This dissertation seeks to improve the current understanding of the ways in which institutional reform can promote the development of stock markets in Latin America. Over the past decade, policymakers sought to stimulate the growth of capital markets in the region through the promotion of a standardized set of formal institutions. An example of this approach in the field of company law was the introduction of modern corporate governance practices into nations without a solid enforcement infrastructure. By most accounts, these efforts did not deliver on their promise of stock market development. This work identifies areas for potential reform. As a means to better understand the operation of Latin American stock markets, this dissertation draws from different sources, including the historical experience of industrialized nations, the available literature on institutional reform, the documented shortcomings of legal reform programmes and hand-collected data from various Latin American countries. The resulting analysis suggests that the promotion of Latin American capital markets may require strategies different to those that were set in motion over the past decade. The main contribution of this work is twofold. First, this dissertation brings some nuance to the discussions concerning the challenges faced by Latin American capital markets. A proper understanding of these challenges is essential for policymakers in the region, particularly after the onset of the Latin American Integrated Market. Second, this dissertation explores the use of ‘transitional strategies’ to overcome some of the challenges identified here. The ultimate goal of this project is to inform future reform efforts in Latin America and to offer some insights for policymakers in other emerging countries.

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.

A presente dissertação estuda a participação de pessoas com deficiências no mercado de trabalho. No primeiro capítulo, ventila-se a trajetória histórica da pessoa com deficiência desde a Idade Antiga até a Idade Contemporânea. A seguir, analisa-se a terminologia apropriada para denominar a pessoa que possui alguma forma de deficiência. No segundo capítulo, abordam-se as principais normas do Direito Internacional atinentes ao tema. A seguir, analisa-se o modo como a relação de emprego das pessoas com deficiência é abordada pelo Direito estrangeiro. No terceiro capítulo, discorre-se sobre a evolução do ordenamento jurídico brasileiro diante do tema, ponderando-se a aplicação da Constituição Federal e da Lei n. 8.213/91, bem como o papel do Ministério Público do Trabalho e do Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego e, ainda, os mecanismos e incentivos para o cumprimento da legislação. No quarto capítulo, são verificadas as peculiaridades do contrato de trabalho das pessoas com deficiência, analisando-se se a realidade brasileira observa os direitos assegurados pelas leis e pelo texto constitucional vigente, sopesando-se a existência de meios eficazes de fiscalização, incentivo e, até mesmo, exigência de contratação. Para a elaboração do presente estudo, utilizam-se os métodos indutivo com a coleta de elementos para análise e elaboração do tema para posterior discussão e conclusão , analítico-sintético com o exame de textos jurídicos e não jurídicos e comparativo com a análise das características e da influência de diversas legislações nas condições de trabalho das pessoas com deficiência em momentos cronológicos distintos. São utilizadas a pesquisa bibliográfica e jurisprudencial, bem como a efetiva análise de textos legais. / This dissertation studies the participation of people with disabilities in the labor market. The first chapter talks about the historical trajectory of people with disabilities, from the Ancient Age to the Contemporary Age. Next, we analyze the appropriate terminology to describe the person who has some form of disability. In the second chapter we discuss the main rules of international law relating to the theme. Next, we analyze how the ratio of employment of people with disabilities is addressed by foreign law. The third chapter discusses the evolution of Brazilian law on the subject, considering the application of the Constitution and the Law 8.213/91, as well as the role of the Public Ministry of Labor and the Ministry of Labor and Employment, and also the mechanisms and incentives for compliance. In the fourth chapter, we investigate the peculiarities of employment of people with disabilities by analyzing if the Brazilian reality observes the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws in force, weighing up the existence of effective means of enforcement, encouragement, and even hiring requirement. In this study, we use the inductive method collecting elements for analysis and preparation of the issue for further discussion and conclusion , analytic-synthetic method examining legal and non-legal texts , and comparative method analyzing the characteristics and influence of various laws in working conditions of disabled people in different chronological moments. We searched the literature and jurisprudence, as well as the effective analysis of legal texts.

