La réception de l’œuvre de Ronald Dworkin en France constitue un objet énigmatique à plusieurs égards. Son étude suppose non seulement de dépasser les contraintes générales inhérentes à la réception transnationale d’une pensée, que les contraintes spécifiques, emportées par l’œuvre dworkinienne elle-même. Nous nous proposons de surmonter ces contraintes à l’aide d’une enquête méthodologique permettant de mettre en évidence le caractère relatif des concepts juridiques, et plus particulièrement des concepts d’œuvre et de réception. Ce préalable nous conduira à analyser pragmatiquement les phénomènes de réception de l’œuvre de Ronald Dworkin afin de montrer en quoi l’œuvre et la réception s’influencent réciproquement. Une telle analyse, entendue statiquement, permettra de classer la réception, suivant ses formes ou son contenu ; alors que, comprise dynamiquement, elle mettra en lumière les effets des discours de réception, sur l’œuvre dworkinienne elle-même, mais également sur son auditoire. / The reception of Ronald Dworkin’s work in France is a complex issue. Several methodological questions arise before conducting its study. First, I point out the challenge offered by the difference between two intellectual and legal cultures. Then, I emphasize the particular concerns involved by Dworkin’s own theory. These preliminaries lead us to a pragmatic analysis of the reception of Dworkin’s work, eager to show the deep encroachments between the author’s work and its reception. On one side, such a method will enable to classify the reception, in accordance with, respectively, its form and its content. On the other side, it will bring to light the impacts of the reception on Ronald Dworkin’s work as well as on its audience.

Cette recherche analyse le processus de socialisation des juges de proximité au sein des Tribunaux d'Instance. Les Juridictions de Proximité ont été créées par la réforme de la Justice de 2002. Pour les réformateurs de la justice, cette juridiction incarne la volonté de déjuridiciser la relation entre la justice et les justiciables. La réaction du corps de la magistrature a stigmatisé la figure des « juges-citoyens » qui ont été soupçonnés de ne pas posséder les compétences pour rendre une justice de qualité. Ainsi, l'accès au poste est restreint à des juristes de formation. L'objectif de créer une justice de proximité est aujourd'hui loin d'être concrétisé. Son organisation a produit un phénomène paradoxal où les juges de proximité rendent une justice plus juridicisée que les juges professionnels. Cette thèse cherche à comprendre les conditions sociales de production de ce paradoxe. L'enquête de terrain consiste en des entretiens avec des juges de proximité, juges professionnels et greffiers ; un dense travail d'observation d'audiences judiciaires et un stage dans le tribunal d'Instance de Sète. L'organisation sociale de la justice de proximité est analysée à travers la socialisation des juges au sein des juridictions et l'accomplissement pratique de leur travail. L'intégration des juges de proximité est importante pour comprendre la stigmatisation dont ils sont l'objet et les stratégies employées pour surmonter les difficultés relationnelles. La construction de l'identité est le résultat d'un processus cognitif d'interprétation des attentes des membres des tribunaux par les juges de proximité. Ils surjouent leur rôle en valorisant leurs connaissances juridiques pour retourner le stigmate. A partir d'une analyse ethnométhodologique, les différentes méthodes utilisées par les juges de proximité et par les juges d'Instance sont comparées afin de comprendre comment le travail est accompli en coordination avec les greffiers. La comparaison est étendue au travail accompli avec les justiciables durant les audiences. Les techniques employées sont décrites afin de démontrer la manière dont les juges de proximité focalisent les interactions aux aspects juridiques, contrairement aux juges d'Instance. Comme conclusion, les juges de proximité rendent une justice plus juridicisée, parce qu'ils cherchent à montrer leurs connaissances juridiques pour se socialiser en reléguant au second plan les habiletés pratiques pour accomplir le travail quotidien. La sociologie de la décision judiciaire contribue à comprendre les conditions concrètes et les inquiétudes séculaires qui guident le processus décisionnel. / This research analyzes the socialization process of “juges de proximité” within the courts in France. The small claim courts (“jurisdictions de proximité”) were created by the Justice reformation of 2002 (se foi mais de uma reforma usa o “of”, se foi só uma deixa o “in”). To its reformers, this institution represents the desire of reducing litigiousness in the relationship between Justice and citizens. The reaction of professional judges' corporation stigmatized the image of the“citizen-judges” who were presumed to not have enough competences to render a Justice of quality. Hence, the access to this position was limited to graduated lawyers. The creation of a closeness justice is nowadays far from being achieved. Its organization produced a paradoxal phenomenon in which “juges de proximité” accomplish a more litigious justice than professional judges. This thesis aims to understand the social conditions leading to this paradox. The fieldwork consisted of interviews with “juges de proximité”, professional judges and court clerks; an intense work of observation of judicial hearings and an internship in the Small Court of Sète. The judges' integration is important to understand their stigmatization and the strategies used to overcome relational difficulties. The construction of identity is the result of a cognitive process of interpretation of court members' expectancies by the “juges de proximité”. They overperform their role by showing their legal competences in order to deviate the attention from their stigma. Through an ethnomethodological analysis, different methods employed by “juges de proximité” and professional judges are compared to understand how the work is accomplished in coordination with the court clerks. The comparison is extended to the work accomplished with lay people during judicial hearings. The employed techniques are described to reveal the way in which “juges de proximité” focus interactions in legal features, contrarily to professional judges. In conclusion, “juges de proximité” accomplish a more litigious justice, because they intend to demonstrate their legal knowledge to socialize, by relegating practical skills to accomplish the everyday work in courts. The sociology of judicial decision contribute to understand the concrete conditions and the secular concerns which guide the decision making process.

