Submitted by Rosina Valeria Lanzellotti Mattiussi Teixeira (rosina.teixeira@unisantos.br) on 2018-02-09T16:20:16Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Nadia Vitoria Schurkim.pdf: 1334833 bytes, checksum: a149e06207c121e89e8a083ad1ee9cd9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-02-09T16:20:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Nadia Vitoria Schurkim.pdf: 1334833 bytes, checksum: a149e06207c121e89e8a083ad1ee9cd9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-10-23 / The object of the present study is the Chevron case, an accident occurred in Campos dos Goytacazes, 107 km from the coast of the State of Rio de Janeiro, in the Brazilian Exclusive Economic Zone, between November 2011 and March 2012, which caused damages to the environment due to the oil exploration activity, focusing on issues relevant to the application of criminal law in maritime areas, highlighted by the denunciation of the federal public ministry and judicial decisions handed down in criminal proceedings whose application and outlines are not peaceful, which justifies the relevance of this study. Throughout this research, the maritime domain, sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Brazilian State in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf (CS) will be analyzed. The problem is focused on the identification of the sovereignty of Brazil as a Coastal State, of the sea, sea surface and subsoil, the application of its legislative and judicial powers; in the verification if the EEZ and CS are part of the Brazilian maritime territory; in identifying the applicable legal regime in case of environmental crimes arising from the exploitation of oil in these maritime areas; extraterritoriality or territoriality of criminal law. The systematized study of the national and international legal system, through concepts of International Law, Criminal Law and Environmental Law, showed that the conflicts of interpretations observed in the case occur because the legal regime of EEZs and CS, established in UNCLOS III, when dealing with the distinction between rights of sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the coastal State does not provide clear definitions of maritime borders, providing a variety of interpretations. / O objeto do presente estudo consiste na análise do Caso Chevron, acidente ocorrido no Campos dos Goytacazes, a 107 Km do litoral do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, na denominada Zona Econômica Exclusiva brasileira, entre novembro de 2011 e março de 2012, que causou danos ao meio ambiental em decorrência da atividade de exploração de petróleo, tendo como foco as questões pertinentes à aplicação da lei penal nos espaços marítimos, destacadas da denúncia do órgão ministerial federal e das decisões judiciais proferidas no processo criminal cuja aplicação e contornos não são pacíficos, o que se justifica a relevância desse estudo. Ao longo dessa pesquisa, o domínio marítimo, a soberania e a jurisdição do Estado Brasileiro na Zona Econômica Exclusiva (ZEE) e na Plataforma Continental (PC) serão objeto de análise. A problemática concentra-se na identificação da soberania do Brasil, enquanto Estado Costeiro, do mar, da superfície e do subsolo marítimos, da aplicação de seus poderes legislativos e judiciários; na verificação se a ZEE e a PC integram o território marítimo brasileiro; na identificação do regime jurídico aplicável em caso de ocorrência de crimes ambientais decorrentes da exploração de petróleo nesses espaços marítimos; na extraterritorialidade ou da territorialidade da lei penal. O estudo sistematizado do ordenamento jurídico nacional e internacional, por meio de conceitos do Direito Internacional, Direito Penal e Direito Ambiental, demonstrou que os conflitos de interpretações observados no caso ocorrem porque o regime jurídico das ZEE e PC, estabelecidos na CNUDM III, ao tratar da distinção entre direitos de soberania e jurisdição do Estado costeiro não traz definições claras sobre as fronteiras marítimas, proporcionando diversidade de interpretações.

Treaties and international organizations work together to create a global environment that protects the rights of a person and actively promotes the well-being of society. However, they do not necessarily guarantee the rights of everyone. Since women are not explicitly named in human rights documents, they are often not granted equal human rights. Therefore, it takes more than just international legal instruments to guarantee women's rights as human rights. A combination of civil society (NGOs), International organizations (IOs), and domestic government creates a perfect coalition to beat the barriers that must be overcome to fully protect women from violence.

