Pas de résumé en français / Pas de résumé en anglais

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2006. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on August 14, 2007) Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

O presente trabalho propõe-se a realizar uma análise do contencioso administrativo brasileiro no século XIX, de forma panorâmica, a partir da figura central, estruturante, do Conselho de Estado. Valendo-se das investigações historiográficas mais recentes, amparadas em fontes primárias e fundamentação empírica, busca contribuir com uma tentativa de interpretação sobre o papel desempenhado pelo órgão no contexto da formação e consolidação do Estado brasileiro e no quadro constitucional do período, desde o prisma teórico e filosófico de um contributo que se pretendeu colher na tradição clássica. Para tanto, utiliza os conceitos da razão prática (phronesis), bem como a doutrina de justiça em Aristóteles, dentre outros, para percorrer a doutrina da Teoria do Estado e parte da História do Estado Moderno em busca dos modelos e influências que repercutiram na caudal de fatores que forjaram o Estado Nacional no tempo de D. Pedro II e que, em última medida, garantiram a ordem e a unidade do país. Nesse cruzamento de perspectivas, fez-se uma comparação com a França, de cujo modelo, o Brasil se inspirou mais de perto, para a criação do que ficou conhecido como o Terceiro Conselho de Estado. Por outro lado, o estudo do contencioso administrativo imperial é também um resgate dos primórdios do Direito Público em geral e especialmente do Direito Administrativo brasileiros, a merecer novos estudos e desenvolvimentos. / This paper proposes to undertake an analysis for Administrative Contentious of Brazil in the nineteenth century, so panoramic, from the central figure, structuring of the Council of State. Utilizing the latest historiographical investigations, supported by primary sources and empirical foundation, seeks to contribute to an attempt at interpretation of the role played by the agency in connection with the formation and consolidation of the Brazilian state and the constitutional framework of the period, from the theoretical perspective and a philosophical contribution was intended spoon in the classic tradition. Therefore, using the concepts of practical reason (phronesis) as well as the doctrine of justice in Aristotle, among others, to traverse the doctrine of the Theory of the State and part of the history of the modern state in search of models and influences that affected the flow factors that forged the nation state in D. Pedro II and that in the final measure, secured order and unity of the country. At this intersection of perspectives, made a comparison with France, whose model, Brazil has inspired more closely to the creation of what became known as the Third Council of State. Moreover, the study of imperial administrative contentious, is also a rescue of early public law in general and especially the Brazilian Administrative Law, deserving further studies and developments.

O presente trabalho propõe-se a realizar uma análise do contencioso administrativo brasileiro no século XIX, de forma panorâmica, a partir da figura central, estruturante, do Conselho de Estado. Valendo-se das investigações historiográficas mais recentes, amparadas em fontes primárias e fundamentação empírica, busca contribuir com uma tentativa de interpretação sobre o papel desempenhado pelo órgão no contexto da formação e consolidação do Estado brasileiro e no quadro constitucional do período, desde o prisma teórico e filosófico de um contributo que se pretendeu colher na tradição clássica. Para tanto, utiliza os conceitos da razão prática (phronesis), bem como a doutrina de justiça em Aristóteles, dentre outros, para percorrer a doutrina da Teoria do Estado e parte da História do Estado Moderno em busca dos modelos e influências que repercutiram na caudal de fatores que forjaram o Estado Nacional no tempo de D. Pedro II e que, em última medida, garantiram a ordem e a unidade do país. Nesse cruzamento de perspectivas, fez-se uma comparação com a França, de cujo modelo, o Brasil se inspirou mais de perto, para a criação do que ficou conhecido como o Terceiro Conselho de Estado. Por outro lado, o estudo do contencioso administrativo imperial é também um resgate dos primórdios do Direito Público em geral e especialmente do Direito Administrativo brasileiros, a merecer novos estudos e desenvolvimentos. / This paper proposes to undertake an analysis for Administrative Contentious of Brazil in the nineteenth century, so panoramic, from the central figure, structuring of the Council of State. Utilizing the latest historiographical investigations, supported by primary sources and empirical foundation, seeks to contribute to an attempt at interpretation of the role played by the agency in connection with the formation and consolidation of the Brazilian state and the constitutional framework of the period, from the theoretical perspective and a philosophical contribution was intended spoon in the classic tradition. Therefore, using the concepts of practical reason (phronesis) as well as the doctrine of justice in Aristotle, among others, to traverse the doctrine of the Theory of the State and part of the history of the modern state in search of models and influences that affected the flow factors that forged the nation state in D. Pedro II and that in the final measure, secured order and unity of the country. At this intersection of perspectives, made a comparison with France, whose model, Brazil has inspired more closely to the creation of what became known as the Third Council of State. Moreover, the study of imperial administrative contentious, is also a rescue of early public law in general and especially the Brazilian Administrative Law, deserving further studies and developments.