A presente dissertação tem por objetivo apresentar ferramentas que fomentem a implementação de uma espécie de controle de constitucionalidade dialógico no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, de forma a mitigar a supremacia judicial ostentada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal. Para isso, foi organizado em três capítulos. Os dois primeiros dirigem-se a realizar uma abordagem comparada, por meio de um breve apanhado histórico e análise jurisprudencial, entre os sistemas constitucionais dos Estados Unidos, da Colômbia, da Costa Rica e do Brasil e entre os seus respetivos Tribunais imbuídos da função da realização do controle de constitucionalidade. Com isto, busca-se demonstrar o assentamento da supremacia judicial em uma visão mais ampla, bem como em uma realidade latino-americana. O terceiro capítulo, por sua vez, tem o escopo de explorar as diversas vertentes da teoria dos diálogos constitucionais, elaborar um conceito de diálogo substancial e, por fim, elaborar proposições de instrumentos dialógicos ainda não existentes no ordenamento jurídico pátrio, bem como sugerir a reformulação de alguns já existentes. O intuito primordial da parte final da dissertação é a busca da promoção de uma ressignificação do controle de constitucionalidade, de forma a democratiza-lo, mitigando a supremacia judicial, incluindo no debate sobre o significado da Constituição, além do Poder Judiciário, os Poderes Executivo e Legislativo, e a sociedade como um todo. / This master’s dissertation aims do present tools that provide the implementation of a kind of dialogic judicial review in the Brazilian legal framework, so as to mitigate the judicial supremacy displayed by the Supremo Tribunal Federal. In order to do that, it was organized in three chapters. The first two chapters carry out a comparative approach, through a short historical description e and jurisprudential analyses, between the American, the Colombian, the Costa Rican and the Brazilian constitutional systems and its respective Courts that perform judicial review. In that manner, it is the objective to demonstrate the settlement of judicial supremacy in a broad vision, and also in a Latin American reality. The third chapter, by its turn, aims to explore the different aspects of the constitutional dialogue theory, elaborate a concept of substantial dialogue and, in conclusion, elaborate propositions of dialogical instruments not yet existent in the native legal order, and also suggest a reformulation of others that already exist. The paramount intention of dissertation’s final part is the promotion of a resignification of judicial review, so as to democratize it, mitigating judicial supremacy, incorporating in the debate about the significance of the Constitution, other than the Judicial power, the Executive and the Legislative powers, and the society as a hole.

Inspired, perhaps, by the old adage that "people who like sausages and respect the law should never watch either being made," there is significant resistance among judges and scholars alike to the idea that courts should review the lawmaking process. This doctoral dissertation challenges this prevalent position, and establishes the case for judicial review of the legislative process. The dissertation develops the arguments for the authority of courts to review the legislative process; the legitimacy and theoretical justifications of such judicial review; and the practical and normative importance of such judicial involvement. It also challenges the resistance to judicial review of the legislative process by scrutinizing, and seeking to rebut, the major arguments underlying this resistance, and revealing this position's doctrinal and theoretical incoherence, and its negative consequences. In an effort to provide a multifaceted exploration of the issue, the dissertation combines multiple approaches of legal scholarship, including a legal-doctrinal approach, a comparative law approach, a jurisprudential and constitutional theory approach, and an interdisciplinary approach that draws upon political science research and several other disciplines.

This dissertation develops a historical and theoretical reconstruction of the category and praxis of extraterritoriality in the fields of International Relations and Public International Law. The analysis first addresses the dominant Neo-Liberal tradition and its focus on the concept of 'judicial globalisation', before engaging with critical and Marxist studies that rely on imperialism and capitalism as explanatory phenomena. In response, the thesis argues that extraterritoriality is a political process, covering a set of jurisdictional struggles determined by contested social property relations. As legal strategies of accumulation, these struggles can neither be explained by a chronologically and discursively progressive deterritorialising world order, through which they emerge as depoliticised events, nor by structural and functional theories of capitalist or Western imperialism that narrowly assume their logic and behaviour. This argument emerges from the analysis of three historical case studies: 16th to 17th century Spain, 17th to 18th century France, and 19th century Britain. Each case, set in its international context, evinces the role of specific intellectual debates, juridical institutions and legal strategies of accumulation in shaping contending extraterritorial regimes and legal world orders. Thereby, the thesis reformulates a Political Marxist approach as a historical sociology that places the actors and politics of international legal processes at the forefront of the history of Public International Law. This approach enables a non-determinist understanding of contemporary extraterritoriality. It dissociates its analysis from a naturalised history of judicial globalisation and from a monolithic history of capitalism, to resituate extraterritorial practices in a more open and contested field in between those of International Relations and Public International Law. In conclusion, examining the politics of extraterritoriality exposes Public International Law as a practical site of struggle between legal strategies of expansion, accumulation and resistance. This historical and theoretical reconstruction asserts the political legitimacy and agency of otherwise excluded legal actors and ideas, affected by and involved in the multiple transitions in the forms of sovereign jurisdiction and territorial control.