Cette thèse analyse la question relative au cas où, dans l'arbitrage international en matière d'investissements, dont le but principal est l'application des normes visées à la protection des investisseurs, l’État défendeur soutient que l'investissement pour lequel la protection est demandée a été obtenu au moyen d'une forme de criminalité. Dans ce contexte, la défense de l'illégalité soulevée par les État dans les contentieux d'investissement est de plus en plus courante. Cette défense fonctionne selon le schéma suivant : un État hôte enfreint les dispositions de fond que le droit international accorde aux investissements effectués dans un pays étranger, par exemple en expropriant un investisseur étranger de son investissement sans indemnité. Dans le différend qui s'ensuit devant un tribunal arbitral d'investissement, l'État défendeur invoque l'illégalité commise par l'investisseur lors de la réalisation de l'investissement pour se défendre contre la procédure arbitrale intenté contre lui. Le but principal de cette étude est celui de démontrer que des considérations systématiques de nature strictement juridique, aussi bien que de politique juridique, exigent que la défense d'illégalité dans l'arbitrage d'investissement soit strictement restreinte et qu'un tribunal ne puisse décliner d'exercer sa compétence / juridiction que dans des cas exceptionnels. Cette étude aboutit à la conclusion d'après laquelle les tribunaux d'arbitrage devraient plutôt examiner au cas par cas au stade du fond l'ensemble des circonstances soumises devant lui et procéder à une mise en balance appropriée entre les comportements de l'investisseur et ceux de l'État hôte. / This thesis addresses the question as to how an investment Tribunal is to react if, in the context of a case brought before it for breach of standards of protection of an investment, the respondent argues that the investment for which protection is sought has been secured by resorting to some form of criminality. Against this background, a defence by the Host State that has become increasingly common is the so-called Defence of Illegality. It operates on the basis of the following scheme : a Host State breaches the substantive provision that international law accord to investments made in a foreign Country, for instance by means of expropriating without compensation the investor's investment. In the ensuing dispute before an investment Tribunal, the defendant Host State raises the illegality committed by the investor in the making of the investment as defence against the breach of the substantive provisions on the protection of the investment, of which it is accused, to avoid responsibility. This thesis intends to demonstrate that both legal and policy consideration dictate that the Defence of Illegality in investment arbitration should be strictly curtailed and that a Tribunal should only decline to exercise its jurisdiction in exceptional cases. Rather, Tribunals should look at the entire set of circumstances at the merits stage and perform a proper balancing test between the conduct of the investor and the Host State.

L’existence du devoir général de respecter les délais des procès est reconnue par les systèmes juridiques de nombreux pays. L’exigence du délai raisonnable à l’égard de la Juridiction constitutionnelle doit néanmoins faire face à des obstacles d’ordre conceptuel et matériel. L’absence d’une définition précise du Délai Raisonnable et l’indétermination de sa nature juridique constituent des réelles difficultés, auxquelles s’ajoutent les facteurs identitaires du contrôle de constitutionnalité exercé par les Cours constitutionnelles, le caractère contraignant de leurs décisions, et la position hiérarchique que celles-ci occupent dans l’ordre juridico-politique de l’État. Ces contraintes créent souvent des exégèses divergentes du Délai Raisonnable et par conséquent, entraînent des exigences variées. Le propos de cette thèse est d’analyser, à partir de la jurisprudence des juridictions constitutionnelles française, brésilienne, et espagnole, les effets juridiques issus des multiples approches et signifiants du Délai Raisonnable. Cette recherche s’inscrit dans le domaine du droit constitutionnel contemporain et comparé, et repose sur la théorie de la démocratie continue et du néoconstitutionnalisme marqués par l’émergence des nouveaux mécanismes et acteurs de la participation démocratique dans l’effectivité des Droits fondamentaux. Afin de comprendre les dimensions de l’exigence ou de la violation du Délai Raisonnable à l’égard de la Juridiction constitutionnelle, on confrontera ce droit avec deux des paramètres épistémologiques qui prétendent lui donner support de légitimité : la théorie des Droits fondamentaux et la théorie de l’État constitutionnel démocratique. Dans une Première partie, le Délai Raisonnable est confronté aux facteurs identitaires de la Juridiction exercée par la Cour constitutionnelle afin de vérifier dans quelle mesure il est apte à servir de fondement aux décisions rendues par cette juridiction spéciale. Dans la Seconde, son contenu sémantique a priori indéterminé ainsi que ses multiples destinataires seront analysés à travers l’évolution conceptuelle que le Délai Raisonnable a connue en fonction des décisions des Cours constitutionnelles. / The existence of a general duty to respect the duration of proceedings is recognized by the legal systems of many countries. The reasonable length of proceedings demanded from constitutional Jurisdiction has none the less to face conceptual and material obstacles. The want of a precise definition of de reasonable length of proceedings and the indetermination of his legal nature are really difficulties, heightened by the identity factors of the judicial review wielded by the constitutional jurisdictions, the restraining nature of hers decisions and his hierarchical position held in the legal-political order of the State. These restraints often create divergent exegeses of the reasonable length of proceedings and, subsequently, involve various demands. The object of this doctoral thesis is to analyse the jurisprudence of the constitutional French, Brazilian and Spanish Jurisdiction and the legal effects produced by the multiple approaches and signifiers of the reasonable length of proceedings. This research fits into the field of modern and comparative constitutional law and is founded on the theory of continuous democracy and neoconstitutionalism bearing the marks of the new workings and actors of the democratic participation in the effectiveness of the fundamental Rights. In order to understand the implications of the demands or violation of the reasonable length of proceedings in relation to constitutional Jurisdiction, this right will be confronted with two epistemological parameters which claim to give it a legitimate support: the theory of fundamental rights and the theory of the democratic constitutional State. In a first part, the reasonable length of proceedings is confronted to identity factors of the jurisdiction wielded by the constitutional Court so as to ascertain if it is apt to serve as a foundation to the decisions pronounced by this special jurisdiction. In the second part, its semantic content a priori undetermined with its multiple recipients will be analysed through the conceptual evolution of the reasonable length of proceedings embodied by the decisions of the constitutional Courts.