A presente dissertação aborda a problemática questão da responsabilidade do Estado por omissões judiciais em seus diversos aspectos. Apresenta um panorama geral do papel e da função do instituto da responsabilidade extracontratual do Estado concebido dentro de um sistema amplo de controle e responsabilidade em sentido amplo do Poder Judiciário e da magistratura, sobretudo no sistema brasileiro. Examina a tipologia dos atos oriundos do Poder Judiciário para fins da incidência da responsabilidade estatal. Analisa a responsabilidade do Estado em face dos atos jurisdicionais e não jurisdicionais do Poder Judiciário. Estuda separadamente cada requisito da responsabilidade do Estado por omissão. Traça as peculiaridades de cada um desses requisitos considerando as peculiaridades da atividade judiciária. Propõe e delimita, com enfoque (mas não exclusivamente) no processo cível, oito espécies de omissões judiciais passíveis de gerar a responsabilidade do Estado. Enfrenta, dentre essas espécies, a questão da denegação de justiça e morosidade judicial. Trata da responsabilidade pessoal do magistrado e demais servidores. Discorre sobre a relação dessa responsabilidade com a do Estado. E, por fim, expõe algumas questões processuais relacionadas a tais ações. / This dissertation addresses the highly problematic issue regarding liability of the State on court omissions in its various aspects. It provides an overview of the role and function of the liability of the State in torts considering the Brazilian broad control system of judicial acts. This work deals with specific types of acts related to liability of the State in the Judiciary, by analyzing the liability on judicial and non-judicial acts. It also studies each aspect of the liability of the State on court omissions considering the peculiarities of the judicial activity. Another point is the effort to clearly define eight species of court omissions focusing (but not exclusively) in Civil Procedure Law and the attempt to deal with issues related to justice denial and judicial delay. It studies judge and judicial employees accountability and the discussion related to this judicial accountability and the State. Finally, it presents some procedural issues related to such actions.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:31:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-08-28Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:01:20Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 guaglianoni_dg_dr_arafcf.pdf: 445249 bytes, checksum: 6b2f7be0315d0559a22a0c696a31b5bc (MD5) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (Mcti) / A partir do início dos anos 70, ficou estabelecido que a qualidade sensorial é o resultado da interação entre o alimento e o homem, portanto varia de forma subjetiva. Diferentes escalas foram então associadas às análises sensoriais, surgindo como conseqüência procedimentos estatísticos específicos nesta área. Os experimentos envolvendo análise sensorial iniciaram assim a discussão quanto ao número necessário de julgadores, ao seu treinamento e aos procedimentos apropriados à análise dos dados extraídos dessas escalas ordenadas. Este trabalho foi baseado em um teste sensorial de aceitação do atributo “Impressão Global” de quatro amostras de cachaças avaliadas por 120 julgadores. O objetivo fundamental foi realizar comparações entre os procedimentos estatísticos, paramétricos ou não-paramétricos, com vistas a compará-los e estabelecer o número mínimo de julgadores. Com base nos dados dos testes sensoriais foram criadas 5400 amostras sistemáticas com números diferentes de julgadores, sobre as quais foram aplicados os procedimentos estatísticos estabelecidos. Os resultados assim obtidos mostraram ser possível a utilização de um número menor de julgadores. Revelaram ainda que, na maioria dos casos, o índice de concordância é o fator mais importante na determinação do número mínimo de julgadores, sendo que, para valores de concordância de Kendall maior ou igual a 0,18, o número de 60 julgadores mostrou-se suficiente. / Since begin of 1970s, it was well established that the sensory quality of a food was a result of the interaction between the food and humans, thus varying subjectively. This led to the creation of scales associated to sensory analyses, end as a consequence, specific statistical procedures in this area. The experiments related to sensory analysis started the discussion about the number of judges required, their training, and the appropriate procedures for the analysis of data extracted from these ordered scales. The present work was based on a sensory acceptance test of the attribute “Global Impression” cachaça samples evaluated by 120 judges. The basic objective was to compare the standard statistical procedures, parametric and nonparametric, in order to determine the minimum number of judges necessary. From the initial data, 5400 systematic samples with different numbers of judges were created, and the standard statistical procedures were applied. Bored on the obtained data it was evaluated if the base experiment could be reproduced with fewer judges. The results indicated that, in most cases, the index of agreement is the most important factor to determine the necessary number of judges. In this case, if the Kendall concordance value among judges is ≥ 0,18, the total number of judges could be only 60.