O presente trabalho investiga a necessidade de tipificação do delito de corrupção no setor privado, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Para tanto, necessário aprofundar o estudo do fenômeno da corrupção, bem como a moderna interpretação de seu conteúdo pela comunidade jurídica internacional. Partindo de uma perspectiva de Direito Comparado, é possível verificar a evolução no controle da corrupção transnacional, fruto de diferentes compromissos assumidos por diversos Estados, em verdadeiro esforço conjunto para erradicação das práticas corruptivas e seus nefastos efeitos ao mundo globalizado. Nesse cenário, exsurge a relevância do debate acerca da ampliação do conceito de corrupção para além da esfera pública, abarcando também condutas estritamente relacionadas ao setor privado, de modo que alguns países hodiernamente já tipificam essa nova modalidade delitiva em seus ordenamentos. Indispensável acurado exame da forma como o delito de corrupção entre particulares ganhou contornos na legislação e doutrina estrangeiras para desenvolver o modelo pátrio de incriminação da conduta, uma vez que tal tema é hoje objeto de proposta legislativa específica. Assim, verificase a atualidade e importância da pesquisa aqui proposta, cujo escopo é auxiliar no desenvolvimento de um tipo penal adequado ao bem jurídico protegido, levando-se em conta, principalmente, os documentos internacionais que impulsionam sua criação. / This paper intends to investigate the need for private-sector corruption crime classification in the Brazilian legal system. Therefore, it is necessary to deepen the studies about corruption’s historical roots, as well as the modern interpretation of its content by the international legal community. Through the mechanisms of Comparative Law it is possible to verify corruption’s combat evolution in a supranational level, consequence of various commitments assumed by various States, in true combined efforts to eradicate corruption acts and their disastrous effects in the globalized world. In this scenery, the relevance in debating the widening of corruption’s concept to beyond the public spheres arises, embracing also the conducts strictly related to the private sector, in a way that some countries already class the new crime form in their systems. Necessary rightful exam of the way corruption crime between individuals has outlined both international legislation and doctrine to develop the native method of the behavior incrimination, here is that said theme is nowadays subject of specific legislation proposal. Thus, it is verified the timeliness and importance of the research here proposed, which scope is to help the development of a crime class adequate to the protected juridical asset, taking into account, mainly, the international documents that impel its creation.

L'objectif de ce travail est d'étudier l'impact du phénomène de mise en bouteille sur l'accès à l'eau. En effet, l’eau en bouteille influence non seulement la façon dont les gens boivent, mais elle affecte aussi leur possibilité d’accéder à la ressource, économiquement ou physiquement. L'objectif du projet est dès lors de comprendre quel rôle joue le droit dans la production de ce phénomène et dans la distribution de l'eau. En effet, la réglementation de la mise en bouteille se caractérise par une tension dans la conceptualisation juridique de l'eau en tant que ressource vitale ou comme marchandise. Ce travail repose sur une analyse comparative des régimes juridiques régissant l’eau en bouteille en Europe. Les recherches portent principalement sur la comparaison des régimes français, britannique et italien. Ce travail a pour but de montrer comment l’embouteillage produit, même dans ce contexte, de la rareté et / ou une inégalité dans l’accès à l’eau. L'enjeu de l'accès à l'eau et de sa distribution en bouteille est déterminé par la structure de la propriété, une institution construite autour de la terre, pour régir l'exploitation de l'eau. En effet, la plupart des systèmes juridiques européens, malgré leurs différences, ont élaboré un régime de réglementation de l’eau fondé sur le paradigme de la propriété. C’est le recours à ce paradigme qui entraîne la tension qualificative entre bien économique et ressource vitale. Cette tension est susceptible de permettre au phénomène d'embouteillage de réallouer de facto les prérogatives sur l'eau, malgré le régime juridique formel. / The purpose of this work is to investigate the impact of the bottling phenomenon on access to water. In fact, bottled water not only influences the way people drink, but it also affects their possibility of access the resource, either economically or physically. The aim of the project is then to understand what role law plays in the production of this phenomenon and in water distribution. Indeed, bottling regulation is characterized by a tension in legal conceptualisation of water as an essential resource or as a commodity. This work relies on a comparative analysis of the legal regimes governing bottled water in Europe. In particular, the research focuses on the comparison of the French, the British, and the Italian regimes. This work intends to point out how bottling produces scarcity and/or inequality in access to water even in this context. The challenge to water access and distribution constituted by bottled water is determined by the structure of property, an institution constructed around land, to govern water exploitation. Indeed, most of European legal systems, despite their differences, constructed a water regulatory regime that is based on the paradigm of property. The reliance on this paradigm brought about the qualificatory tension mentioned above. This tension is susceptible of enabling the bottling phenomenon to produce a de facto reallocation of water prerogatives despite the formal legal regime.

