A l'heure actuelle des centaines de femmes de par le monde sont concernées par le problème des ‘agounot. Il peut aussi bien s'agir de femmes auxquelles le mari refuse la délivrance du Guett (acte de divorce religieux) que de maris disparus et dont la mort n'est pas avérée au regard du droit rabbinique. Il peut également s'agir de femmes liées par l'obligation de procéder soit au Lévirat (Yiboum) soit au « déchaussement » (‘Halitsa), lorsque leur mari est mort sans laisser de descendance. Chacun des cas évoqués a des incidences différentes, non seulement pour la femme concernée mais aussi sur le statut des enfants qu'elle serait amenée à avoir dans le cadre de sa nouvelle union. C'est le problème du mamzer, spécifique au judaïsme. Il justifie la volonté des Rabbins de trouver une solution juridique au problème des ‘agounot. C'est ce qui a poussé nombre de rabbins, à travers différents pays et époques, à instaurer des mariages à clause résolutoire afin de palier ces problèmes. Ce cas est donc d'une actualité brûlante, d'autant plus qu'il montre à quel point les Rabbins recherchent des solutions (dans les limites du droit) pour résoudre des cas qui peuvent s'avérer dramatiques. / At this time, hundreds of Jewish women are considered as ‘agunot. This is one of the most serious problems for the Jewish people in our era. This situation can be the result of either of the following circumstances: a husband who disappears and is not considered dead by rabbinical authorities, a husband who refuses to grant the get (religious bill of divorce) to his wife or a brother-in-law who does not agree to perform the religious ceremony of ‘halitsa (or yibum) with his sister-in-law, a ceremony which is necessary in case the husband died childless. If a woman concerned with one of these situations decides to remarry out of the range of Jewish law, it could have dramatic results, especially for the children resulting from this new union. They could bear the terrible statute of mamzer (child born from an incestuous or adulterous relation). For this reason, many rabbis – through times and lands – tried to find new solutions to solve this complex issue, for the benefit of both women and children. One of these consists in the enforcement of a clause, at the time of the religious wedding, allowing to annul the marriage in the future should the woman need it.

<p>"For Better or Worse: Divorce and Annulment Lawsuits in Colonial Mexico (1544-1799)" uses petitions for divorce and annulment to explore how husbands and wives defined and contested their marital roles and manipulated legal procedure. Marital conflict provides an intimate window into the daily lives of colonial Mexicans, and the discourses developed in the course of divorce and annulment litigation show us what lawyers, litigants and judges understood to be appropriate behavior for husbands and wives. This dissertation maintains that wives often sued for divorce or annulment not as an end in itself, but rather as a means to quickly escape domestic violence by getting the authorities to place them in enclosure, away from abusive husbands. Many wives used a divorce or annulment lawsuit just to get placed in enclosure, without making a good faith effort to take the litigation to its final conclusion. "For Better or For Worse" also argues concepts of masculinity, rather than notions of honor, played a strong role in the ways that husbands negotiated their presence in divorce and annulment suits. This work thus suggests a new way to interpret the problem of marital conflict in Mexico, showing how wives ably manipulated procedural law to escape abuse and how men attempted to defend their masculine identities and their gendered roles as husbands in the course of divorce and annulment lawsuits.</p> / Dissertation