Extralegal Factors Important to Judges' Decisions in Child Abuse Custody Cases by Marilyn J. Nolan MS, Pittsburg (Kansas) State University, 1986 BS, Missouri Southern State University, 1982 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Human Services Walden University May 2015 Research has shown juvenile court judges are skeptical of mental health testimony; however there is a lack of research regarding what types of testimony by what kinds of experts are valued by judges. Using the theory of legal pragmatism, the purpose of this study was to assess how 83 Oklahoma District Court judges rated extralegal factors influencing their perceptions of the credibility of mental health expert testimony. Quantitative survey research methods were used to collect the data. Friedman ANOVAs by ranks with multiple comparisons were used to test differences across multiple characteristics, and Spearman rho coefficients assessed relationships of age and gender of judges with their importance ratings of extralegal factors. The results showed that judges preferred PhD psychologists over other mental health professionals, witnesses who drew firm conclusions, testimony in layman's terms, and citing theories accepted by the scientific community. A child's testimony and educational credentials of experts were important to younger female judges when deciding custody as was maintaining the integrity of the family when deciding termination issues. Other findings included: all judges agreed sexual abuse was the most important criteria for terminating parental rights, all forms of child abuse were important case factors that influenced judges' decisions, and disparaging parents and substance abuse by a parent were important to older male judges in their decisions. Results from this study will assist in the development of core curricula for courtroom skills training for mental health experts, paving the way for positive social change. With improved training and quality of expert testimony, judges will be more likely to use testimony from knowledgeable unbiased experts when making decisions which will benefit children, families, and communities.

