Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2017-04-12T15:29:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Gilberto Guimarães Filho_.pdf: 970599 bytes, checksum: f9c7740f79150f004cdd3a5b9277dedc (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-12T15:29:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gilberto Guimarães Filho_.pdf: 970599 bytes, checksum: f9c7740f79150f004cdd3a5b9277dedc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-31 / Nenhuma / Os estudos constitucionais têm como preocupação central a limitação dos poderes e a definição dos direitos fundamentais. A importância disto é inegável, porém, tal perspectiva tem por fundamento concepções liberais, contratualistas, que, aliadas à ciência, excluem do pensamento constitucional os elementos e consequências narrativas, simbólicas e poéticas deste modelo narrativo. Neste sentido, partiremos da teoria narrativa, especialmente por meio da identidade narrativa em Paul Ricoeur, para desvelarmos elementos ocultos do pensamento constitucional que ignora o caráter narrativo da Constituição. Para este trajeto, no primeiro capítulo compreenderemos o que é a narrativa, a sua relação com a nossa identidade enquanto seres que narram a si mesmos (homo fabulans) e a dialética entre a mesmidade e a ipseidade em Paul Ricoeur. Feito este passo, no segundo capítulo entraremos no debate sobre a Constituição democrática a partir do debate entre Hans Kelsen e Carl Schmitt, enfocando no pluralismo atomismo de Kelsen e na unidade do povo em Schmitt, para retomarmos o pensamento constitucional como um pensamento sobre uma narrativa política fundamental, identificarmos diversas questões como questões narrativas. No terceiro e último capítulo desdobraremos as consequências da pequena ética de Ricoeur, recolocando a questão da constituição democrática na busca do que seria uma Constituição justa e a sua relação circular com uma promessa coletiva que une a nação (elemento da constituição democrática schmittiana) e, ao mesmo tempo, garantindo o pluralismo (elemento da constituição democrática kelseniana). A Constituição justa como a que concilia uma narrativa comum e as diversas narrativas singulares, reconhecendo-as no plano político. / The constitutional studies have as a central concern about the Constitution the power limitation and the definition of fundamental rights. The importance of this is undeniable, however, this perspective is founded on liberal and contractualist ideas, which, together with science, exclude at the constitutional thinking narrative, symbolic and poetic elements and consequences. In this sense, we depart with the narrative theory, especially through narrative identity in Paul Ricoeur, in order to unveil hidden elements of the narrative character of constitutional thought. For this path, in the first chapter we understand what is narrative, its relationship to our identity as beings who narrate themselves (homo fabulans) and the dialectic between sameness and selfhood in Paul Ricoeur. Done this step, the second chapter will enter into the debate on democratic Constitution from the debate between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, focusing on atomism and pluralism in Kelsen and the unity of the people in Schmitt, to reconstruct the constitutional thinking such a thought about a politics fundamental narrative, identifying various issues as narratives issues. In the third and final chapter entering the consequences of Ricoeur’s Little Ethics, we replace the issue of democratic constitution in search of what would be a fair Constitution and its circular relationship with a collective promise that unites the nation (Schmittian democratic constitution element) and, at the same time ensuring pluralism (kelsenian democratic constitution element). The fair Constitution which combines a common narrative and several unique narratives, recognizing them politically.

