Misplaced Pages

The term "race" as used in Article One of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic, which states that France "ensures equality for all citizens without distinction of origin, race, or religion", has been the subject of numerous challenges from across the political spectrum. Nevertheless, no amendments to this wording have been successful since the 2000s.

One challenge arises because the noun "race" is not defined in official texts and has taken on many meanings in French. It is a common term, a technical term in natural sciences, a pseudo-concept in racist discourse, a reference to the Holocaust, and a sociological and legal tool. The proposed removal of the term from the Constitution—and more broadly from French criminal law—is driven by a desire to erase the legitimizing effect that mentioning race confers on the concept. However, this removal also risks weakening the denunciation of racism.

In France, this debate has been a significant point of contention among anti-racist activists and political figures for decades. Arguments for and against removing the term from the Constitution have persisted since the early 1990s, and the discussions are often highly charged. Some have criticized the word "race" for its historical connotations or its evocation of a supposed biological reality that has been disproven by scientific evidence. In contrast, others have employed the term in its sociological sense, emphasizing its utility in combating racism.

Origin of the text

France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures equality before the law for all citizens without distinction of origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs.

— Article One of the current Constitution.

The phrase "without distinction of race" was originally located in the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Fifth French Republic [fr]. It was later relocated to Article One [fr] by the constitutional revision of August 4, 1995.

The term "race" was not included in the preliminary draft of July 29, 1958, adopted by the government and drafted under the authority of General de Gaulle and the Minister of Justice, Michel Debré. However, the Council of Ministers incorporated it into the final draft on September 3, possibly as a last-minute addition to circumvent potential controversy surrounding its absence. The identity of the minister who proposed this modification remains uncertain.

The 1946 Constitution only used the word "race" in the first sentence of its preamble: "…the French people proclaim again that every human being, without distinction of race, religion, or belief, possesses inalienable and sacred rights." This sentence was added by the Constitutional Commission chaired by socialist André Philip, and the wording of the first paragraph was adopted by a show of hands on August 28, 1946, without anyone in the Assembly perceiving it as anything other than a condemnation of racism. A few months earlier, in the April 1946 draft prepared in March, three attempts to include "race" or "racial discrimination" had been rejected.

Article 1 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which constitutes part of the constitutional framework, states that "men are born and remain free and equal in rights" and that "social distinctions may only be based on common utility." This assertion was in contradiction with the continued practice of slavery, which was not abolished until 1794 and definitively in 1848. Some members of the Assembly were concerned that questioning slavery and the slave trade would result in the collapse of the kingdom and a return to the Ancien Régime.

Semantic analyses

From a linguistic standpoint, the wording of Article One is open to interpretation. It can be interpreted as "some classify humanity into races; French law does not recognize this classification", or "There are races, but the French Republic does not consider them in its treatment of citizens." The positioning of the word "race" within the list of origin/race/religion lends implicit validation to the existence of such races. This closed list affords significant weight to each of the three terms.

The term "race" was included in this list when the notion was widely accepted as a biological reality. It is juxtaposed with religion, which is not of the same nature, because, unlike differences in political opinions or languages, race and religion are frequently the basis for discrimination.

According to Arthur Joyeux, the phrase "without distinction of..." does not clarify the meaning of the sentence, as its beginning already states that it concerns "every human being." It merely emphasizes opposition to the decisions made by the Vichy regime.

Early reservations

As early as 1950, shortly after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948—which mentions "race" twice—UNESCO experts argued that "the serious errors caused by the use in common language make it desirable to abandon this term when applied to the human species." They recommended using "ethnic groups" instead, although this term is equally difficult to define.

In France, the complete elimination of the term "race" from public discourse commenced in 1990 with the publication of the implementing decree for the Data Protection and Liberties Law. The legislation permitted judicial and administrative authorities to retain data that revealed an individual's "racial origins." The term "race" was further discredited by the resurgence of the concept of "ethnic cleansing" during the Bosnian War and by the rediscovery of the "Jewish file" in Fontenay-sous-Bois.

The debate regularly resurfaced in Parliament from the early 2000s.

From "race" to "supposed race" in French Law

The question of removing the concept of race from the Constitution inevitably gives rise to the issue of amending the entire body of legislation, particularly criminal law. The term "race" first emerged in French legislation in 1928 and subsequently in the period preceding World War II. It was subsequently employed by proponents and opponents of racist theories. To emphasize that the concept of the human race is biologically irrelevant, the term has been gradually replaced in anti-racist legislation by expressions such as "true or supposed race" or "so-called race."

The term "race", which had long been absent from French legal vocabulary, first appeared in the Journal Officiel with the decree of November 8, 1928. This was even though the concept of race had been present in French society for centuries. The decree permitted the naturalization of children born in Indochina to a French father who had not acknowledged them and an indigenous mother, contingent upon the presentation of evidence in court substantiating their affiliation with the "French race." This designation encompassed both biological and cultural criteria. To substantiate their claim to "Frenchness", legal experts considered a range of physical characteristics, including skin pigmentation, as well as cultural attributes such as politeness, participation in sports, and preferences for coastal or mountainous locales.

The term "race" was subsequently employed in the Marchandeau decrees [fr] of April 21, 1939, which were designed to restrict Nazi propaganda by imposing penalties on defamation in the press against "a group of persons belonging by their origin to a particular race or religion with the intent of inciting hatred among citizens." The explanatory text for this decree indicated that race or religion was to be understood based on origin ("a hereditary circumstance").

The Vichy regime revoked the Marchandeau decrees and enacted the law that established the "status of Jews." This law employed the term "race" to implement antisemitic policies by defining the criteria for belonging to the "Jewish race."

The inclusion of the phrase "without distinction of race" in the preamble of the 1946 Constitution and later in the 1958 Constitution was a direct response to the racial theories that had been used to justify the Holocaust and which had underpinned Nazism.

The legislation enacted on July 1, 1972, which was designed to combat racism, prohibited the consideration of an individual's racial identity. This prohibition was not intended to establish an objective or official definition of race; rather, it was intended to prevent the targeting of specific groups of people based on their racial identity. Consequently, the assertion that "races" are inherently unequal, as Jean-Marie Le Pen did in 1996, remains a valid position.

By the late 1970s, the scientific community had reached a consensus that the concept of race is irrelevant when applied to the human species. During the trial of Klaus Barbie, Albert Jacquard posited that the term "human race" is devoid of meaning, as it is impossible to define races without falling into complete scientific arbitrariness.

The term "belonging, true or supposed, to a race" was introduced into French legislation on June 7, 1977, as a complement to the 1972 law. Nevertheless, the Gayssot Law of July 13, 1990, proscribed "any discrimination based on belonging or not belonging to an ethnic group, nation, race, or religion." The expression "true or supposed race" was only generalized after the 1994 penal code reform led by Robert Badinter. Clémence Lavigne posited that the adjective "true" introduced ambiguity and should be removed. Bernard Herszberg, a representative of the association Galilée 90, which advocates for the removal of the word "race" from the Constitution, expressed regret that the formulation "belonging to a particular race"—whether "true or supposed"—relativized the notion of belonging without affecting the race itself.

In a 2007 ruling on the law of November 20, 2007, regarding immigration control, integration, and asylum [fr], the Constitutional Council stated that the prohibition on distinctions outlined in Article One of the Constitution barred the collection of statistical data based on "ethnic origin or race", even for research purposes.

The expression "so-called race", which underscores the notion that "races" are a mere construct and that it is not French lawmakers who invoke the concept of "race", but rather those who espouse racist ideologies, has been utilized in Belgian legislation since 2003. However, it was only in 2016 that this terminology was introduced in French legislation.

In 2021, French anti-racist legislation was expanded to prohibit not only the consideration of so-called "race" as a basis for discrimination, but also any consideration of this so-called race, even for affirmative action.

The decree of October 10, 2023, concerning the implementation of the "Information System for Monitoring Priority Criminal Policies" (SISPoPP), authorizes the collection of "data revealing racial or ethnic origin." This authorization has prompted several unions and associations to petition the Council of State to ban the system.

Arguments for and against the use of the word "race"

Since the 1990s, a number of proposals have been put forth to remove the term "race" from either all legislative texts or solely from Article One of the Constitution. An examination of the proceedings of a 1992 symposium dedicated to this issue reveals that the arguments and counterarguments presented have remained largely unchanged. While there is a consensus that the negative connotations associated with the term "race" should be condemned, there is also a recognition that the removal of the term could potentially have the unintended consequence of undermining anti-racist efforts.

The historical argument

I am pleased with the removal of the word race, a term under which not only were the worst theories in human history constructed, but they were also implemented during the first half of the 20th century.

— Éric Coquerel (La France Insoumise)

This is an opportunity to strike the word race from our Constitution. For years, our fellow citizens have relegated it to the dustbin of history, as it represents concepts and values that are no longer theirs.