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo uma adequada compreensão da decisão judicial acerca da inconstitucionalidade da norma no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, especialmente no que diz respeito às conseqüências da inconstitucionalidade da norma e à eficácia da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. A pesquisa desenvolvida é exploratória quanto a sua técnica e explicativa quanto a seu objetivo. É exploratória, porque busca no ordenamento jurídico, na jurisprudência e na doutrina instrumentos que permitam compreender o problema da norma inconstitucional e do controle jurisdicional da constitucionalidade das normas; é explicativa quanto a seu objetivo, pois busca compreender os fenômenos jurídicos envolvidos na decisão de inconstitucionalidade, identificando os fatores que determinam ou contribuem para a inconstitucionalidade da norma e para a definição das conseqüências desta inconstitucionalidade, buscando explicar adequadamente o fenômeno da inconstitucionalidade da norma, a fim de definir como esta inconstitucionalidade se reflete na própria norma e na decisão jurisdicional que a reconhece. Deste estudo, resulta que a jurisprudência e a doutrina afirmam, de forma predominante, a nulidade da norma inconstitucional e a eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade, indicando, contudo, que, em determinados casos, é necessário mitigar essa concepção ou abrir exceções, a fim de preservar os efeitos jurídicos ou a eficácia da norma inconstitucional. Resulta, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, na medida em que consagra a supremacia e a rigidez da Constituição e se caracteriza por sua unidade e coerência, exige que a inconstitucionalidade da norma tenha como conseqüências sua invalidade — ipso jure e a partir do momento em que se verifica a inconstitucionalidade —, sua inexistência enquanto norma jurídica e sua ineficácia ― identificada esta com a incapacidade de incidir sobre os fatos e atribuir-lhes efeitos jurídicos ―, conduzindo determinando, ademais, à eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. Resulta, por fim, que as perplexidades apontadas por aqueles que se insurgem contra a concepção acerca da invalidade da norma inconstitucional são meramente aparentes e o próprio ordenamento jurídico possui meios para solucioná-las, sem que, para tanto, seja necessário atenuar ou abrir qualquer exceção em relação à invalidade da norma inconstitucional. O trabalho conduz, então, à conclusão de que, no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, a norma inconstitucional padece de invalidade, inexistência e ineficácia, características que se congregam na concepção acerca da nulidade da norma inconstitucional, e que a decisão de inconstitucionalidade possui eficácia declaratória e ex tunc, sendo que essa concepção pode ser aplicada em todo e qualquer caso, sem que seja necessário mitigá-la ou excepcioná-la. / This work intends to provide an accurate understanding of court decisions declaring the unconstitutionality of legal rules under the 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, especially in what regards the consequences of the unconstitutionality and the efficacy of the decision on unconstitutionality. The study is exploratory as to its method and explicative as to its objective. It is exploratory because it seeks within the legal system, case law and doctrine, instruments which allow for an understanding of what an unconstitutional rule might be while providing an account of the constitutionality control by courts; it is explicative as to its objective because it endeavors to comprehend the legal phenomena related to the declaration of unconstitutionality by identifying the determinant or contributive factors to a rule's unconstitutionality and its consequences, seeking to explain accurately this event in order to determine how it reflects on the rule itself and on the court decision that acknowledges its unconstitutionality. It turns out that the majority of both case law and doctrine considers the unconstitutional rule invalid and the effects of its court declaration to be backdated to the moment the statute was passed, indicating that in some cases it is necessary to mitigate such conception and open exceptions so as to sustain unconstitutional rule’s juridical effects. In fact, as 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil provides for the supremacy and rigidity of the Constitution, which is characterized by its cohesion and coherence, it follows that the consequences of the unconstitutionality of a rule are its invalidity – ipso iure, as from its verification – its inexistence as legal rule and its inefficacy (understood as the ability of applying to facts, in such a way as to generate legal effects), further determining the unconstitutionality decision’s declaratory and backdated efficacy. Finally, the study concludes that the problems identified by those who argue against the thesis of the invalidity of the unconstitutional rule are only apparent since the legal system itself has means to solve those problems in such a way that it is not necessary to mitigate or to open any exception to the thesis that an unconstitutional rule is invalid. The study leads to the conclusion that, within 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the unconstitutional rule is invalid, inexistent and ineffective, which are all characteristics located within the scope of a void rule, and that court decisions on the unconstitutionality of a legal rule have declaratory and backdated efficacy, which conclusion is applicable to every single case of court decisions on a rule's unconstitutionality, since there is no need for mitigation or exception.