La modernité juridique porte en elle deux projets parfois contradictoires : le constitutionnalisme et la démocratie, c’est-à-dire la volonté de préserver la liberté de l’individu en limitant le pouvoir par la Constitution et celle d’associer les individus à l’élaboration des normes. Ce double projet se traduit dans le concept de démocratie constitutionnelle, dont il existe deux grandes conceptions. La première, dominante au sein de la doctrine juridique, fait de la protection des droits et libertés par un juge constitutionnel le point central de l’équilibre à réaliser entre liberté individuelle et exercice du pouvoir en commun. L’hypothèse qui sera la nôtre est de considérer que cette conception est soutenue par des discours à la fois descriptifs et prescriptifs, issus des autorités normatives ou de la doctrine, reposant essentiellement sur des présupposés libéraux. La mutation des droits de l’homme en droits fondamentaux ne peut se comprendre que dans le cadre d’une philosophie politique libérale, une conception particulière de la liberté, des droits et de la démocratie, ainsi que dans un contexte historique spécifique. Il existe cependant une seconde conception de la démocratie constitutionnelle, reposant, quant à elle, sur la philosophie républicaine. Celle-ci entend se séparer d’une conception trop centrée sur le juge, pour réévaluer le rôle des institutions élues et du peuple, dans la concrétisation de la Constitution. Ce républicanisme juridique, longtemps ignoré par la doctrine française, mais davantage théorisé à l’étranger, apporte ainsi des réponses utiles aux diverses évolutions venues perturber le champ classique du droit constitutionnel : développement des droits fondamentaux, déploiement de la justice constitutionnelle, érosion de la responsabilité politique, disparition du peuple, évolutions de la souveraineté. À cetitre, l’étude du républicanisme permet à la fois de mettre en lumière les limites de la conception libérale dominante de la démocratie constitutionnelle, tout en proposant une conception renouvelée de celle-ci. / Constitutionalism, and Democracy, are the two projects of modernity. The concept of constitutional democracy carries theses two projects. There are two conceptions of constitutional democracy. The first one is the most popular in legal scholarship. It is centred on rights-based judicial review. Our hypothesis is that this conception of constitutional democracy is backed up by descriptive and normative discourses resting on liberal assumptions. Therefore, the evolution from human rights to fundamental right is based on a specific conception of freedom, rights, democracy, and a specific historical context. This dominant view is not the only view. The second conception of constitutional democracy is based on republican philosophy. The republican view intent to overtake the judicial-centred conception of democracy, by rehabilitating elected institutions and the people themselves. This legal republicanism is widely ignored by French scholars, but very dynamic abroad, gives us tools to grasp recent constitutional evolutions : the expansion of fundamental rights, the growth of constitutional adjudication, the attrition of political responsibility, the disappearance of the people, the mutation of sovereignty. Therefore, republicanism brings to light the limits of dominant liberal conception of constitutional democracy, and put forward a renewed one.

This thesis has three objectives. Its primary objective is to examine, and critically evaluate, the theoretical accounts offered by Hans Kelsen and Joseph Raz to explain the temporal continuity and discontinuity of legal systems. In particular, it evaluates the explanatory power of those accounts by combining an abstract analysis of the accounts in principle and an evaluation based on systematically applying them to one concrete, historically circumstanced instance: the legal systems of British derivation in Australia between 1788 and 2001. The thesis thus tests each account’s factual fit: how adequately it corresponds to, accords with, and persuasively makes sense of, the facts – including complex social facts, attitudes and normative standards – for which it purports to offer an account. Second, the thesis aims to demonstrate, more generally, the utility of applying theoretical accounts to a particular historical instance to complement abstract analysis. Third, the thesis aims to advance the understanding of the evolution of Australian legal systems between 1788 and 2001. These three objectives are achieved through the critical exposition and reconstruction of the accounts, their development and enrichment where refinement is appropriate, their application to the specific context of Australia and their evaluation, individually and in comparison.

La philosophie politique de Leo Strauss a inspiré aux États-Unis des disciples bien au-delà des départements de philosophie. En créant une communauté de conversation, les « straussiens » ont insufflé à l’étude et à l’activité politique un style de pensée irréductible aux sensibilités libérale et conservatrice contemporaines, bien qu'ils aient principalement choisi de dialoguer avec le conservatisme politique naissant. Le conservatisme lincolnien qu’ils ont adopté en est une version modérée par le rationalisme du premier constitutionalisme américain et trouve son origine dans la réhabilitation polémique de la science politique aristotélicienne. En effet, cette science politique les a conduit à interpréter le constitutionalisme à la lumière des principes des pères fondateurs de la République américaine. / The Political Philosophy of Leo Strauss has a far wider sphere of influence in America than the departments of Philosophy. By creating their own community of conversation, the “straussians” inflected to study and political activity a style of thought beyond contemporary liberalism and conservatism, even if Straussians mainly chose to converse with new born political conservatism. The lincolnian conservatism they embraced is one moderated by the rationalism of the first American constitutionalism, and has foundings in the reenforcement of the aristotelician political science. This Political Science led them to read the constitutionalism thanks to the principles of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic.