在網際網路應用普及的推波助瀾下，全球經濟一體化已然成為時代之趨勢，造就了網際網路商業交易之盛行。基於電子商務交易之特性與傳統課稅觀念有著重大之差異性，除了對企業營運效率提升與交易成本之降低有助益外，企業更可利用網路無國界等特性，發展出新的逃漏稅方法，此將造成租稅稅基之流失。而我國電子商務交易量隨著時代的巨輪正加速成長中，電子商務之課稅問題，亦正逐一地浮現。 　　營業稅是我國的第二大稅，掌握營業稅當可掌握大部分所得稅之基源。本研究係從稅務稽核人員的角度切入，完整探討電子商務的運作內涵，進而瞭解電子商務因其特性所衍生課稅問題徵結之所在。依課稅管轄權、課稅觀念及稽徵技術等三個構面建立研究架構，嘗試在我國現行營業稅法規定下，檢討電子商務跨國線上傳送數位化商品及服務之適用性、衍生之稅收徵管（包含稅收損失之分析）問題，併歸納先進國家及國際組織之各種擬議文獻與實施經驗作為借鏡，據此結合國際共識與稽核實務提出具體建議，供政府因應電子商務發展而即將制定之租稅政策及修改營業稅制之參考，未來在不增加稅務行政成本及納稅人依從成本下，取得完整的交易稽核軌跡，防杜租稅逃漏，期能兼顧網路經濟發展及財政稅收之確保。 / After the rapid development of Internet and that with inciting e-commerce to be widely adopted by the most of business transaction, the Internet offers business opportunities to provide their products and services in a web-server without having a physical presence, which will erode tax revenue bases of a jurisdiction. The volume of E-commerce trade is accelerating in Taiwan. Many noticeable questions of taxing E-commerce will be seen in the near future. 　　Business tax is the second revenue of major taxes, collecting it could be holding the sources of income tax. From a view of a tax auditor, this research will explore the operation of E-commerce completely, and understand where the problem is generated by E-commerce. The framework of this study is composed of the taxing jurisdiction, taxing concept and collecting technique. Trying to test E-commerce transmitting digital goods and service on-line, and to test the adequacy of the existing laws and regulations on business tax are the major themes of this work. The suggestions of tax policy will be made according to the reference from the existing literature and the practice from advanced countries and international organizations. Considering the administration and compliance cost in the near future, how can we refrain from tax evasion and expect to increase tax revenue are all important to the development of economic activity through Internet.