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo uma adequada compreensão da decisão judicial acerca da inconstitucionalidade da norma no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, especialmente no que diz respeito às conseqüências da inconstitucionalidade da norma e à eficácia da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. A pesquisa desenvolvida é exploratória quanto a sua técnica e explicativa quanto a seu objetivo. É exploratória, porque busca no ordenamento jurídico, na jurisprudência e na doutrina instrumentos que permitam compreender o problema da norma inconstitucional e do controle jurisdicional da constitucionalidade das normas; é explicativa quanto a seu objetivo, pois busca compreender os fenômenos jurídicos envolvidos na decisão de inconstitucionalidade, identificando os fatores que determinam ou contribuem para a inconstitucionalidade da norma e para a definição das conseqüências desta inconstitucionalidade, buscando explicar adequadamente o fenômeno da inconstitucionalidade da norma, a fim de definir como esta inconstitucionalidade se reflete na própria norma e na decisão jurisdicional que a reconhece. Deste estudo, resulta que a jurisprudência e a doutrina afirmam, de forma predominante, a nulidade da norma inconstitucional e a eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade, indicando, contudo, que, em determinados casos, é necessário mitigar essa concepção ou abrir exceções, a fim de preservar os efeitos jurídicos ou a eficácia da norma inconstitucional. Resulta, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, na medida em que consagra a supremacia e a rigidez da Constituição e se caracteriza por sua unidade e coerência, exige que a inconstitucionalidade da norma tenha como conseqüências sua invalidade — ipso jure e a partir do momento em que se verifica a inconstitucionalidade —, sua inexistência enquanto norma jurídica e sua ineficácia ― identificada esta com a incapacidade de incidir sobre os fatos e atribuir-lhes efeitos jurídicos ―, conduzindo determinando, ademais, à eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. Resulta, por fim, que as perplexidades apontadas por aqueles que se insurgem contra a concepção acerca da invalidade da norma inconstitucional são meramente aparentes e o próprio ordenamento jurídico possui meios para solucioná-las, sem que, para tanto, seja necessário atenuar ou abrir qualquer exceção em relação à invalidade da norma inconstitucional. O trabalho conduz, então, à conclusão de que, no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, a norma inconstitucional padece de invalidade, inexistência e ineficácia, características que se congregam na concepção acerca da nulidade da norma inconstitucional, e que a decisão de inconstitucionalidade possui eficácia declaratória e ex tunc, sendo que essa concepção pode ser aplicada em todo e qualquer caso, sem que seja necessário mitigá-la ou excepcioná-la. / This work intends to provide an accurate understanding of court decisions declaring the unconstitutionality of legal rules under the 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, especially in what regards the consequences of the unconstitutionality and the efficacy of the decision on unconstitutionality. The study is exploratory as to its method and explicative as to its objective. It is exploratory because it seeks within the legal system, case law and doctrine, instruments which allow for an understanding of what an unconstitutional rule might be while providing an account of the constitutionality control by courts; it is explicative as to its objective because it endeavors to comprehend the legal phenomena related to the declaration of unconstitutionality by identifying the determinant or contributive factors to a rule's unconstitutionality and its consequences, seeking to explain accurately this event in order to determine how it reflects on the rule itself and on the court decision that acknowledges its unconstitutionality. It turns out that the majority of both case law and doctrine considers the unconstitutional rule invalid and the effects of its court declaration to be backdated to the moment the statute was passed, indicating that in some cases it is necessary to mitigate such conception and open exceptions so as to sustain unconstitutional rule’s juridical effects. In fact, as 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil provides for the supremacy and rigidity of the Constitution, which is characterized by its cohesion and coherence, it follows that the consequences of the unconstitutionality of a rule are its invalidity – ipso iure, as from its verification – its inexistence as legal rule and its inefficacy (understood as the ability of applying to facts, in such a way as to generate legal effects), further determining the unconstitutionality decision’s declaratory and backdated efficacy. Finally, the study concludes that the problems identified by those who argue against the thesis of the invalidity of the unconstitutional rule are only apparent since the legal system itself has means to solve those problems in such a way that it is not necessary to mitigate or to open any exception to the thesis that an unconstitutional rule is invalid. The study leads to the conclusion that, within 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the unconstitutional rule is invalid, inexistent and ineffective, which are all characteristics located within the scope of a void rule, and that court decisions on the unconstitutionality of a legal rule have declaratory and backdated efficacy, which conclusion is applicable to every single case of court decisions on a rule's unconstitutionality, since there is no need for mitigation or exception.