This thesis explores the meaning and content of s. 41 of the Official Languages Act of Canada, which imposes certain duties on all federal institutions towards French- and English-language minority communities. While vitally important as a component of Canada's language rights archictecture, the nature and content of s. 41 as a legal norm remain woefully unclear. The immediate aim is to determine: (1) whether s. 41 confers a right to specific measures in particular cases; (2) whether such rights are individual or collective; and (3) if collective, what sort of interests are protected. Section 41 presents a number of interpretive challenges. First, it uses terminology which is undefined in the Act and yet has no self-evident meaning. Thus, the nature of the primary legal subject, 'linguistic minority communities' (LMCs), is unclear, as are the nature of the protected interests, 'vitality' and 'development'. Second, the interpretive principles developed by the case-law for official language rights rely on a conceptual framework that is vague and under-theorized. Key components of that framework, like the concept of a necessary link between language and culture, have yet to be fully explored, either in the case-law or in legal scholarship. This presents an acute problem in the case of s. 41, where the content of these concepts will likely prove dispositive. In order to grapple with these challenges, this thesis develops an account of language rights as collective rights. Drawing on the philosophical literature and existing case-law, I argue that LMCs should be conceived of as collectivities rather than mere aggregates of individuals, and that a number of language rights, such as s. 41 of the OLA, and ss. 16.1 and 23 of the Charter, aim to protect the collective interests of these collectivities. I then define some of these interests from both an empirical and a normative perspective. I conclude by arguing that s. 41 of the OLA protects an 'autonomy interest', which both prohibits federal institutions from interfering with existing LMC autonomy, and provides a basis for claiming enhancements to that autonomy, within the confines of the statutory mandate of the institution in question.

Em 1993, John Rawls, notável filósofo e professor da distinta Harvard University, publicou seu Political Liberalism, um livro em que pela primeira vez sintetiza sistematicamente o conceito de razão pública, uma ideia chave de sua teoria da justiça como equidade (justice as fairness). Segundo Rawls, a razão pública consiste fundamentalmente no modo e conteúdo adequados ao debate e à fundamentação de escolhas essenciais de justiça no espaço público de uma democracia constitucional. Nesse sentido, Rawls advoga que o único meio razoável de justificação da coerção estatal reside no reconhecimento e/ou obtenção de consensos (overlapping consensus) em relação às escolhas essenciais de uma sociedade democrática, o que só é possível se atores públicos e privados se despojarem de suas respectivas doutrinas filosóficas ou morais abrangentes ao debater e decidir tais questões essenciais de justiça. A presente dissertação tem por objetivo analisar a proposta de razão pública de Rawls, dentro do contexto de sua teoria da justiça como equidade, propondo-se a verificar se o pensamento rawlsiano procede no contexto jurídico-filosófico da pós-modernidade e se a sua teoria pode ser concretamente aplicada aos ordenamentos jurídicos contemporâneos, em especial no que tange ao conteúdo e pleno exercício da liberdade religiosa pelos cidadãos de um estado constitucional democrático. / In 1993 John Rawls, a notable American philosopher and professor of the distinguished Harvard University, published his Political Liberalism, a book that presents for the first time Rawlss idea of public reason, a key concept of his theory of justice. To Rawls public reason is fundamentally the proper form and content of public debate, as well as the justification of essential decisions of basic justice in a constitutional democracy. In this sense, Rawls claim that the only reasonable justification for state coercion lays on an overlapping consensus regarding the essential choices of a democratic society, which is possible only if public and private actors surpass their own personal moral or philosophical comprehensive doctrines when engaging in public debate of such essential decisions of basic justice. This dissertation thesis aims to verify the rawlsian proposal of public reason in the context of justice as fairness, reflecting whether Rawls proposal fits a post-modern juridical and philosophical reality. The work also aims to analyze if Rawls theory can be effectively applied to modern constitutional states, especially regarding the content and exercise of religious freedom by the citizens of a democratic constitutional state.