O presente trabalho propõe-se a realizar uma análise do contencioso administrativo brasileiro no século XIX, de forma panorâmica, a partir da figura central, estruturante, do Conselho de Estado. Valendo-se das investigações historiográficas mais recentes, amparadas em fontes primárias e fundamentação empírica, busca contribuir com uma tentativa de interpretação sobre o papel desempenhado pelo órgão no contexto da formação e consolidação do Estado brasileiro e no quadro constitucional do período, desde o prisma teórico e filosófico de um contributo que se pretendeu colher na tradição clássica. Para tanto, utiliza os conceitos da razão prática (phronesis), bem como a doutrina de justiça em Aristóteles, dentre outros, para percorrer a doutrina da Teoria do Estado e parte da História do Estado Moderno em busca dos modelos e influências que repercutiram na caudal de fatores que forjaram o Estado Nacional no tempo de D. Pedro II e que, em última medida, garantiram a ordem e a unidade do país. Nesse cruzamento de perspectivas, fez-se uma comparação com a França, de cujo modelo, o Brasil se inspirou mais de perto, para a criação do que ficou conhecido como o Terceiro Conselho de Estado. Por outro lado, o estudo do contencioso administrativo imperial é também um resgate dos primórdios do Direito Público em geral e especialmente do Direito Administrativo brasileiros, a merecer novos estudos e desenvolvimentos. / This paper proposes to undertake an analysis for Administrative Contentious of Brazil in the nineteenth century, so panoramic, from the central figure, structuring of the Council of State. Utilizing the latest historiographical investigations, supported by primary sources and empirical foundation, seeks to contribute to an attempt at interpretation of the role played by the agency in connection with the formation and consolidation of the Brazilian state and the constitutional framework of the period, from the theoretical perspective and a philosophical contribution was intended spoon in the classic tradition. Therefore, using the concepts of practical reason (phronesis) as well as the doctrine of justice in Aristotle, among others, to traverse the doctrine of the Theory of the State and part of the history of the modern state in search of models and influences that affected the flow factors that forged the nation state in D. Pedro II and that in the final measure, secured order and unity of the country. At this intersection of perspectives, made a comparison with France, whose model, Brazil has inspired more closely to the creation of what became known as the Third Council of State. Moreover, the study of imperial administrative contentious, is also a rescue of early public law in general and especially the Brazilian Administrative Law, deserving further studies and developments.