This paper analyzes mainly the figure of the annulment of an arbitratien award for having ruled on a non-arbitrable matters and the power of judges to invoke this ground of trade. With that purpose , this paper also consider some important legal concepts as the nullity, the arbitrability and public order as well as the Peruvian Arbitration Act and the grounds for annulment of awards which is expected. / El presente artículo analiza, principalmente, la figura de la anulación de un laudo por haberse pronunciado sobre una materia no arbitrable y la potestad de los jueces de invocar esta causal de oficio. Con ese fin, estudia también algunos conceptos jurídicos importantes como la nulidad, la arbitralidad y el orden público, así como también a la Ley de Arbitraje peruana y las causales de anulación de Laudos que esta prevé.

The Peruvian Civil Code commemorates its thirty years of existence. Some of its rules’content is clear, while some other rules are –in the words of the author– dark andquestionable.  One of these controversial rules in its meaning and application is that contained in article 226 of the Code, relatedwith a person’s legal capacity.In this article, the author makes a historical and comparative analysis of such article, to then approach the problems contained in it, contrasting their role in the current social reality and verifying if such figure is still useful in our legal system. / El Código Civil peruano cumple treinta años de vigencia. Algunas de sus disposiciones son claras respecto a su contenido y otras son –en palabras del autor– oscuras y discutibles. Una de las normas controvertidas en su significado y aplicación es la contenida en el artículo 226del Código, relacionado con la capacidad jurídica de la persona.En este artículo, el autor realiza un análisis histórico-comparativo del mencionado artículo, para luego abordar los problemas en él contenidos, contrastar su función en la realidad social actual y verificar si tal figura es aun útil en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico.