Em 1993, John Rawls, notável filósofo e professor da distinta Harvard University, publicou seu Political Liberalism, um livro em que pela primeira vez sintetiza sistematicamente o conceito de razão pública, uma ideia chave de sua teoria da justiça como equidade (justice as fairness). Segundo Rawls, a razão pública consiste fundamentalmente no modo e conteúdo adequados ao debate e à fundamentação de escolhas essenciais de justiça no espaço público de uma democracia constitucional. Nesse sentido, Rawls advoga que o único meio razoável de justificação da coerção estatal reside no reconhecimento e/ou obtenção de consensos (overlapping consensus) em relação às escolhas essenciais de uma sociedade democrática, o que só é possível se atores públicos e privados se despojarem de suas respectivas doutrinas filosóficas ou morais abrangentes ao debater e decidir tais questões essenciais de justiça. A presente dissertação tem por objetivo analisar a proposta de razão pública de Rawls, dentro do contexto de sua teoria da justiça como equidade, propondo-se a verificar se o pensamento rawlsiano procede no contexto jurídico-filosófico da pós-modernidade e se a sua teoria pode ser concretamente aplicada aos ordenamentos jurídicos contemporâneos, em especial no que tange ao conteúdo e pleno exercício da liberdade religiosa pelos cidadãos de um estado constitucional democrático. / In 1993 John Rawls, a notable American philosopher and professor of the distinguished Harvard University, published his Political Liberalism, a book that presents for the first time Rawlss idea of public reason, a key concept of his theory of justice. To Rawls public reason is fundamentally the proper form and content of public debate, as well as the justification of essential decisions of basic justice in a constitutional democracy. In this sense, Rawls claim that the only reasonable justification for state coercion lays on an overlapping consensus regarding the essential choices of a democratic society, which is possible only if public and private actors surpass their own personal moral or philosophical comprehensive doctrines when engaging in public debate of such essential decisions of basic justice. This dissertation thesis aims to verify the rawlsian proposal of public reason in the context of justice as fairness, reflecting whether Rawls proposal fits a post-modern juridical and philosophical reality. The work also aims to analyze if Rawls theory can be effectively applied to modern constitutional states, especially regarding the content and exercise of religious freedom by the citizens of a democratic constitutional state.

This thesis provides an analytical interpretation of the critique Dutch nineteenth-century statesman-cum-historian Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801-1876) articulated of French revolutionary ideology. It achieves an original reading of Groen's thought as Protestant right-order theory. This reading achieves a clarification of the functions that Scripture, 'nature', and 'history' have in his thought, and connects his thinking to that of a small group of contemporary British-based political theologians, notably Oliver and Joan Lockwood O'Donovan, and their minority view on the ontological grounding of justice. Our comparison of Groen's argument of 'history' with that of Edmund Burke achieves original critical leverage on their concepts of 'history', and draws out that Burke's critique of the Revolution purposes to re-affirm English common law, while Groen's is an apologia for Christianity.

L’application extraterritoriale de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés soulève la question du rôle du principe de territorialité dans la détermination de l’étendue des droits constitutionnels. De façon plus générale, elle soulève la question du rapport entre territoire et droit. Cette thèse explore, dans un premier temps, les jalons de la méthodologie territorialiste en abordant les prémisses qui sous-tendent l’ascension du principe de territorialité comme paradigme juridique dominant. Les anomalies de ce paradigme sont par la suite présentées, de façon à illustrer un affaiblissement du principe de territorialité. Par la suite, l’auteure entreprend de déterminer le rôle du principe de territorialité dans l’établissement de l’espace occupé par la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés en situation d’extraterritorialité. Les développements jurisprudentiels récents attestent de la prédominance du paradigme territorial, mais de nombreuses difficultés d’application sont rencontrées. Après avoir testé la viabilité de ce paradigme, l’auteure entreprend de définir un nouveau cadre analytique permettant de répondre à la question de l’application de la Charte en situation d’extraterritorialité sans se référer à la position géographique du demandeur, ni à son appartenance à une certaine communauté politique pré-déterminée. Ce cadre repose sur une conceptualisation de la notion d’autorité étatique transcendant l’exercice d’un pouvoir coercitif de l’État fixé à l’intérieur de ses limites territoriales. Une autorité relationnelle, qui s’appuie sur l’idée que tout pouvoir étatique tire sa source de la Constitution et, conséquemment, doit être assujetti à son contrôle. / This thesis is about the relationship between law and territory, and more particularly, about the relationship between the principle of territoriality and the scope of Charter rights. The author first introduces territoriality as dominant legal paradigm and analyses its underlying premises. The challenges that territoriality and methodological territorialism have recently faced are also examined. The purpose of the first part of this thesis is to show that the territorial paradigm is not immune to challenge, and to provide conceptual tools to get out of the “territorial trap”. The author then looks at how, and to what extent, territoriality currently shapes the scope of Charter rights. By analysing cases on point, the author concludes that although territoriality is, officially, the answer to the question of the scope of Charter rights, in practice, the principle does not provide sufficient guidance to the judiciary. The territorial principle’s normative weaknesses are added to its practical inability to determine the scope of Charter rights. In order to examine potential alternatives to the territorial principle, the author examines the parallel debate regarding the extraterritorial scope of American constitutional rights. American courts, rather than endorsing strict territoriaity, emphasize either the membership of the claimant (the subject of constitutional litigation), the limitations on state actions (the object of constitutional litigation), or pragmatic concerns in order to determine whether a constitutional protection applies in an extraterritorial context. The author then proceeds to examining how an alternative model could be developed in Canada in the context of extraterritorial Charter cases. She argues that the personal entitlement approach, when superimposed on the territorial paradigm, brings more injustice, not less, in that people can be sufficiently related to Canada to trigger a state action, but insufficiently connected to trigger Charter protection, hence creating a state of asymmetry. She also argues that territoriality, if understood in Westphalian terms, leads to the belief that a state action is not an action within the authority of the Canadian government if it is conducted outside of Canada, hence shielding these actions from constitutional srcutiny. The model the author advocates is based on a notion of relational authority and it seeks to emphasize not the place where a government act is performed, nor the identity of the persons subject to it, but the idea that any exercise of government power is potentially amenable to constitutional scrutiny.