勞動訴訟制度，係指基於勞動關係之特殊性，鑒於勞動者與資方在地位上之懸殊，有必要在勞動法上給予特別保障，因此有便宜、迅速、妥適等特性之一套權利救濟程序。我國雖於勞資爭議處理法訂有勞工法庭之規定，但運作仍回歸民事訴訟法，特殊程序之規定仍付之闕如，以致各界迭有建立相關制度之呼籲。民事訴訟法雖自民國七十二年起，便成立「民事訴訟法研究修正委員會」，而展開漫長的修法工作，有關財產法訴訟現已暫告段落。但司法改革雖然歷經十年餘之討論，亦有專業法庭設置之共識，但現實上似乎僅形式上之法庭存在，配合運作之規範與邏輯仍依照民事訴訟法之規定，一直不願正視勞動案件在一般民事訴訟法運作下所產生之不妥與不適。 　　既便特別法院之建立在我國有相當的困難與挑戰，但是否連一套針對勞動案件及勞動法特殊性所設計之特別訴訟程序都不在討論之列？本文先從統計數字出發，看見司法統計上雖然案件並無特別顯眼，但行政上之統計卻是正好相反。反應的正是勞動者當發生有權利受侵害之情事，不欲透過法院尋求救濟之偏好。而此偏好之原因，應可歸責於我國透過訴訟途徑成本高昂、程序繁瑣、時間過長無法即時得到救濟。 　　再從國外之立法例觀察，德國不但專門針對勞動案件訂有特別訴訟規定，甚至有專責單位（特別法院）之設置；而日本近代司法改革，亦針對勞動案件，建立起結合裁定與調解之勞動審判制度。兩者之特色皆在於強調迅速、便宜，並且導入職業團體代表參審制度，不但調和利益與法律上之平衡，亦使得結果得以更為接近社會現實與需求。 　　本文針對以上之發現，挑選幾項較為重要之議題，說明現行制度上不妥之處，並強調建立特別訴訟程序為較妥適之方式，並應已刻不容緩。 / The Labor Jurisdiction means to base on the particularity of Employment, concerning the weakness of labor. It’s needed to correspond to the special needs of Labor Law. The distinguished characteristics of it are more cheap, simplicity of procedure, proper to reality of labor. Even the article 6 of The Settlement of Labor Disputes Law regulates that ‘For adjudicating rights disputes, the court shall set up a labor court when necessary.’ In Taiwan, the procedure is obeyed the rules of ‘Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure’. The related regulation is still lack. The public opinion is demand to construct the institution of special jurisdiction. As about twenty years gone by, The Judicial Yuan in Taiwan planed to reform the judiciary, and continually finished the revise of the law of civil proceeding, but the revised Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure still neglected the importance and particularity of The Labor Jurisdiction. By discussing the situation of labor dispute and the rights disputes settled in civil courthouse, it appears that whether we need the courthouse of labor (labor tribunal) or not, the special proceeding is eager to construct. After introducing the institution of Germany and Japan, we compared the difference between Taiwan, Germany and Japan. The Labor Court of Germany (Arbeitsgericht) is absolutely independent from civil courthouse. Special procedures meet the need of The Labor Jurisdiction mentioned above. In Japan, special courthouse is violating the Institution, and the proceeding is obeyed the civil procedure law, like Taiwan. But Japan recently constructed a special Labor Tribunal System, integrated the function of decision-making and mediation. The new approach was expected to solve the problems of civil procedure, such as copious and long-term procedures. The different models have its owned features and merits, which one is the point for Taiwan to imitate? This article selected a few issue to discuss, and contented that to construct the special labor proceeding is the optimum approach to out of the predicament.