O presente trabalho tem como objetivo uma adequada compreensão da decisão judicial acerca da inconstitucionalidade da norma no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, especialmente no que diz respeito às conseqüências da inconstitucionalidade da norma e à eficácia da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. A pesquisa desenvolvida é exploratória quanto a sua técnica e explicativa quanto a seu objetivo. É exploratória, porque busca no ordenamento jurídico, na jurisprudência e na doutrina instrumentos que permitam compreender o problema da norma inconstitucional e do controle jurisdicional da constitucionalidade das normas; é explicativa quanto a seu objetivo, pois busca compreender os fenômenos jurídicos envolvidos na decisão de inconstitucionalidade, identificando os fatores que determinam ou contribuem para a inconstitucionalidade da norma e para a definição das conseqüências desta inconstitucionalidade, buscando explicar adequadamente o fenômeno da inconstitucionalidade da norma, a fim de definir como esta inconstitucionalidade se reflete na própria norma e na decisão jurisdicional que a reconhece. Deste estudo, resulta que a jurisprudência e a doutrina afirmam, de forma predominante, a nulidade da norma inconstitucional e a eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade, indicando, contudo, que, em determinados casos, é necessário mitigar essa concepção ou abrir exceções, a fim de preservar os efeitos jurídicos ou a eficácia da norma inconstitucional. Resulta, ainda, que o ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, na medida em que consagra a supremacia e a rigidez da Constituição e se caracteriza por sua unidade e coerência, exige que a inconstitucionalidade da norma tenha como conseqüências sua invalidade — ipso jure e a partir do momento em que se verifica a inconstitucionalidade —, sua inexistência enquanto norma jurídica e sua ineficácia ― identificada esta com a incapacidade de incidir sobre os fatos e atribuir-lhes efeitos jurídicos ―, conduzindo determinando, ademais, à eficácia declaratória e ex tunc da decisão de inconstitucionalidade. Resulta, por fim, que as perplexidades apontadas por aqueles que se insurgem contra a concepção acerca da invalidade da norma inconstitucional são meramente aparentes e o próprio ordenamento jurídico possui meios para solucioná-las, sem que, para tanto, seja necessário atenuar ou abrir qualquer exceção em relação à invalidade da norma inconstitucional. O trabalho conduz, então, à conclusão de que, no ordenamento jurídico erigido sob a Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, a norma inconstitucional padece de invalidade, inexistência e ineficácia, características que se congregam na concepção acerca da nulidade da norma inconstitucional, e que a decisão de inconstitucionalidade possui eficácia declaratória e ex tunc, sendo que essa concepção pode ser aplicada em todo e qualquer caso, sem que seja necessário mitigá-la ou excepcioná-la. / This work intends to provide an accurate understanding of court decisions declaring the unconstitutionality of legal rules under the 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, especially in what regards the consequences of the unconstitutionality and the efficacy of the decision on unconstitutionality. The study is exploratory as to its method and explicative as to its objective. It is exploratory because it seeks within the legal system, case law and doctrine, instruments which allow for an understanding of what an unconstitutional rule might be while providing an account of the constitutionality control by courts; it is explicative as to its objective because it endeavors to comprehend the legal phenomena related to the declaration of unconstitutionality by identifying the determinant or contributive factors to a rule's unconstitutionality and its consequences, seeking to explain accurately this event in order to determine how it reflects on the rule itself and on the court decision that acknowledges its unconstitutionality. It turns out that the majority of both case law and doctrine considers the unconstitutional rule invalid and the effects of its court declaration to be backdated to the moment the statute was passed, indicating that in some cases it is necessary to mitigate such conception and open exceptions so as to sustain unconstitutional rule’s juridical effects. In fact, as 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil provides for the supremacy and rigidity of the Constitution, which is characterized by its cohesion and coherence, it follows that the consequences of the unconstitutionality of a rule are its invalidity – ipso iure, as from its verification – its inexistence as legal rule and its inefficacy (understood as the ability of applying to facts, in such a way as to generate legal effects), further determining the unconstitutionality decision’s declaratory and backdated efficacy. Finally, the study concludes that the problems identified by those who argue against the thesis of the invalidity of the unconstitutional rule are only apparent since the legal system itself has means to solve those problems in such a way that it is not necessary to mitigate or to open any exception to the thesis that an unconstitutional rule is invalid. The study leads to the conclusion that, within 1988 Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the unconstitutional rule is invalid, inexistent and ineffective, which are all characteristics located within the scope of a void rule, and that court decisions on the unconstitutionality of a legal rule have declaratory and backdated efficacy, which conclusion is applicable to every single case of court decisions on a rule's unconstitutionality, since there is no need for mitigation or exception.

The manifest excess of powers is one of the most invoked grounds for annulment in ICSID Arbitration. This thesis analyzes the main problems on this issue.

In October of 1972, the Dissolution of Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) became a part of the law and judicial practice of the state of Oregon. The Act represents a significant change in Oregon's law. It also represents a significant evolutionary development in the 'attitude of the legal community toward the process of divorce or as it is now termed, dissolution of marriage. The Act was a response to extensive criticism from professionals and from the public. The problem is the legislators were not sure of the effects of the Act and now that it is in effect there is still little or no objective data regarding its effectiveness. This study is an exploratory attempt to evaluate the consequences of the Act, the accomplishment of its stated purposes and its impact upon the process of dissolution and the people involved.

Locus standi of non-privileged applicants to bring an action for annulment Abstract Every developed legal system is bound to have a mechanism for checking the procedural and substantive legality of measures adopted by its institutions. In the European Union it was of significant importance to create a system of control over the acts of the EU institutions given the democratic deficit within the Union and the limited supervisory role of the European Parliament. Binding acts of the EU institutions are subject to review through a number of routes provided by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), namely action for annulment (Art. 263 TFEU), the plea of illegality (Art. 277 TFEU), the preliminary reference (Art. 267 TFEU) and the action for damages (Arts. 268 and 340 TFEU). The Court has consistently endeavoured to treat the several strands as a complex and coherent system of judicial review within the Union based on the rule of law. The action for annulment under Art. 263 TFEU plays a crucial role for individuals as it is in practice the only direct way open to individuals to challenge the acts of EU institutions. The main purpose of my thesis is to examine whether the current wording of Art. 263(4) TFEU provides for individuals a sufficiently...