Connu en droit administratif, le thème de l’empirisme et du conceptualisme interroge la possibilité pour la doctrine, d’induire de la jurisprudence des catégories plus générales et abstraites, facilitant la connaissance d’une discipline essentiellement jurisprudentielle. L’idée de confronter cette problématique au droit constitutionnel est d’abord liée aux mutations de la discipline depuis la création du Conseil constitutionnel en 1958. Précisément, le développement de la jurisprudence constitutionnelle pouvait laisser présumer une facette empirique en droit constitutionnel, susceptible d’interroger la nécessité pour la doctrine, de procéder a posteriori à une mise en ordre synthétique des décisions du Conseil constitutionnel. En réalité, l’alternance entre l’empirisme et le conceptualisme en droit constitutionnel dépasse le seul rapport de la doctrine et la jurisprudence. La présente étude s’efforce alors de saisir dans tous les stades de la discipline, et quelles que soient les sources, le travail de systématisation du droit. Néanmoins, il ne s’agit pas de se contenter de suivre, conformément à une démarche chronologique, l’évolution de la pensée en droit constitutionnel, mais de procéder à l’identification de périodes. Le conceptualisme ancien, hérité des premiers manuels de droit constitutionnel à la fin du XIXe siècle, a permis d’élaborer les grands principes du droit constitutionnel français. Partant, l’évolution des méthodes doctrinales tout au long du XXe et au début du XXIe siècle, en lien avec l’évolution du droit lui-même, soumet ces principes à des démarches plus empiriques. Il s’agit d’abord, d’un premier courant doctrinal apparu à la suite de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, qualifié dans le cadre de la présente étude de « empirisme politique », puis, aux alentours des années 1970, d’un second courant, défendant un « empirisme juridique ». Enfin et cette dernière période demeure en cours, le développement de la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel, caractérisée par son empirisme, ouvre la voie à un « empirisme jurisprudentiel », dont les enjeux sont plus largement abordés dans la présente étude. / The issue of empiricism and conceptualism has been studied in administrative law. It refers to the possibility for academics to infer general and abstract categories from case law. Such reasoning by induction aims to facilitate the knowledge of administrative law, which essentially consists of case law. Studying this issue in constitutional law is justified by the changes which have occurred in the discipline since the birth of the Conseil Constitutionnel in 1958. Specifically, the development of constitutional case law has led to the assumption that constitutional law has a more empirical dimension and that new relations are being established between academics and judges. In practice, the alternation between empiricism and conceptualism in constitutional law goes beyond the relation between legal scholars and case law. Thus, this study attempts to capture the systematization of law in all stages of the discipline and whatever the sources. The analysis is not only following the changes in the mode of thinking concerning constitutional law by respecting a chronological sequence, it also aims at identifying periods.The conceptualism of the past, inherited from the first treatises on constitutional law at the end of the nineteenth century, has developed the main principles of French constitutional law. Since then, the evolution of doctrinal methods, throughout the twentieth and the early twenty-first century, in conjunction with the development of law itself, subjects these principles to more empirical approaches, bringing them closer to the reality of constitutional law. More precisely, three empirical periods can be identified. The first period emerged after Word War II and is described as “political empiricism” in this study. The second time appeared in the 1970’s and advocates a “legal empiricism”. Finally, the development of the jurisprudence of the Conseil constitutionnel opens the way for “case law empiricism”, widely discussed in this analysis.