— Jean-Yves Bony (Les Républicains)

Public law professor Gwénaële Calvès notes the pervasiveness of historical references in discussions surrounding the removal of the term "race" from legal discourse. Mario Stasi [fr], the president of LICRA since 2017, articulated in 2018 that the term "race" should be eliminated from the legal framework, emphasizing that its presence in the Constitution reflects a historical era when its usage was prevalent. The Constitution was drafted during a period when racial distinctions were widely accepted as factual.

Magali Bessone offers a counterargument, proposing that racism persists because it is not merely an issue of outdated concepts and values. Calvès asserts that the historical argument is inadequate for justifying a revision of Article 1, as it is evident that the term is not employed in its genocidal sense within the French law context. In contrast to the Vichy regime, where race was defined in legal texts, it is currently utilized in a context of negation. Legal scholar Clémence Lavigne posits that this usage implies that lawmakers do not recognize any classification of humanity into different races.

The biological argument

This argument posits that, since the scientific validity of the concept of the human race has been refuted, using the word race in the Constitution creates a contradiction between law and science that must be resolved.

This contradiction between law and science can no longer persist.

— Michel Vaxès (PCF), in the rationale for his 2003 bill

A variation of this argument seeks to align the Constitution with a fundamental anthropological truth:

Sixty years ago, Claude Lévi-Strauss declared that there was only one race, that of humanity as a whole. Removing the word race acknowledges human beings in their shared humanity, culture, and dignity.

— Serge Letchimy (Martinican Progressive Party, affiliated with the Socialist group in the National Assembly)

In contrast, the drafters of the 1972 law on combating racism (commonly, though inaccurately, referred to as the Pleven Law) — initiated to align French legislation with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination — and the Gayssot Law (1990) asserted that the law must provide the means to combat racism precisely because race does not exist.

Some legal scholars posit that the law does not merely reflect reality; rather, it is the law that creates the world, particularly through fundamental principles such as the declaration that "all men are born and remain free and equal in rights." It is therefore imperative that the discourses of science and law be kept distinct: racism is not penalized because it is a false theory, but rather because it is deemed inimical to the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. Geneticist Albert Jacquard also posits that "the issue of racism is not a scientific problem but a philosophical and moral challenge." Furthermore, he asserts that the scientific evidence disproving the existence of biological races is unlikely to persuade those who perceive differences in others daily. Jacquard adds that biology cannot provide a scientific foundation for the philosophical conviction of equal human dignity.

Moreover, the possibility of essentializing the concept of race persists, including in scientific literature. Many researchers caution that relying on biological arguments is a double-edged sword. If new scientific discoveries were to validate the notion of "biological race", it would challenge the notion that racism must be repressed on the grounds of its falsehood.

The pedagogical argument

It is not about replacing the word race with others: it is about removing it, eradicating it. No concept of race should persist in our society.

— Laetitia Avia (LREM deputy, chair of the mission to combat racism and anti-Semitism on the internet)

In 2013, communist deputy François Asensi addressed the National Assembly, explaining that the presence of the word in the law contributes to “normalizing its use, even among the youngest of our citizens,” and gives “racist discourse form of legitimization.”

As posited by Gwénaële Calvès, the notion that racism is correlated with a dearth of knowledge regarding scientific advancement may have been a pivotal factor in the discussions that culminated in the criminalization of Holocaust denial [fr] in 1990.

The symbolic argument

The legal significance is strong. Removing the word race is, of course, a powerful symbol.

— Nicole Belloubet (Minister of Justice in the second Philippe government, under President Emmanuel Macron)

The signal that France sends to the world will necessarily be seen as perfect.

— Gabriel Serville (deputy from French Guiana, member of the Democratic and Republican Left group)

This argument posits that the reformulation is performative, whereby the act of removing the term "race" from the equation is an explicit expression of equality among all citizens.

In contrast, philosopher Étienne Balibar posits that the symbol would be negative. He encourages consideration of the implications of a potential constitutional amendment in France that would remove the existing stipulation of equality before the law without distinction of race. Such a move, he argues, would symbolically eliminate a significant expression and condemnation of discrimination, as well as one of the key means of resisting its institutionalization. Constitutionalist François Borella [fr] posits that the removal of a word from our Constitution, which was originally introduced in reaction to Nazism and to condemn racial discrimination in the constitutions of all states and all international human rights treaties, would inevitably be interpreted in a manner contrary to the intentions of its proponents.

Regarding the aspiration of the expressivist interpretation of the law, political theory professor Cécile Laborde posits that "the crucial point is not what the government intends to convey, nor how citizens subjectively perceive the messages, but rather whether the government's messages objectively reflect appropriate attitudes towards citizens." In the context of Critical Race Theory, many scholars in France and the United States argue that eliminating race is an act of ignorance and the disqualification of situated knowledge, rather than a gesture of emancipation. They contend that the act of "naming race" (in its constructivist sense) most clearly expresses anti-racism. They further assert that removing the word means refusing to take the perspective of those concerned and risks erasing the trace of their discrimination.

The universalist argument

This rewriting of the first article of the Constitution, in accordance with our republican universalist tradition, would restore France to what it should never have ceased to be: a model for protecting citizens' equality before the law.

— Ferdinand Mélin-Soucramanien, professor of public law at the University of Bordeaux.

The elimination of the term is consistent with France's "color-blind" policy, which is based on the republican universalist ideal [fr] that combating racism necessitates the elimination of all attention to racial criteria.

Mario Stasi [fr], the president of the LICRA, posits that the removal of the term "race" would assist in "countering those who endeavor to suggest the existence of a form of 'state racism' in France by citing Article 1 of our Constitution." He further posits that this is particularly crucial at a juncture when "identity-based threats" are giving rise to a resurgence of "neo-colonial" discourse, thereby reinvigorating the very concept of "race" and its attendant terminology, including "racialized workshops", "racially segregated union training", and "racial whiteness."

Legal scholar Danièle Lochak [fr] offers a contrasting perspective, proposing that universalism should be conceptualized not as a preexisting state, but as a goal to be pursued. She posits that universalism must be constructed upon accepting plural identities, rather than their negation. Lochak asserts that attempts to erase the concept of race are akin to a form of political correctness that creates the impression of action while failing to address the underlying issues. She situates herself within the ongoing discourse between those who advocate for a universalist anti-racism approach, which some critics have labeled as "moral", and those who favor a political anti-racism stance, which others have characterized as "identity-based." Lochak also cautions against the phenomenon of "reverse essentialism", which she believes risks confining individuals to fixed and exclusive identities.

The sociological perspective

No, race doesn’t exist. Yes, race exists. No, it’s not what we say it is, but it remains the most tangible, real, and brutal of realities.”

— Colette Guillaumin

The assertion that "human races do not exist" is predicated on a naturalistic interpretation of the concept, while simultaneously disregarding its socio-constructivist interpretation, which has been the dominant paradigm in French social sciences since the seminal work of sociologist Colette Guillaumin. Despite the lack of biological legitimacy attributed to race, it is a social construct and a social reality. Contemporary sociologists employ the concepts of racialization and racialism to describe race, emphasizing the racist process of othering.

In this context, the term "race" is widely used in the social sciences to describe a "powerful imaginary category" that serves to justify social hierarchies. Simone Bonnafous [fr] and Pierre Fiala posit that "the imaginary race has real effects in social practices, and Article 2 of the Constitution denies any legal validity to this imaginary race." Philosopher Chantal Delsol further asserts that "the law must not ignore social reality; it must account for even invented or irrational differences, especially those that matter."

Historian Pap Ndiaye defends the retention of the term "race" in the Constitution, emphasizing that the use of the racial category does not imply a questionable ontological commitment by legislators or scholars to the existence of "races." Rather, he asserts, it is a pragmatic use of a situated category to describe discriminatory phenomena.

The pragmatic argument

Many commentators have drawn attention to the potential risks associated with the weakening of anti-racist legislation if the term "race" is removed. These include constitutional scholar Didier Maus [fr], law professors Bertrand Mathieu [fr] and Jean-Philippe Derosier [fr], philosopher Éric Deschavanne, and historian Pap Ndiaye, who, in 2018, expressed opposition to the removal of the controversial term from Article 1, arguing that it would represent "one of those grand legislative gestures full of good intentions but with negative consequences."

Philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff characterizes the removal as a "symbolic victory", suggesting that it would also necessitate the removal of derivative terms like "racist", which could be interpreted as implying that racial discrimination is no longer prohibited. In 2013, Dominique Baudis, then the Defender of Rights, was consulted regarding a proposal to eliminate the concept of race from French legislation. He acknowledged the symbolic value of the project but expressed concern about its practical consequences. Similarly, philosopher Antonia Soulez warns that "the explicit denial, especially in a constitutional text, has the effective force of a stance against race as a criterion." She further states that "if the denial disappears, along with the word 'race,' the Constitution will no longer respond when, in the face of resurgent racism, it is needed."