<p>The purpose of this study has been to investigate the prospects for identifying and prosecuting individuals suspected of war crimes, within the process of exclusion from refugee status under article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and using subsequent mechanisms for extradition or prosecution in international criminal law. A number of principles within human rights law and public international law have been advocated by the UNCHR and several human rights NGOs as necessary for a thorough application of the exclusion clauses; one that takes individual responsibility into account and upholds the aims and purposes of the exclusion clauses. There is a discussion as to whether specialised or accelerated exclusion procedures are justified for reasons of security and efficiency, or if they put the rights of the individual at risk and limit the opportunities for gathering information to support investigation and prosecution of the crime in question. Apart from the instruments of asylum law and procedure that have emerged within the EU harmonisation process, there are no general, binding rules on the procedural aspects of the exclusion clauses. One principle that regulates the consequences for the individual of exclusion from refugee status and decisions on extradition is, however, the principle of <em>non-refoulement</em>. Although partly contested in state practice, there is widespread consensus in international jurisprudence and doctrine that the principle, following its status as a <em>jus cogens</em> rule, prohibits every state from returning any individual to a territory where he or she may face torture or other cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, irrespective of any security risks that the individual may pose to the custodial state.</p><p>Extradition or prosecution of individuals suspected of crimes under article 1F(a), based on universal jurisdiction and the principle of <em>aut dedere aut judicare</em>, has gained increased support from international conventions, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The principles are widely upheld by human rights NGOs, and tendencies in practice and policy among the member states of the EU and the parties to the Rome Statute point towards the development of a customary rule of universal jurisdiction among these states. Continuing resistance to the Rome Statute and to universal jurisdiction among influential states such as the USA, Russia, China and India nevertheless serves to exclude these states from being bound by such an emerging customary rule of universal jurisdiction. There are compelling arguments as to why breaches of <em>jus cogens</em>-rules should include or give rise to <em>erga omnes</em> rights or obligations for all states to exercise universal jurisdiction over such breaches. Without the support of major states it is, however, difficult to establish the existence of the general state acceptance of universal jurisdiction as is required for the principle to attain <em>jus cogens</em>-status and become universally applicable, regardless of state consent. Future prospects for adequate and efficient identification and prosecution of suspected war criminals depend on the correct and thorough application of the exclusion clauses, in combination with the development of existing rules of universal jurisdiction, and not least on the willingness and ability of states to overcome the political, economic and institutional obstacles that presently may prevent many states from extraditing or prosecuting individuals who fall within the scope of article 1F(a) of the exclusion clauses.</p>

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the constitutional right of the Métis to hunt in the Canadian legal consciousness in the four levels of court that heard the Powley case and comment on the judicial approach and observations. After a comparative analysis of the precedent setting Powley decision, a brief examination is undertaken of two recent cases regarding Métis rights in Canada: Laviolette and Willison. <p>Ultimately, the purpose of this research has been to show the treatment of Métis and First Nations Aboriginal rights have not been treated equally and to confront the challenges that this analysis raises. Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution has not provided the protections to Aboriginal rights that one would expect. In order to make changes to the legal system I have identified some fundamental problems with Aboriginal law in Canada associated with the identification of the source of those rights. <p>Further, I have made some suggestions on the approaches that could be taken to change the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding its interpretations of Métis rights.

The Brussels I-Regulation, often referred to as the Jurisdiction Regulation, is said to be the matrix of the European judicial cooperation system within the area of international private law. The Regulation states how jurisdiction is to be determined in an international dispute. The aim of the Regulation is to ensure that parties in a dispute within the EU have access to justice.The Regulation is considered to be working well in general, and have been since it came in-to force in 2007. Although it is held to be well functioning it does not exclude that some improvements might be needed. The commission ordered a review of the Regulation and the result was that some deficiencies were identified. Some of the deficiencies that were found were concerned with the relation to defendants from third countries. It was held that the regulation was unsatisfactory in this aspect. These deficiencies resulted in the working group presenting a proposal of a review of the regulation.The aim of this thesis is to investigate some of the consequences that might come with the proposed solutions. The investigation is limited to only discussing some sections of the Regulation. The parts that will be discussed are the ones that are concerned with the rela-tion to defendants from third countries. The investigation shows that although the propos-al means positive developments within the area it is far from clear and precise. The result of these unclear rules might be that they are hard to interpret and apply.The author comes to the conclusion that although the proposal means positive and sought after development within the area of private international law it needs to be reworked due to the ambiguities with the proposed solutions. If the proposal is not reworked the EUD will probably have to interpret the meaning of the proposed rules which might lead to a time consuming and costly process.

The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the constitutional right of the Métis to hunt in the Canadian legal consciousness in the four levels of court that heard the Powley case and comment on the judicial approach and observations. After a comparative analysis of the precedent setting Powley decision, a brief examination is undertaken of two recent cases regarding Métis rights in Canada: Laviolette and Willison. <p>Ultimately, the purpose of this research has been to show the treatment of Métis and First Nations Aboriginal rights have not been treated equally and to confront the challenges that this analysis raises. Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution has not provided the protections to Aboriginal rights that one would expect. In order to make changes to the legal system I have identified some fundamental problems with Aboriginal law in Canada associated with the identification of the source of those rights. <p>Further, I have made some suggestions on the approaches that could be taken to change the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding its interpretations of Métis rights.