In the period 2004-2007, the highest courts of Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada handed down judgments on the legality of the indefinite detention of non-citizens, specifically non-citizens subject to a removal order whose removal was frustrated. Each of the governments claimed that its intention to remove the non-citizens if and when it became viable to do so sufficed to establish that their detention fell within an ‘immigration’ exception to non-citizens’ rights. The cases thus raised fundamental questions about the relationship between non-citizens’ rights and governments’ power to control national borders. I argue that the indefinite detention of a non-citizen subject to a removal order is illegal. The detention of a non-citizen subject to a removal order is lawful if it can be justified as a proportionate measure to effect his or her removal. Indefinite detention fails this proportionality test and as such is an unlawful violation of a non-citizen’s rights. I develop my argument through case studies from the three jurisdictions. I argue that the law of all three jurisdictions contained ample resources to support a ruling that indefinite detention was unlawful. The question then arises as to why this view did not prevail in every jurisdiction. I demonstrate that, taking into account variations in legal frameworks and doctrines, a judge’s response to indefinite detention is at base determined by his or her answer to the question ‘does a non-citizen, against whom a valid removal order has been made, retain a right to liberty?’ The judge’s answer to this question flows through his or her adjudication on the scope of ‘immigration’ exceptions to legal protections of the personal liberty of non-citizens considered in the case studies. I consider the best justification for the view that a removal order revokes a non-citizen’s right to liberty, provided by John Finnis. I argue that it rests on questionable understandings of citizenship, and in operation inevitably undermines the values of community solidarity it seeks to promote.

In the period 2004-2007, the highest courts of Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada handed down judgments on the legality of the indefinite detention of non-citizens, specifically non-citizens subject to a removal order whose removal was frustrated. Each of the governments claimed that its intention to remove the non-citizens if and when it became viable to do so sufficed to establish that their detention fell within an ‘immigration’ exception to non-citizens’ rights. The cases thus raised fundamental questions about the relationship between non-citizens’ rights and governments’ power to control national borders. I argue that the indefinite detention of a non-citizen subject to a removal order is illegal. The detention of a non-citizen subject to a removal order is lawful if it can be justified as a proportionate measure to effect his or her removal. Indefinite detention fails this proportionality test and as such is an unlawful violation of a non-citizen’s rights. I develop my argument through case studies from the three jurisdictions. I argue that the law of all three jurisdictions contained ample resources to support a ruling that indefinite detention was unlawful. The question then arises as to why this view did not prevail in every jurisdiction. I demonstrate that, taking into account variations in legal frameworks and doctrines, a judge’s response to indefinite detention is at base determined by his or her answer to the question ‘does a non-citizen, against whom a valid removal order has been made, retain a right to liberty?’ The judge’s answer to this question flows through his or her adjudication on the scope of ‘immigration’ exceptions to legal protections of the personal liberty of non-citizens considered in the case studies. I consider the best justification for the view that a removal order revokes a non-citizen’s right to liberty, provided by John Finnis. I argue that it rests on questionable understandings of citizenship, and in operation inevitably undermines the values of community solidarity it seeks to promote.