L’obiter dictum désigne un propos «soit dit en passant», une parole incidente que l’on attribue plutôt au juge anglais. Or le Conseil d’État aussi prononce des obiter dicta à l’occasion de la lecture d’arrêts et d’avis contentieux. Dès lors qu’il déroge à l’économie des moyens ou à l’interdiction de l’ultra petita, le Conseil d’État est en effet amené à formuler un énoncé juridique superflu pour la solution contentieuse. Il utilise la technique de l’obiter dictum de deux façons. D’une part, le Conseil d’État donne forme à sa jurisprudence : il crée et systématise ses précédents, sans immédiatement les appliquer aux espèces qui lui sont soumises. Ainsi manifeste-t-il son pouvoir jurisprudentiel. D’autre part, le Conseil d’État développe son jugement : il justifie et explique sa décision surabondamment par rapport à la solution du litige. Aussi exerce-t-il son pouvoir juridictionnel. La méthode de l’obiter dictum, telle qu’employée par le Conseil d’État, déploie le pouvoir de juger de celui-ci. Il va jusqu’à poser du droit de manière générale et abstraite, même en l’absence de nécessité pour régler un cas spécial et concret. A la différence des précédents du juge anglais, la jurisprudence du Conseil d’État ne dépend donc plus intimement des faits. Son pouvoir jurisprudentiel se distancie, de ce point de vue, de son pouvoir juridictionnel. Ce dernier est mis à l’œuvre dans des incidentes qui, quant à elles, tendent plus directement à la résolution des conflits. Attestant d’un renouvellement de son office de juge, les obiter dicta participent pour le Conseil d’État d’une nouvelle façon de dire le droit et de trancher les litiges, en définitive de rendre la justice. / The notion of obiter dictum indicates a comment made «by the way» or «in passing», usually by a Common Law judge. In this study, obiter dicta refer to incidental statements expressed by the French Council of State when it gives a ruling or delivers a judicial opinion. Obiter dicta can be regarded as departures from the efficient tradition of stating the minimum essential to dispose of the matter or as infringements of the prohibition against passing judgment outside the issues raised by the opposing parties. When the Council of State delivers an obiter dictum, it makes a statement of law that is not essential to the judicial outcome. Obiter dicta fulfil two functions. They enable the Council of State to express generalisations independent of particular judgments and thereby to produce an abstract system of precedent. As a consequence, the decisions of the Council of State produce a general jurisprudence that is no longer limited to the facts of particular cases. Obiter dicta also enable the Council of State to justify and explain its judgments in concrete terms, with the result that they contribute to the elucidation and enforcement of its decisions.We can conclude, therefore, that obiter dicta supply the potential for superior general jurisprudence and for improved particular judgment. In short, that obiter dicta reveal a new way for the French Council of State to dispense justice.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2008-10-08Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:30:01Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 alves_jvc_me_fran.pdf: 1197859 bytes, checksum: 8a09d709d68cd301dde066afe10b8c9b (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Esta dissertação está situada no campo da história política, pretendendo investigar o papel desempenhado pelo Conselho de Estado – espécie de agência central do governo no período de 1828 a 1834 – na emergência e na construção do princípio da separação de poderes, no Império brasileiro. Com este objetivo, o trabalho analisa o livro de Atas do Conselho de Estado, cotejando-o com a historiografia sobre o período. Estas atas podem revelar aspectos daquela construção, fornecendo-nos a medida do propalado “absolutismo” do período / This dissertation is situated in the political history field, intending to investigate the role played by the Council of State – a central government agency in the period of 1828 to 1834 – in the emergence and construction of the separation of powers´ principle in the Brazilian Empire. With this purpose, the work analyses the Council of State’s minutes, comparing them with the historiography of the period. These minutes can reveal aspects of that construction, providing us the measure of the “absolutism” of the period

Orientador: Marisa Saenz Leme / Banca: Márcia Regina Capelari Naxara / Banca: Cecilia Helena Lorenzini de Salles Oliveira / Resumo: Esta dissertação está situada no campo da história política, pretendendo investigar o papel desempenhado pelo Conselho de Estado - espécie de agência central do governo no período de 1828 a 1834 - na emergência e na construção do princípio da separação de poderes, no Império brasileiro. Com este objetivo, o trabalho analisa o livro de Atas do Conselho de Estado, cotejando-o com a historiografia sobre o período. Estas atas podem revelar aspectos daquela construção, fornecendo-nos a medida do propalado "absolutismo" do período / Abstract: This dissertation is situated in the political history field, intending to investigate the role played by the Council of State - a central government agency in the period of 1828 to 1834 - in the emergence and construction of the separation of powers' principle in the Brazilian Empire. With this purpose, the work analyses the Council of State's minutes, comparing them with the historiography of the period. These minutes can reveal aspects of that construction, providing us the measure of the "absolutism" of the period / Mestre