Nevertheless, some scholars contend that the legal framework would remain robust even if race were removed from Article 1. In 1992, constitutional scholar Olivier Duhamel posited that incorporating a "rejection of racism" into the Constitution would permit the exclusion of race without compromising the efficacy of anti-racist legislation. In 2018, Minister of Justice Nicole Belloubet underscored the multitude of legal safeguards enshrined in the 1958 Constitution, which cites the 1946 Constitution and the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, both of which are integral to the constitutional block. Nevertheless, Magali Bessone observes that Belloubet's remarks indicate that race is not an inherently antiquated category but rather a crucial legal instrument. Conversely, Françoise Vergès posits that the 1946 Constitution's preamble, which has never been invoked to challenge racial discrimination before the Constitutional Council, does not afford the same protection against racism as Article 1 of the 1958 Constitution.

Legislative attempts to remove the word “race”

Since 2002, at least ten legislative initiatives have been proposed to remove the term "race" from the French Constitution or penal code. Among these, one may cite a bill passed by the National Assembly in 2013 but never debated in the Senate, as well as a constitutional revision abandoned in 2018.

In November 2002, during the review of the constitutional bill on the decentralized organization of the Republic, Socialist Victorin Lurel proposed an amendment to remove the reference to race from the Constitution. This proposal was rejected by the UMP group. In March 2003, Communist deputy Michel Vaxès proposed an amendment to replace the terms "race" and "racial" in French legislation with "ethnicity" and "ethnic." However, the right-wing majority rejected this amendment, arguing that it would weaken the requirement to combat racism. In the same year, the Communist and Republican group in the National Assembly introduced a bill intending to remove the term "race" from French legislation. However, they specified that they had elected not to propose amendments to the preambles of the 1946 Constitution and the 1958 Constitution, which they regarded as the foundational texts of the Republic and therefore of historical significance. In 2004 and 2007, Victorin Lurel and the Socialist group once again presented a constitutional bill to eliminate the term "race" from Article 1 of the Constitution. Additionally, an amendment was proposed to replace the term "race" with "origins." These two initiatives were ultimately rejected by the National Assembly. On May 15, 2008, Arnaud Montebourg introduced another amendment during discussions on a constitutional reform aimed at modernizing the institutions of the Fifth Republic. This amendment sought to remove the term "race" from Article 1. However, the proposal faced significant opposition in the Senate, notably from Robert Badinter. Ultimately, the amendment was rejected by the rapporteur.

During a public meeting on overseas territories in the 2012 presidential campaign, Socialist candidate François Hollande articulated a commitment to remove race from the Constitution, offering a rationale for this position.

The Republic does not fear diversity because diversity is movement, it is life. Diversity of backgrounds, origins, and colors, but not diversity of races.

— François Hollande

During the 2012 presidential campaign, those who opposed the removal of the term "race" from the French Constitution offered vehement criticism of the proposal. On March 26, 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy stated in Ormes that modifying the text would be "blasphemous, a denial of our country's identity and history, and an insult to those who drafted it." He underscored his dedication to upholding the Constitution's historical anti-racist intent. Similarly, Marine Le Pen opposed the change, arguing for the retention of tools to combat what she termed anti-white racism. Political analysts, such as Camille Bouzereau, interpreted these stances as attempts to ridicule François Hollande's proposal. Sarkozy, for instance, made a sarcastic remark on March 30, 2012, suggesting that eliminating the word "unemployed" would solve the unemployment problem.

Following François Hollande's election, the constitutional amendment that had been promised was notably absent from the revision draft that was presented in March 2013. Nevertheless, the Socialist Party endorsed a legislative proposal introduced by Alfred Marie-Jeanne, a deputy from Martinique, and supported by the Left Front. The objective of this legislative proposal was to modify existing French legislation, specifically the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Press Freedom Act, without amending the Constitution. The proposed amendments asserted that the French Republic is committed to combating racism, anti-Semitism, and xenophobia and does not recognize the existence of any so-called race. Additionally, the proposed legislation aimed to replace the term "race" with expressions such as "based on racist criteria" or "motivated by racism" throughout French legislation. At the time, Christiane Taubira, Minister of Justice, commended the initiative as "a necessary, noble, and powerful act during a period marked by the resurgence and uninhibited expression of rejection toward others." Despite being adopted by the National Assembly on May 16, 2013, the bill was never debated by the Senate. In 2015, the Left Front attempted to revive the issue in the Senate following a controversial statement by European Parliament member Nadine Morano (Les Républicains), who referred to a "white race." However, their efforts were unsuccessful.

During Emmanuel Macron's presidency, the National Assembly's commission voted unanimously on June 27, 2018 (with 119 members present) to remove the word "race" from Article 1 of the Constitution. The vote was part of a broader review of the constitutional bill "for a more representative, responsible, and effective democracy. [fr]" The word was retained in the preamble of the 1946 Constitution. Furthermore, the amendment proposed the inclusion of a prohibition against "distinction based on sex." The revised Article 1 was to read as follows: "France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social republic. The aforementioned article ensures equality before the law for all citizens, without distinction of sex, origin, or religion. The amendment was adopted in a plenary session on July 12, 2018, by unanimous vote, except for opposition from those representing the far-right. However, the constitutional reform process was interrupted by the Benalla affair and ultimately abandoned. In the following year, the proposed modification was omitted from a new version of the constitutional reform bill, which was now titled "for a renewal of democratic life. [fr]" Delphine Batho, an independent MP at the time, attempted to reintroduce the amendment to Article 1. However, the government insisted that the discussions remain focused on the recommendations of the Citizens Convention for Climate, which led to the rejection of the amendment by the Law Commission. This second attempt at constitutional reform was also abandoned.

In June 2020, amidst a surge in anti-racist activism following the murder of George Floyd, Minister of City and Housing Julien Denormandie (LREM) endeavored to reopen the discourse surrounding the removal of the term "race" from the French Constitution. Subsequently, in March 2021, the Socialist group proposed a series of five amendments to a proposed modification of Article 1 of the Constitution, in conjunction with the legislation aimed at combating climate change and enhancing resilience to its effects [fr]. These amendments were rejected, and the constitutional reform project was once again abandoned. In July 2021, a constitutional bill was presented by François Jolivet (LREM), who had been absent during the vote in 2018. The only argument provided in the bill's explanatory notes was that "the persistence of is now misunderstood, contrary to its original intent." However, this proposal ultimately went without further action.

Alternatives to removing the word "race"

The day we remove the word racism, will we have removed the idea? I mean, it's absurd!

— Nicolas Sarkozy, March 2012

Even if the intention is commendable, abolishing 'race' in social sciences or the Constitution will not make the discrimination based on it disappear.

— Pap Ndiaye, 2019

Scholars of the field, Simone Bonnafous [fr] and Pierre Fiala, have observed that the legal prohibition of a word has never resulted in the desired positive social behavioral change. The proposal to simply remove the word "race" from the Constitution, which is advocated by the Galilée Association and supported by certain legislators, is often viewed as symbolically dangerous, absurd, naive, or futile. Liberal-conservative philosopher Chantal Delsol characterizes this approach as a form of "magical thinking" or ideological belief, likening it to an attempt to reinvent reality by erasing words. This perspective echoes the world depicted in George Orwell's 1984. Despite the assertion by parliamentarians who voted for its removal in 2013 that this measure would not eliminate racism, many argue that it would not achieve this goal.

Gwénaèle Calvès posits that replacing the term "race" with "racist" or "for racist reasons", a change approved only by the National Assembly in 2013, would have prompted inquiries into the motives of the perpetrator of discrimination. However, such motives are not pertinent when defining a criminal offense. In the absence of a criminal context, the proposed change would have had the effect of absolving several forms of discrimination, including indirect and unintentional discrimination. The replacement of "race" with an expression using the adjective "racist" was also discussed by lawyer Emmanuel Derieux, who posited that this would render judicial work more subjective, as it would be challenging to ascertain the racist intent of an individual engaging in discriminatory behavior. Furthermore, the use of the plural form in the expression "for racist reasons" gives rise to questions: does it imply that there must be at least two reasons?

In 1992, constitutionalist Olivier Duhamel presented four alternative solutions for replacing the term "race." "Denunciation" (replacing "race" with "pretended race"); "substitution" (replacing "race" with "ethnicity"); "abstraction" (replacing "race" with a prohibition such as any category that discriminates between human beings); and "rectification" (replacing "race" with, say, genetic traits). He believes that "denunciation" is an ineffective strategy, noting that in the modern media landscape, attempts at denial are largely futile. The term "pretended race" may not be an effective solution, as it may still be perceived as a reference to race by the general public. From a political standpoint, the use of "ethnicity" is merely a euphemism, which Étienne Balibar asserts contributes to racist discourse. The utilization of an abstract circumlocution fails to achieve its intended educational objective. However, "rectification" would provide "protection against sociobiologists and racialists of all kinds." He proposes a formula that he deems both politically and legally useful, assuming the effect of redundancy: "without distinction based on origin, religion, real or pretended genetic traits, real or supposed ethnic affiliation, or any category aimed at discriminating between human beings."