Au tournant des années 2000, on observe une augmentation des litiges mettant en jeu un conflit potentiel entre le droit de l'UE et les droits constitutionnels nationaux. Face à cette situation de tensions constitutionnelles, réelles et plus seulement théoriques, la CJUE et les juridictions suprêmes nationales se retrouvent dans une situation d'impasse ontologique au sens où, d'une part, le statu quo est intenable, car le surgissement d'un conflit constitutionnel ouvert mettrait en danger tout l'édifice européen et, d'autre part, toute solution juridique de sortie du statu quo est impensable car hors de ce que permet le paradigme de la hiérarchie des normes. Contrairement aux prédictions de la théorie néofonctionnaliste, notre étude, qui développe une approche constructiviste, montre que les acteurs juridictionnels ne vont pas approfondir l'intégration juridique en reconnaissant la primauté absolue du droit de l'UE, mais vont passer d'un mode de régulation juridique du risque de conflit constitutionnel à un mode de régulation extra-judidique, la gouvernance constitutionnelle des juges, basé sur des mécanismes informels de convergence cognitive et de socialisation. L'identité devient une variable dépendante. Plus que cela, ils instituent un espace de dialogue informel régi par la rationalité communicationnelle, au sens habermassien. La culture du dialogue des juges change également en ce que les acteurs juridictionnels développent une sémantique de l'appartenance commune, ainsi qu'une axiologie de co-responsabilité, et tendent à former une communauté de sécurité juridictionnelle fondée sur la certitude d'une règlement pacifique des différends constitutionnels. / From the 2000s, one can observe an increase of litigations putting at stake a potential conflict between EU law and national constitutional laws. Facing this situation of real – and no longer only theoretical – constitutional tensions, the ECJ and the national high courts find themselves in an ontological stalemate. On one side, status quo is not bearable, because the happening of an open constitutional conflict could endangered the whole EU. On the other side, the paradigm of the hierarchy of norms doesn't allow any legal solution to escape from this status quo. Contrary to neofunctionalist predictions, our study, which develops a constructivist approach, shows that judicial actors don't deepen the legal integration by recognizing an absolute EU law's supremacy, but shift from a legal mode of regulation of constitutional conflict risks to an extra-legal mode, that we call the constitutional governance of judges, based on informal mechanisms of cognitive convergence and socializations. Identity becomes a dependent variable. Moreover, they institute informal spaces for dialogue governed by communicative rationality, according to the Habermassian meaning. The culture of judicial dialogue changes as well: judicial actors develop a semantic of the common belonging and a moral of shared responsibility, and tend to form a judicial security community based on the certainty that constitutional conflict would always be peacefully solved.

No description available.

During the information sessions that the Scripps Mock Trial Team hosts at the beginning of the school year for those interested in mock trial, it's customary for all the returning team members to talk about why we decided to join mock trial in college. We had no team at my high school, but at the end of my senior year, my AP American Government teacher decided that having a mock trial in class would give us valuable insight into the American legal system. I was chosen to give the closing statement for the defense, and I found my calling. My competitive spirit had found an outlet where it was not hampered by the unathletic body that housed it: competitive arguing. I have not been able to find any scholarly text that examines the ways in which mock trial teams themselves adhere to gender-normative patterns. I believe that this thesiswill be invaluable to an understanding of how gender roles are performed in the legal profession

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistic, California accounts for approximately 2,600,000 illegal immigrants in 2009. This number represents about 25 percent of the entire estimated illegal immigrant population in the United States, which is roughly 10.8 million. Between 2003 and 2008, the U.S. government removed 1,446,338 noncitizens from the United States. This rise in deportation is a result o the changes that have been enacted by the federal government over the years that transformed the nature of immigration enforcement. This thesis explores the California Immigration Enforcement system from the programs established to apprehend illegal aliens in the United States, the rights illegal aliens are granted, the detention facilities where they reside and the immigration courts that ultimately decide their fate. The question that is being asked is whether the current system established works or if reform is needed.

This thesis looks at the Confrontation Clause from the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision made in Maryland v. Craig. It examines the opinions of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, and determines if their judicial philosophies were consistent with their opinion. It does so by examining the history of the Confrontation Clause from ancient history to the present, and by enumerating the judicial philosophies of O'Connor and Scalia. In conclusion, while O'Connor's majority opinion is consistent with her pragmatic philosophy, Scalia's dissent is not consistent with his originalist views.