This comparative legal thesis discusses abstract judicial preview in Sweden and the Netherlands. Both countries have Councils of State in place that are tasked with advising government on legislation and governance to maintain a congruent judicial system. The aim of the analysis is to examine, describe and compare the judicial preview of law proposals carried out in Sweden and the Netherlands. By applying a legal-dogmatic method and a comparative law method the results show that abstract judicial preview of law proposals in Sweden and the Netherlands share both similarities and differences. The primary similarity infers that the judgements of the Councils of State have no binding effect for the legislator. Regarding the differences, the Swedish Council of State mainly focuses on advising the government on legislation, whilst the Dutch Council of State consists of two divisions that operate under the same name. The Administrative Jurisdiction Division is the country’s highest general administrative court and the Advisory Division, as implied by its name, advises the government and Parliament in matters regarding legislation and governance. Finally, one of the surprising conclusions show that an official from the relevant Swedish department of state recites a bill before the Council of State. This differs from the Netherlands, where the Council of State operates behind closed doors when a bill is put forward. Meaning that it does not occur that an official or any other outsider is involved in assessing bills and other requests for advice. In conclusion, abstract judicial preview in Sweden and the Netherlands plays a fundamental role in contributing to a harmonious legal order and norm hierarchy.

S'inspirant du modèle français, le législateur iranien a créé en 1960 une nouvelle institution : le Conseil d'État iranien. Mais la loi n'a jamais été appliquée. La Cour de Justice Administrative (CJA) actuelle a été créé par l'article 173 de la Constitution de 1979, pour exercer le contrôle judiciaire sur les organismes et les agents de l'autorité publique, sous l'autorité du pouvoir judiciaire. La CJA est compétente pour les recours en excès de pouvoir contre les actes administratifs et contre les fonctionnaires publics. Le contentieux de la légalité des actes administratifs en droit iranien distingue les recours objectifs envisagés à l'article 19 de la loi de 2006 relative à la CJA et les recours subjectifs prévus à l'article 13 de cette loi. L'Assemblée générale de la CJA est compétente pour les recours objectifs et les Chambre de cette Cour pour les recours subjectifs. Ce qui caractérise la CJA, c'est qu'elle soit principalement le juge de première et de dernière instance. En matière de décisions définitives des juridictions spécialisées, elle agit en tant que juge de cassation. Elle est le juge du droit commun des litiges administratifs car dans le système iranien, il n'existe ni des tribunaux administratifs ni des cours administratives d'appel. / Inspired by the French model, the Iranian legislator created in 1960 a new institution: The Council of State of Iran. But the law has never been implemented. The Court of Administrative Justice (CAJ) of that time was created by the section 173 of the 1979 Constitution to exercise judicial control over agencies and the agents of public authority under the authority of the judiciary. The CAJ is responsible for the excessive use of power against administrative acts and against agents' administration. The dispute on the legality of administrative acts in Iranian law distinguishes between the objective appeals envisaged in article 19 of the 2006 Act on the CAJ and the subjective appeals provided in article 13 of this law. The General Assembly of the CAJ is responsible for the objective appeals and The Chamber of this Court is responsible for the subjective appeals. What characterizes the CAJ is that it is primarily the judge of the first and the last instance. In terms of final decisions of the specialized courts, it acts as a court of cassation. It is the judge of the common administrative law cases as in the Iranian system; then there are no administrative courts or administrative courts of appeal.