Simone Bonnafous [fr] and Pierre Fiala critique the potential dangers of judicially regulating language and propose replacing the ternary list (sex/race/religion) with an open list, as seen in Article 2 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This list includes explicit non-exhaustive marks with the repetition of "any other", thereby mitigating the adverse effects of the term "race" and underscoring the universal rights of each individual.

In the Senate in 2008, Robert Badinter also proposed complementing the enumeration "without distinction of origin, race, or religion" because he believed that "there is no reason to forget other forms of discrimination and the harm they cause." He even suggested removing it entirely, so that Article 1 would simply read: "France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It guarantees equality before the law for all citizens."

Clémence Lavigne proposes a solution that has not been previously considered by lawmakers, potentially due to its lack of a strong symbolic impact. She suggests including a preamble that would clarify the use of the term "race", as seen in several European texts.

While combating racism is not merely a matter of words, this debate is not futile. Sociologist Didier Fassin, cited by Lavigne, offers a compelling perspective on this matter.

The difficulty of expressing ourselves places us under the obligation to think; in other words, our awkwardness in addressing these 'racial' questions and categories is not a handicap to overcome, but a truth we must confront.

— Didier Fassin

Equivalents abroad

National texts

In the aftermath of the First World War, the term "race" was still not widely employed in Europe. The term "without distinction of race" is found in the Austrian Constitution of 1920, the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920, and the Soviet Constitution of 1936. In the aftermath of World War II, the 1946 Yugoslav Constitution, as outlined in Article 21, asserts the equality of all citizens "without distinction of race." The preamble to the French Constitution of 1946 subsequently adopted this formula, applying it to all human beings. The expression then appeared in the peace treaties of February 10, 1947, the 1947 Italian Constitution, the 1949 German Basic Law, and in all constitutions adopted after 1945 by former communist states in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa.

The 1961 South African Constitution represents a notable exception, marking a significant break with the Commonwealth. Notably, it does not include a declaration of rights, with the principles of apartheid being governed by other laws. In stark contrast to the preceding South African constitutional texts, those adopted after the end of apartheid prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race. This is enshrined in the 1996 Constitution. The Constitution permits positive discrimination based on "race" (affirmative action), in contrast to "unfair discrimination", and denounces racial hatred. The South African Constitutional Court has stated that the Constitution's long-term goal is to create a "non-racial" society where the significance of "race" would disappear. However, the text is not racially neutral because one cannot ignore "the country's glaring history in which race, combined with class and gender, was the determining factor in the distribution of resources in our society for more than 300 years." Constitutional scholar Pierre de Vos takes issue with the colorblind viewpoint, which he believes "denies the reality of race." He asserts that the South African Constitution "differs from those that start with the principle that everyone is equal and, in doing so, merely ratify existing inequalities."

The Constitution of Australia is the only one that still permits its national parliament to discriminate against individuals based on their "race." The Constitution of Australia came into effect in 1901 with several articles mentioning the "aboriginal race." The first Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, asserted that the Commonwealth should have the authority to "regulate the affairs of people of color or inferior race." The Constitution has been amended on several occasions, the most recent being in 1967, to recognize the rights of Aboriginal people. However, it still includes Article 25, which stipulates that states may exclude people from voting based on their "race", and Article 51 (the Race power), which grants the Commonwealth the authority to pass special laws for people "of any race." In the context of the controversy surrounding the construction of the Hindmarsh Island Bridge in 1998, the High Court of Australia made a ruling that highlighted the constitutional authority of the national parliament to enact legislation that could be perceived as discriminatory. In the 2017 Uluru Statement, Indigenous peoples called for establishing a body, designated as "the Voice", which would be empowered to issue opinions on laws and public policies affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The decision was submitted to a referendum in 2023, which ultimately resulted in a rejection. During the campaign, those in opposition asserted that "the constitutional amendment is based on race, so it is racist", whereas proponents contended that the Australian Constitution has been inherently racist since its inception and that the amendment would recognize Indigenous peoples without validating the existence of biological races.

Austria spearheaded the initial efforts to remove the term "race" from its legislative framework. In 2004, it replaced it with the term "ethnic affiliation" (ethnische Zugehörigkeit) in the Federal Equal Treatment Act [fr] (Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) and the Federal Equal Treatment Act applicable to the public service sector (Bundesgleichbehandlungsgesetz). However, it did not extend this change to its penal code. The Finnish penal code employs the terms "race" and "racial", but in 2000, the term "origin" (alkuperän) was established as the preferred term in the Constitution. In Sweden, the term "race" was removed from the text of the Non-Discrimination Act (Diskrimineringslagen) in 2008, and the term "ethnicity" was introduced in its place.

In Germany, the use of the word "race" in the Constitution (Grundgesetz) was questioned in 2008 by the German Institute for Human Rights, which argued that the text should not contain a term "used since the late 17th century to categorize and hierarchize groups of people." This argument was reiterated in 2015 by the Black People's Initiative. The debate was rekindled in Germany following the murder of George Floyd, and a revision procedure was initiated in 2021 to replace the term "race" with a reference to racism. However, the process was postponed due to a lack of consensus. The arguments presented in this debate are largely analogous to those presented in France.

In contrast, the term "race" does not engender debate in English-speaking countries. It is employed in the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1870, and has become a routine term in administrative, legal, and common usage. In the United Kingdom, the Race Relations Act has been in force since 1965, condemning racial discrimination. However, in contrast to critical race theory, which employs the concept of race in a liberating manner, there is an "eliminativist" trend in North American philosophical literature, primarily represented by Anthony Appiah, who posits that combating racism can be achieved by ceasing to utilize the term "race".

International texts

The condemnation of all racial discrimination is a fundamental tenet of all major international treaties, with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, serving as the foundational document in this regard.

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature by the United Nations on December 21, 1965, defines racial discrimination as "any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race." France signed the Convention on April 18, 1971, at a time when neither the government nor the parliamentary majority anticipated that it would result in legislative changes. However, this did occur with the 1972 anti-racism law.

The term "race" is also employed in European texts, most notably in Article 10 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, signed by France on March 25, 1957. This article states that "in the definition and implementation of its policies and actions, the Union seeks to combat any discrimination based on race or ethnic origin." Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted on December 7, 2000, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or ethnic origin in Article 21. The Directive of June 29, 2000, further clarifies the principle of equal treatment among individuals "without distinction of race or ethnic origin", prefacing the text with a warning about the meaning of "race."

