54 (“The Court acknowledges that other instruments can offer wider protection than the Convention (regarding the CRPD, for example, see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.18052/11, § 205, 31 January 2019), but the Court is not bound by interpretations given to similar instruments by other bodies, having regard to the possible difference in the contents of the provisions of other international instruments and/or the possible difference in role of the Court and the other bodies (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.7334/13, § 113, 20 October 2016). The Court understands that the Convention should be interpreted, as far as possible, in harmony with other rules of international law”), and the dissenting opinion by Paul Lemmens which concludes in these terms: “The Court occasionally warns itself against failing ‘to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach,’ as this would ‘risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement’ […]. I am afraid that the present judgment could constitute a bar to the alignment of the Convention and domestic laws with the inclusive approach to equality as introduced by the CRPD in human-rights law.”

13 See online: confcap-capdroits.org. See, for that matter, in the digital book in open-access of the 2022 Alter Conference Proceedings, the contribution by the members of the CapDroits initiative (Abdel-Salam, Amaro, Barber, et al., 2024).

14 This question is also looked into by Paul Lemmens in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights.

15 For an abridged version, in French, see in the 2022 Alter Conference Proceedings: Marquis (2024).

16 Which tend to oppose the individual to society and, as far as we are concerned, to all forms of collective institution. Cf., on this subject, Hachez & Marquis (2024), in particular the introduction and the references cited in the aforementioned digital book.

17 See the contours of the ERC Coaching Rituals project: coachingrituals-usaintlouis.be.

18 An autonomy which, as the Committee underlines, “must not be solely interpreted as the ability to accomplish everyday activities all on their own,” but “should rather be considered as the possibility of exercising their free will and their right to scrutiny, in keeping with respect for inherent dignity and individual autonomy” (General Comment No. 5 aforementioned, § 16, a; our emphasis). For more conceptual density, see points 1.3 and 2.1.3 of the aforementioned conclusive trial, and the various contributions in the digital book which refer to the notion of autonomy.

19 In English here. For the French version, see Stiker (2024).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Isabelle Hachez et Nicolas Marquis, « Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective »Alter, 18/2 | 2024, 13-20.

Référence électronique

Isabelle Hachez et Nicolas Marquis, « Rethinking institutions and deinstitutionalisation from a disability perspective »Alter [En ligne], 18/2 | 2024, mis en ligne le 10 juin 2024, consulté le 22 juin 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/alterjdr/3720

Haut de page

Auteurs

Isabelle Hachez

UCLouvain
isabelle.hachez[at]uclouvain.be

Articles du même auteur

Nicolas Marquis

UCLouvain
nicolas.marquis[at]uclouvain.be

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search