Notes

1. ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. (Article 2) From the marriageable age, men and women, without any restriction based on race, nationality, or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. They have equal rights concerning marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution. (Article 16)"
2. Article 31 of Law No. 78-17 of January 6, 1978 [fr]: "It is prohibited to store or retain in computerized memory, unless the person concerned expressly agrees, nominative data that directly or indirectly reveal racial origins, political, philosophical, or religious opinions, or trade union affiliations of individuals."
3. Decree No. 90-115 of February 2, 1990, implementing the third paragraph of Article 31 of Law No. 78-17 of January 6, 1978, on computers, files, and freedoms Article 1: "Judicial and administrative courts are authorized, for the exercise of their duties, to store or retain in computerized memory the nominative data necessary for the instruction and judgment of disputes brought before them and for the execution of judicial decisions, which directly or indirectly reveal the racial origins, political, philosophical, or religious opinions, or trade union affiliations of the parties involved in the dispute."
4. Decree of November 8, 1928: Article 1: "Any individual born on the territory of Indochina, of parents, one of whom remains legally unknown, is presumed to be of French race, and may, by the provisions of this decree, obtain recognition of French nationality." Article 2: "The presumption that the father or mother, who remains legally unknown, is of French origin and race may be established by all means. The main elements of assessment are the name borne by the child, the fact that they have received a French education, training, and culture, and their position in society."
5. Decree-Law of April 21, 1939 [fr], Official Journal, April 25, 1939, p. 5295: "No reason based on race or religion can disrupt the equality of citizens; no exception arising from a hereditary circumstance can affect, concerning any one of them, the feeling of fraternity that unites all members of the French family (Report to the President of the French Republic). Article 1: Articles 32 and 33 of the law of July 29, 1881 on press freedom are amended as follows: Article 32: Defamation committed against a group of people who belong, by their origin, to a particular race or religion, shall be punished."
6. Similarly, the Auroux laws [fr] introduced in 1982 in the Labor Code a provision prohibiting the sanctioning or dismissal of an employee "on the grounds of their origin or their belonging to an ethnicity, nation, or race" (Article L. 122-45). The law of July 13, 1983, regarding the rights and obligations of civil servants reiterates the prohibition against making distinctions between civil servants "on the grounds of their opinions or their ethnic affiliation."
7. Internal Security Code [fr] (dissolution of associations), Penal Code (in 2016 for the article on discrimination, in 2017 for “hate crimes” and non-public hate speech), the 2008 transversal anti-discrimination law (in 2016) and the Labor Code (in 2017).
8. The phrase "racially segregated union training" refers to the controversy surrounding the activities of the SUD-Education union 93.
9. Directive 2000/43/EC of the Council of June 29, 2000, concerning the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons, regardless of race or ethnic origin, Official Journal No. L 180 of 19/07/2000, pp. 0022 - 0026: "The European Union rejects all theories seeking to establish the existence of distinct human races. The use of the word 'race' in this directive does not in any way imply the acceptance of such theories."
10. International Convention of December 21, 1965, on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: "Any doctrine of superiority based on the differentiation between races is scientifically false, morally reprehensible, and socially unjust and dangerous, and nothing can justify racial discrimination, either in theory or in practice."
11. 1996 South African Constitution: "The State may not unjustly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language, and birth."
12. In the original version of the Australian Constitution, Article 25 stated that the states could exclude individuals from voting in elections based on their race. Article 127 stated that "in the calculation of the population of the Commonwealth indigenous people shall not be counted." Article 51(26) allowed the federal Parliament to enact laws concerning "persons of any race, other than the Aboriginal race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws." Article 25 was not amended. In 1967, Australians voted overwhelmingly to repeal Article 127, and to remove the italicized words from Article 51, extending the federal government's power over race as defined in Article 51(26) to Indigenous peoples.
13. Article 6 of the Finnish Constitution of 2000: "All persons are equal before the law. No one shall be discriminated against without a valid reason on the grounds of sex, age, origin, language, religion, beliefs, opinions, health status, disability, or any other personal characteristic. "
14. Article 3 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany stipulates that no one may be "disadvantaged or favored because of their sex, descent, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions."
15. Article 1 of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
16. In contrast, particularly with the continuation of the Black slavery system and discrimination against Native Americans. Even the 1776 Declaration of Independence stated that "all men are created equal."
17. Directive 2000/43/EC of the Council of June 29, 2000, concerning the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons, regardless of race or ethnic origin, Official Journal No. L 180 of 19/07/2000, pp. 0022 - 0026: "The European Union rejects all theories seeking to establish the existence of distinct human races. The use of the word 'race' in this directive does not in any way imply the acceptance of such theories."

References

1. "Article premier de la Constitution en vigueur" [Article 1 of the current Constitution.] (in French). Archived from the original on January 20, 2024.
2. "Loi constitutionnelle no 95-880 du 4 août 1995" [Constitutional Law No. 95-880 of August 4, 1995] (in French). Archived from the original on July 3, 2024.
3. ^ Borella, François (1992). "Le mot race dans les Constitutions françaises et étrangères" [The word race in French and foreign constitutions]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 305–316. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1761. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
4. ^ Elster, Jon (2012). Comment écrit-on l'histoire constitutionnelle ? [How is constitutional history written?]. Nomos & Normes (in French). Éditions Kimé. pp. 173–194.
5. ^ Bonnafous, Simone; Fiala, Pierre (1992). "Est-ce que dire la race en présuppose l'existence ?" [Does saying race presuppose its existence?]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 11–22. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1734. Archived from the original on February 20, 2024. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
6. ^ Millon-Delsol, Chantal (1992). "Pertinence de renonciation du mot race dans la Constitution" [Relevance of renouncing the word race in the Constitution]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 257–260. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1758. Archived from the original on June 14, 2024. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
7. ^ Joyeux 2022
8. ^ Lavigne 2016
9. ^ Brun, Solène; Cosquer, Claire (2022). Sociologie de la race [Sociology of race] (in French). Armand Colin. ISBN 978-2-200-63339-4. Archived from the original on December 4, 2024.
10. "JORF no 30 du 4 février 1990. Décret no 90-115 du 2 février 1990 portant application aux juridictions du troisième alinéa de l'article 31 de la loi no 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés" [JORF no. 30 of February 4, 1990. Decree no. 90-115 of February 2, 1990 applying the third paragraph of article 31 of law no. 78-17 of January 6, 1978 on data processing, data files and individual liberties to the courts.] (in French). Archived from the original on July 27, 2023.
11. ^ Zevounou 2021a
12. ^ Bonnafous, Herszberg & Israel 1992
13. Mayer, Danièle (1992). "L'appréhension du racisme par le code pénal" [The criminal code's approach to racism]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 331–338. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1763. Archived from the original on June 14, 2024. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
14. ^ Lochak, Danièle (1992). "La race : une catégorie juridique ?" [Race: a legal category?]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 291–303. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1760. Archived from the original on November 30, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2022.
15. Saada, Emmanuelle (2007). Les enfants de la colonie. Les métis de l'Empire français entre sujétion et citoyenneté [Les enfants de la colonie. Les métis de l'Empire français entre sujétion et citoyenneté]. Espace de l'Histoire (in French). La Découverte. ISBN 978-2-7071-7873-2. Archived from the original on October 3, 2023.
    • Jennings, Eric (2007). "Emmanuelle Saada : la question métisse, tout en nuances" [Emmanuelle Saada: the mixed-race question in all its nuances]. Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on July 24, 2023. Retrieved July 24, 2023.
    • Delalande, Nicolas (2007). "Le droit colonial face aux enfants métis" [Colonial law and mixed-race children]. La Vie des idées (in French). Archived from the original on April 24, 2024. Retrieved July 24, 2023.
    • Martinache, Igor (2007). "Emmanuelle Saada, Les enfants de la colonie. Les métis de l'Empire français entre sujétion et citoyenneté" [Emmanuelle Saada, The children of the colony. The mixed race of the French Empire between subjection and citizenship]. Lectures (in French). doi:10.4000/lectures.505. ISSN 2116-5289. Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved July 25, 2023.
16. ^ Calvès 2022
17. ^ Stasi, Mario (2018). "" Le mot "race" doit disparaître de notre Constitution "" [“The word 'race' must disappear from our Constitution”.]. Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on September 13, 2024. Retrieved April 14, 2022.
18. Borella, François (1992). "Le mot race dans les Constitutions françaises et étrangères" [The word race in French and foreign constitutions]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 305–316. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1761. ISSN 0243-6450. Archived from the original on July 12, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2022.
19. ^ Vincent, Catherine (2018). "Et si le mot « race » était utile dans la Constitution ?" [What if the word “race” was useful in the Constitution?]. Le Monde (in French). Archived from the original on April 20, 2023. Retrieved April 9, 2022.
20. "Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse" [Freedom of the Press Act of July 29, 1881]. www.legifrance.gouv.fr (in French). Archived from the original on January 28, 2023. Retrieved April 16, 2022.
21. ^ Herszberg, Bernard (1992). "Quescexa, les « origines raciales » ? Propos sur la législation antiraciste : le ver est dans le fruit" [Quescexa, “racial origins”? Anti-racist legislation: the worm is in the fruit]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 261–290. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1759. Archived from the original on June 14, 2024. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
22. "Décision no 2007-557 DC du 15 novembre 2007 - Loi relative à la maîtrise de l'immigration, à l'intégration et à l'asile" [Decision no. 2007-557 DC of November 15, 2007 - Law on immigration control, integration and asylum]. conseil-constitutionnel.fr (in French). November 15, 2007.
23. "Décret n° 2023-935 du 10 octobre 2023 autorisant la création d'un traitement automatisé de données à caractère personnel dénommé « Système informatisé de suivi de politiques pénales prioritaires » (SISPoPP) - Légifrance" [Decree no. 2023-935 of October 10, 2023 authorizing the creation of an automated personal data processing system called “Système informatisé de suivi de politiques pénales prioritaires” (SISPoPP) - Légifrance]. www.legifrance.gouv.fr (in r). December 21, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
24. Deléan, Michel (December 21, 2023). "SISPoPP », le nouveau fichier qui fâche" [SISPoPP, the new angry file]. Mediapart (in French). pp. December 21, 2023.
25. ^ Bessone 2021
26. ^ "Compte-rendu de la séance du jeudi 12 juillet 2018" [Minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, July 12, 2018]. National Assembly (in French). Archived from the original on March 29, 2024. Retrieved July 25, 2023.
27. Debono, Emmanuel (August 29, 2022). "Combattre le racisme par la loi, un processus historique. Genèse et évolution de la loi du 1er juillet 1972" [Combating racism through the law: a historical process. Genesis and evolution of the law of July 1, 1972]. alarmer.org (in French). Retrieved July 25, 2023.
28. ^ Chathuant, Dominique (2021). Nous qui ne cultivons pas le préjugé de race : Histoire(s) d'un siècle de doute sur le racisme en France [We who do not cultivate racial prejudice: Story(s) of a century of doubt about racism in France] (in French). Paris: Éditions du Félin. p. 365. ISBN 978-2-86645-961-1.
    • "Généralités" [Overview]. Outre-Mers (in French). 416–417 (2): 227–234. 2023. doi:10.3917/om.416.0227. ISSN 1631-0438. Retrieved July 27, 2023.
    • "Cultures". Esprit (in French). July–August (7): 182–265. 2022. doi:10.3917/espri.2207.0182. ISSN 0014-0759. Retrieved July 27, 2023.
29. "50e anniversaire de la loi Pléven" [50th anniversary of the Pléven law]. defenseurdesdroits.fr (in French). July 1, 2022. Archived from the original on August 15, 2022. Retrieved July 28, 2023.
30. Hermitte, Marie-Angèle (1999). "Le droit est un autre monde" [Law is another world]. Enquête. Archives de la revue Enquête (in French) (7): 17–37. doi:10.4000/enquete.1553. ISSN 1953-809X. Retrieved April 17, 2022.
31. ^ Jacquard, Albert; Kahn, Axel (2001). "Du déterminisme au racisme" [From determinism to racism]. L'avenir n'est pas écrit [The future is not written] (in French). Bayard. pp. 150–151. ISBN 2-266-12553-2.
32. Policar, Alain (2023). La Haine de l'antiracisme. Conversation avec Régis Meyran [La Haine de l'antiracisme. Conversation with Régis Meyran] (in French). Paris: Éditions Textuel. p. 16. ISBN 978-2-84597-952-9.
33. ^ Devecchio, Alexandre (October 12, 2018). "Taguieff : «Supprimer le mot «race» de la Constitution serait contre-productif»" [Taguieff: “Removing the word ‘race’ from the Constitution would be counterproductive”.]. Le Figaro (in French).
34. Morning, Ann (2021). "Et vous pensiez que nous avions laissé tout cela derrière nous : la race biologique fait son retour dans les sciences sociales" [And you thought we'd put all that behind us: biological race is making a comeback in the social sciences]. Appartenances & Altérités (in French). 1 (1). doi:10.4000/alterites.358. ISSN 1953-7476.
35. Reich, David (2018). "Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
36. Korolitski, Ulysse (2015). Punir le racisme ? : liberté d'expression, démocratie et discours racistes [Punishing racism? freedom of expression, democracy and racist discourse] (in French). Paris: CNRS Éditions. ISBN 978-2-271-07140-8.
    • Rouvet, Adrien (2016). "Ulysse Korolitski, Punir le racisme ? Liberté d'expression, démocratie et discours racistes" [Ulysse Korolitski, Punishing racism? Freedom of expression, democracy and racist discourse]. Lectures (in French). doi:10.4000/lectures.19888. ISSN 2116-5289. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
37. "Dix questions à Alain Policar" [Ten questions for Alain Policar]. Journal du Mauss (in French). March 11, 2013. Retrieved November 20, 2023.
38. "Assemblée nationale ~ Deuxième séance du jeudi 16 mai 2013" [National Assembly ~ Second session of Thursday, May 16, 2013]. www.assemblee-nationale.fr (in French). Retrieved April 17, 2022.
39. ^ Balibar, Étienne (1992). "Le mot race n'est pas « de trop » dans la Constitution française" [The word race is not “too much” in the French Constitution]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 241–256. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1757. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
40. ^ Brun, Solène; Cosquer, Claire (2022). Sociologie de la race [Sociology of race] (in French). Armand Colin. ISBN 978-2-200-63339-4.
41. ^ Mélin-Soucramanien, Ferdinand (July 18, 2018). "Supprimer le mot «race» de la Constitution: oui, mais…" [Removing the word “race” from the Constitution: yes, but...]. Libération (in French). Retrieved April 10, 2022.
42. "Color-Blind: Examining France's Approach to Race Policy". Harvard International Review. February 1, 2021. Retrieved July 17, 2023.
43. Simon, Patrick (June 11, 2019). "Pour lutter contre le racisme, il ne faut pas invisibiliser la question de la "race"" [To combat racism, we must not make the issue of “race” invisible]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved July 16, 2023.
44. ^ Lochak, Danièle (2022). "Racismes, antiracismes : reconstruire l'universalisme" [Racism and anti-racism: rebuilding universalism]. Pouvoirs (in French). 181 (2): 131–142. doi:10.3917/pouv.181.0131. ISSN 0152-0768. Retrieved September 18, 2023.
45. "Les ateliers « en non-mixité raciale » du syndicat SUD-Education 93 créent une polémique" [SUD-Education 93 union's “racially non-mixed” workshops create controversy]. Le Monde (in French). November 21, 2017.
46. Policar, Alain (March 23, 2023). "L'antiracisme, tous unis ?" [Anti-racism, all united?]. France Inter (in French). Retrieved November 20, 2023.
47. ^ Devriendt, Émilie; Monte, Michèle; Sandré, Marion (2018). "Analyse du discours et catégories « raciales » : problèmes, enjeux, perspectives" [Discourse analysis and “racial” categories: problems, issues, perspectives]. Mots (in French) (116): 9–37. doi:10.4000/mots.23034. ISSN 0243-6450. Retrieved July 23, 2023.
48. Guillaumin, Colette (1981). "« Je sais bien mais quand même » ou les avatars de la notion de race »" [“Je sais bien mais quand même” or the avatars of the notion of race”.]. Le Genre Humain (in French). 1 (1): 55–64. doi:10.3917/lgh.001.0055.
49. ^ Beaud, Stéphane (2021). Race et sciences sociales : essai sur les usages publics d'une catégorie [Race and the social sciences: an essay on the public uses of a category]. Épreuves sociales (in French). Marseille: Éditions Agone. pp. 185–195. ISBN 978-2-7489-0450-5.
50. Poiret, Christian (2011). "Les processus d'ethnicisation et de raci(ali)sation dans la France contemporaine : Africains, Ultramarins et « Noirs »" [Processes of ethnicization and racialization in contemporary France: Africans, Ultramarines and “Blacks”]. Revue européenne des migrations internationales (in French). 27 (1): 107–127. doi:10.4000/remi.5365. ISSN 0765-0752. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
51. ^ Ndiaye, Pap (2018). "Gommer le mot "race" de la Constitution française est un recul" [Removing the word “race” from the French Constitution is a step backwards]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved July 4, 2023.
52. ^ Fassin, Didier (2006). "Nommer, interpréter. Le sens commun de la question raciale" [Naming, interpreting. The common meaning of race]. Cahiers libres [Free handbooks] (in French). La Découverte. pp. 17–36. doi:10.3917/dec.fassi.2006.02.0017. ISBN 978-2-7071-5851-2.
53. ^ "Pap Ndiaye : « Si l'on veut déracialiser la société, il faut bien commencer par en parler »" [Pap Ndiaye: “If we want to de-racialize society, we have to start by talking about it”.]. Le Monde (in French). July 12, 2019. Retrieved August 24, 2023.
54. Boulègue, Jean; Chrétien, Jean-Pierre; Lainé, Agnès; Lozès, Patrick (2007). "Les « Noirs » de France, une invention utile ?" [The “Blacks” of France: a useful invention?]. Esprit (in r). June (6): 86. doi:10.3917/espri.0706.0086. ISSN 0014-0759. Retrieved July 25, 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
55. ^ Maligorne, Clémentine (October 1, 2015). "Faut-il retirer le mot «race» des textes de loi ?" [Should the word “race” be removed from legal texts?]. Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved July 25, 2023.
56. ^ Lucas, Emmanuelle (June 14, 2020). "Julien Denormandie fait resurgir le débat sur le mot « race » dans la Constitution" [Julien Denormandie revives the debate on the word “race” in the Constitution]. La Croix (in French). ISSN 0242-6056. Retrieved April 9, 2022.
57. ^ Deschavanne, Eric (July 12, 2018). "Pourquoi supprimer le mot "race" de la Constitution est une grave bourde philosophique" [Why removing the word “race” from the Constitution is a serious philosophical blunder]. Le HuffPost (in French). Retrieved April 10, 2022.
58. Defender of Rights (April 16, 2013). "Avis 13-05 relatif à la suppression du mot "race" de notre législation" [Opinion 13-05 on the removal of the word “race” from our legislation]. juridique.defenseurdesdroits.fr (in French).
59. Soulez, Antonia (1992). "Dire non au sophisme de l'appartenance à la race" [Saying no to the race fallacy]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 23–33. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1735. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
60. ^ Duhamel, Olivier (1992). "La révision constitutionnelle : problématique et enjeux" [Constitutional revision: issues and challenges]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1): 351–356. doi:10.3406/mots.1992.1766. Retrieved July 2, 2023.
61. ^ Peillon, Luc (July 13, 2018). "Pourquoi le mot "race" reste-t-il dans la constitution, malgré sa suppression?" [Why does the word “race” remain in the constitution, despite its removal?]. Libération (in French). Retrieved July 5, 2023.
62. Boudou, Guillaume (2014). "Autopsie de la décision du Conseil constitutionnel du 16 juillet 1971 sur la liberté d'association" [Autopsy of the French Constitutional Council's July 16, 1971 decision on freedom of association]. Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel (in r). 97 (1): 5–120. doi:10.3917/rfdc.097.0005. Retrieved July 25, 2023.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
63. Ali, Fatima; Ali, Zahra; Bentouhami, Hourya; Lamrani, Souad; Meyer, Laurence; Möschel, Mathias; Roig, Emilia; Vergès, Lionel (2018). "La couleur de peau, les origines: ce n'est pas la race!" [Skin color, origins: it's not race!]. Mediapart (in French). Retrieved September 7, 2023.
64. ^ "N° 670 - Rapport de M. Michel Vaxès sur la proposition de loi de M. Michel VAXÈS tendant à la suppression du mot "race" de notre législation" (623)" [N° 670 - Report by Mr Michel Vaxès on the proposed law by Mr Michel VAXÈS to remove the word “race” from our legislation” (623)]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Retrieved April 10, 2022.
65. "Retrait du mot «race» de la Constitution : quinze années de revendications" [Removing the word “race” from the Constitution: fifteen years of demands]. Le Figaro (in French). June 27, 2018. Retrieved April 10, 2022.
66. ^ Fouteau, Carine (March 19, 2012). "Danièle Lochak: «Supprimer le mot race de la Constitution n'éradiquera pas le racisme»" [Danièle Lochak: “Removing the word race from the Constitution will not eradicate racism”.]. Mediapart (in French). Retrieved July 27, 2023.
67. "Des réformes à tout-va" [Reform after reform]. Le Monde (in French). May 4, 2009. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
68. ^ "Séance du 18 juin 2008 (compte rendu intégral des débats)" [Session of June 18, 2008 (verbatim report of proceedings)]. Senate (in French). Retrieved April 10, 2022.
69. "Présidentielle : Hollande veut supprimer le mot "race" de la Constitution" [Presidential election: Hollande wants to remove the word “race” from the Constitution]. Le Point (in French). March 10, 2012. Retrieved July 25, 2023.
70. ^ Bouzereau, Camille (2020). Doxa et contredoxa dans la construction du territoire discursif du front national (2000-2017) [Doxa and contradoxa in the construction of the discursive territory of the Front National (2000-2017)] (Thesis) (in French). Côte d'Azur University.
71. Bonneau, Benjamin (March 13, 2013). "Pourquoi Hollande a préservé la "race"" [Why Hollande preserved the “race"]. Europe 1 (in French). Archived from the original on July 29, 2023. Retrieved July 29, 2023.
72. Marie-Jeanne, Alfred (April 14, 2013). "Rapport fait au nom de la Commission des lois constitutionnelles, de la législation et de l'administration de générale de la République sur la proposition de loi no 218 de MM. André Chassaigne, Marc Dolez et plusieurs de leurs collègues, tendant à la suppression du mot « race » de notre législation" [Report on behalf of the Commission des lois constitutionnelles, de la législation et de l'administration de générale de la République on proposed law no. 218 by André Chassaigne, Marc Dolez and several of their colleagues, aimed at deleting the word “race” from our legislation.]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Retrieved July 27, 2023.
73. Vincent, Catherine (June 27, 2013). "Fin de "race"" [End of “race"]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved July 16, 2023.
74. ^ AFP (May 16, 2013). "L'Assemblée nationale supprime le mot "race" de la législation" [The National Assembly removes the word “race” from legislation]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved October 9, 2017.
75. "Pouvoirs publics : suppression du mot "race" de notre législation" [Public authorities: remove the word “race” from our legislation]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Retrieved October 9, 2017.
76. AFP (September 30, 2015). "Après les propos de Morano, la gauche de la gauche réclame l'adoption du texte supprimant le mot "race" de la loi" [After Morano's remarks, the left calls for the adoption of the text removing the word “race” from the law]. France Info (in French). Retrieved July 17, 2023.
77. * "Nadine Morano et la "race blanche" : la polémique en cinq actes" [Nadine Morano and the “white race”: the controversy in five acts]. France Info (in French). September 30, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
    • Damgé, Mathilde; Laurent, Samuel (October 1, 2015). "Les « races », Morano et De Gaulle : pour clore la polémique" ["Race”, Morano and De Gaulle: to end the controversy]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved July 16, 2023.
    • "Nadine Morano perd son investiture aux élections régionales" [Nadine Morano loses her nomination for the regional elections]. Le Monde (in French). October 7, 2015. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
    • Debono, Emmanuel (December 1, 2016). "De l'usage naïf du mot « race »" [The naive use of the word “race"]. Au coeur de l'antiracisme (blog) (in French). Retrieved September 18, 2023.
78. "Vers la disparition du mot "race" de la Constitution française" [Towards the disappearance of the word “race” from the French Constitution]. Reuters (in French). June 27, 2018. Archived from the original on July 27, 2023. Retrieved July 27, 2023.
79. Lemarié, Alexandre (June 27, 2018). "Les députés suppriment le mot « race » de la Constitution" [Deputies remove the word “race” from the Constitution]. Le Monde (in French).
80. "Le mot race est-il raciste ?" [Is the word race racist?]. France Culture (in French). July 19, 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
81. Ferrand, Richard; Braun-Pivet, Yaël; Fesneau, Marc (2018). Rapport sur le projet de loi constitutionnelle pour une démocratie plus représentative, responsable et efficace [Report on the constitutional bill for a more representative, accountable and effective democracy] (PDF) (in French).
82. "Constitution: l'Assemblée supprime le mot "race" et interdit la "distinction de sexe"" [Constitution: Assembly deletes word “race” and bans “gender distinction"]. Public Sénat (in French). July 12, 2018. Retrieved April 9, 2022.
83. AFP (July 22, 2018). "La révision constitutionnelle suspendue pour cause d'affaire Benalla" [Constitutional revision suspended over Benalla affair]. RTL (in French). Retrieved July 16, 2022.
84. de Villaines, Astrid; Rescan, Manon (August 9, 2018). "Après l'affaire Benalla, la révision constitutionnelle en suspens" [After the Benalla affair, constitutional revision on hold]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved April 9, 2022.
85. Boichot, Loris (May 31, 2019). "Environnement, référendum... Ce que la nouvelle réforme de la Constitution va changer" [After the Benalla affair, the constitutional revisionaEnvironment, referendum... What will the new constitutional reform change?]. Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved April 9, 2022.
86. Roger, Patrick (May 31, 2019). "Révision constitutionnelle : des nouveautés, des inchangés et des retraits" [Constitutional revision: new features, unchanged features and withdrawals]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved July 5, 2023.
87. "Renouveau de la vie démocratique (2019)" [Renewal of democratic life (2019)]. politique.pappers.fr (in French). Retrieved September 9, 2023.
88. Anglade, Pieyre-Alexandre (February 17, 2021). "Rapport fait au nom de la commission des lois constitutionnelles de la législation et de l'administration générale de la République, sur le projet de loi constitutionnelle complétant l'article 1er de la Constitution et relatif à la préservation de l'environnement (no 3787)" [Report on behalf of the Committee on Constitutional Laws, Legislation and the General Administration of the Republic, on the draft constitutional law supplementing Article 1of the Constitution and relating to the preservation of the environment (no 3787)]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Retrieved July 17, 2023.
89. Fressoz, Françoise (June 25, 2019). "L'été est arrivé, et pschitt !, plus rien, la révision constitutionnelle a fait long feu" [Summer came and went, and the constitutional revision fizzled out.]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved April 9, 2022.
90. Le Pourhiet, Anne-Marie (June 16, 2020). ""Supprimer le mot race de la Constitution est contre-productif"" [Removing the word race from the Constitution is counterproductive]. Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved July 16, 2023.
91. "Compléter l'article 1er de la Constitution et relatif à la préservation de l'environnement" [Adding to Article 1 of the Constitution, concerning the preservation of the environment]. politique.pappers.fr (in French). Retrieved September 19, 2023.
92. "Compléter l'article 1er de la Constitution et relatif à la préservation de l'environnement (no 3787) Amendement no 316" [To supplement Article 1 of the Constitution on the preservation of the environment (no 3787) Amendment no 316]. Assemblée nationale (in French). Retrieved April 9, 2022.
93. "Référendum climat : l'exécutif enterre la promesse d'Emmanuel Macron" [Climate referendum: the executive buries Emmanuel Macron's promise]. Le Monde (in French). July 7, 2021. Retrieved April 9, 2022.
94. "Vos élus ont-ils voté la suppression du mot "race" de la Constitution ?" [Did your elected representatives vote to remove the word “race” from the Constitution?]. France 3 Centre (in French). July 13, 2018. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
95. "Proposition de loi constitutionnelle no 4332 portant suppression du mot race de l'article premier de la Constitution" [Proposal for constitutional law no. 4332 removing the word race from article 1 of the Constitution]. Assemblée nationale (in r). Retrieved July 3, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
96. "Suppression du mot race de l'article premier de la Constitution (1ère lecture Assemblée nationale - Examen en commission)" [Deletion of the word race from Article 1 of the Constitution (1st reading National Assembly - Committee consideration)]. politique.pappers.fr (in French). Retrieved September 19, 2023.
97. ^ AFP (March 15, 2012). "Suppression du mot "race" : "Les arguments de Sarkozy assez proches de ceux de Marine Le Pen"" [Removing the word “race”: “Sarkozy's arguments are quitea similar to those of Marine Le Pen”]. Le Point (in French). Retrieved April 21, 2022.
98. Diallo, Rokhaya (July 13, 2018). "France's dangerous move to remove 'race' from its constitution". The Washington Post.
99. Galonnier, Juliette; Naudet, Jules (June 11, 2019). "Race et intersectionnalité" [Race and intersectionality]. La Vie des idées (in French). Retrieved July 22, 2023.
100. Derieux, Emmanuel (2016). "Rapport de synthèse" [Summary report]. Legicom (in French). 57 (2): 95–107. doi:10.3917/legi.057.0095. ISSN 1244-9288. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
101. "EUR-Lex - 32000L0043 - FR". EUR-Lex (in French). Retrieved July 4, 2023.
102. "Convention internationale sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale" [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (in French). Retrieved July 4, 2023.
103. Vircoulon, Thierry (2010). "La gouvernance de l'Afrique du Sud. Entre populisme, néolibéralisme et social-démocratie" [The governance of South Africa. Between populism, neoliberalism and social democracy]. Études (in French). 6/412: 741–750. doi:10.3917/etu.4126.0741.
104. "Textes à l'appui : Décision de la Cour constitutionnelle sud-africaine, CCT 10/99, du 2 décembre 1999" [Supporting texts: Decision of the South African Constitutional Court, CCT 10/99, December 2, 1999]. Constitutional Council (in French). 2001. Retrieved July 25, 2023.
105. van Reenen, Tobias P (1997). "Equality, discrimination and affirmative action: an analysis of section 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa". Southern African Public Law. 12 (1). Retrieved July 25, 2023.
106. ^ de Vos, Pierre (2020). ""Race" and the Constitution: A South African perspective". Verfassungsblog. doi:10.17176/20200626-225016-0. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
107. ^ Williams, George (2023). "Racial divide has always been part of our Constitution". The Australian.
108. Dellerba, Isabelle (September 1, 2023). "En Australie, un référendum sur la reconnaissance des peuples premiers dans la Constitution" [In Australia, a referendum on the recognition of First Peoples in the Constitution]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved October 20, 2023.
109. Visontay, Elias (2023). "Australia rejects proposal to recognise Aboriginal people in constitution". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
110. Dellerba, Isabelle (October 15, 2023). "Les Australiens disent non à la « voix » aborigène" [Australians say no to the Aboriginal “voice]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved October 20, 2023.
111. Murphy-Oates, Laura (2023). "Indigenous voice referendum AMA: are we 'putting race in the constitution'?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved October 20, 2023.
112. ^ Mahon, Graf & Steffanini 2019
113. "Constitution de la Finlande" [Constitution of Finland]. Venice Commission (in French).
114. Edita Publishing Oy. "FINLEX ® - Ajantasainen lainsäädäntö: Suomen perustuslaki 731/1999". sur finlex.fi (in Finnish). Retrieved October 3, 2023.
115. "Begriff "Rasse"". German Institute for Human Rights (in German). June 21, 2021. Retrieved August 11, 2023.
116. ^ Wieder, Thomas (June 17, 2020). "En Allemagne, l'affaire George Floyd remet la Constitution au cœur des débats" [In Germany, the George Floyd affair puts the Constitution back at the heart of the debate]. Le Monde (in French). Retrieved August 1, 2023.
117. "Doch keine Verfassungsänderung: Warum es vorerst bei "Rasse" im Grundgesetz bleibt". Der Tagesspiegel (in German). June 9, 2021. ISSN 1865-2263. Retrieved July 1, 2023.
118. "Experten mehrheitlich für Ersetzung des "Rasse"-Begriffs im Grundgeset..." [Experts mostly in favor of replacing the term “race” in the Basic Law...]. Bundestag (in German). June 21, 2021. Retrieved August 11, 2023.
119. Florent, Hugo (July 2, 2018). "Vu de l'étranger. Suppression du mot "race" dans la Constitution, mesure plus polémique qu'il n'y paraît" [Seen from abroad. Removal of the word “race” from the Constitution, a more controversial measure than it seems]. Courrier International (in French). Retrieved April 10, 2022.
120. Mohdin, Aamna (June 28, 2018). "France replaced the word "race" with "sex" in its constitution". Quartz. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
121. Sabbagh, Daniel (2021). "De la déracialisation en Amérique : apports et limites de la Critical Race Theory" [From deracialization in America: contributions and limits of Critical Race Theory]. Droit et Société (in French). 108 (2): 287–301. doi:10.3917/drs1.108.0287. ISSN 0769-3362. Retrieved July 27, 2023.
122. "50e anniversaire de la loi Pleven" [50th anniversary of the Pleven law]. Defender of Rights (in French). July 1, 1972. Archived from the original on July 1, 2022. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
123. Chathuant 2021, pp. 317–338
124. "Convention internationale sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale" [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (in French). Retrieved July 28, 2023.
125. "Directive 2000/43/CE du Conseil du 29 juin 2000 relative à la mise en œuvre du principe de l'égalité de traitement entre les personnes sans distinction de race ou d'origine ethnique" [Council Directive 2000/43/EC of June 29, 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.]. Official Journal of the European Union (in French). EUR-Lex. 2000.
126. "EUR-Lex - 32000L0043 - FR". EUR-Lex (in French). Retrieved July 4, 2023.

Bibliography

• Bonnafous, Simone; Herszberg, Bernard; Israel, Jean-Jacques (1992). "Sans distinction de... race" [Regardless of... race]. Mots. Les Langages du Politique (in French). 33 (1). Archived from the original on March 16, 2024. Retrieved April 17, 2022.
• Lavigne, Clémence (2016). "La suppression du mot « race » des textes juridiques français" [The removal of the word “race” from French legal texts]. Revue du droit public (in French) (3): 917–933. Archived from the original on July 5, 2023. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
• Zevounou, Lionel (2021a). "Raisonner à partir d'un concept de « race » en droit français" [Using the concept of “race” in French law]. Revue des droits de l'homme. Revue du Centre de recherches et d'études sur les droits fondamentaux (in French) (19). doi:10.4000/revdh.11516. ISSN 2264-119X. Archived from the original on December 24, 2023. Retrieved April 16, 2022.
• Zevounou, Lionel (2021). Raisonner à partir d'un concept de « race » en droit français [Using the concept of “race” in French law]. Transition & Justice (in French). Vol. 31. Institut Francophone pour la Justice et la Démocratie. pp. 21–100. ISBN 978-2-37032-311-8. Archived from the original on July 8, 2023.
• Bessone, Magali (2021). "Analyser la suppression du mot « race » de la Constitution française avec la Critical race theory : un exercice de traduction ?" [Analyzing the removal of the word “race” from the French Constitution with Critical race theory: an exercise in translation?]. Droit et Société (in French). 108 (2): 367–382. doi:10.3917/drs1.108.0367. ISSN 0769-3362. Archived from the original on July 4, 2023. Retrieved July 29, 2022.
• Calvès, Gwénaële (2022). "Le mot « race » dans la législation antiraciste française" [The word “race” in French anti-racist legislation]. Pouvoirs (in French). 181 (2): 73–84. doi:10.3917/pouv.181.0073. ISSN 0152-0768. Archived from the original on May 30, 2024. Retrieved April 16, 2022.
• Mahon, Pascal; Graf, Anne-Laurence; Steffanini, Federica (2019). "La notion de « race » dans le droit suisse: étude juridique établie à la demande du Service de lutte contre le racisme du Département fédéral de l'intérieur" [The concept of “race” in Swiss law: a legal study commissioned by the Federal Department of Home Affairs' Service for Combating Racism.]. edi.admin.ch (in French). Archived from the original on July 4, 2023. Retrieved July 4, 2023.
• Joyeux, Arthur (2022). "Suppression du mot « race » de la constitution et principe de non-discrimination : Une analyse du discours contrastive France / Union européenne" [Removal of the word “race” from the constitution and the principle of non-discrimination: A contrastive discourse analysis France / European Union]. Corela (in French) (HS-36). doi:10.4000/corela.14514. ISSN 1638-573X. Archived from the original on June 4, 2024. Retrieved July 23, 2023.

• Race and law
• Law of France
• Constitutional amendments under the French Fifth Republic
• 2013 in politics
• 2018 in politics
• 2019 in politics