none

Der Begriff Kontingenz avancierte seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre zu einer Art Leitbegriff der Sozialwissenschaften und erreichte vor allem in Form der postmarxistischen These von der „Grundlosigkeit des Sozialen“ axiomatischen Status in linker Politik- und Sozialtheorie. Dass es vor allem mal explizit, mal latent dezisionistische Theorieprogramme waren, die dem Kontingenzbegriff zu erneuter Popularität verhalfen, ist die ideenhistorische Grundsituation, die im vorliegenden Beitrag als Problem gestellt wird und folgende Frage provozierte: sind die historisch gleichzeitigen Renaissancen von Kontingenz- und Dezisionsbegriff zufällig oder verweisen die Begriffe von Grund auf aufeinander und bilden ein notwendiges Verhältnis? Zunächst soll hierfür augezeigt werden, dass die Semantik des Kontingenzbegriffs durchaus vielschichtig ist und je nach theoretischem Kontext variiert. Zwei Extremformen werden dabei separiert. Eine dieser Extremformen des Begriffs, die gegenwärtig häufig gebrauchte, wird in einem zweiten Schritt als dem Dezisionismus entsprechende Kontingenz ausgewiesen. Zu guter Letzt wird diskutiert, warum dezisionistische Argumentationsketten für Theorien mit progressivem Anspruch überhaupt problematisch sind. / From the mid-1990’s on, contingency developed into one of the leading key concepts of the social science and achieved an axiomatic status in leftist political and social theory, first and foremost through the central postmarxist thesis of the “Lack of Foundations in the Social”. That the Renaissance of contingency is embedded in the historical parallel rise of decisionistic theories, which helped make the concept popular again, is the historical situation from where the argument in the article starts and which provoked the following research question: are the historical parallel renaissances of contingency and decision based theories coincidental or is their logical relation necessary? The goal of the first chapter is to outline the semantic complexity of contingency andits context-dependent varieties. Two extremes of the concept will be separated from each other. One of those extremes, today’s popular one, will be identified as decisionisms corresponding contingency. The discussion of why decisionistic arguments are a problem within theories with progressive intentions, will conclude the article.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T18:26:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marco Antonio Batistella.pdf: 799527 bytes, checksum: dbc91deb2735fdf399e489e052aba482 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-11-14 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / It is intended in this dissertation thematize the notion of Power in the work of Carl Schmitt in order to problematize the concepto of the Political of the thesis in Power and Order that is inextricably perfect space conflictual politics. This claim is argumentative strategy to answer the following problem to be treated: if, on one hand, Carl Schmitt undertakes a relentless critique of "normativism" the liberal order so, however, does not waive the need for establishment of a normative order as is possible, however, to reconcile normativadade with a substantial political and non-liberal? In this context, proposes to tracejar two spheres systematic exposure, namely: 1) A critical part: containing a historical-conceptual exposition of the political structure to which Carl Schmitt controversially ensnares its antithetical force of argument, 2) A part-dogmatic conceptual: in which he exposes the positioning - decisionist - Carl Schmitt, and the way the author bases its claim of theoretical Political conceive as a typical scope of conflict and the exercise of power and law. To satisfy this proposal will provide the development of three chapters articulated. Therefore, we intend to develop in the first chapter the historical and philosophical assumptions of the crisis of modern rule of law in order to highlight the main theses articulated by current contractarian political thinkers who formed the so-called doctrine of modern natural law. In this scope, it is suggested that, noted some nuances unique and distinctive among leading theorists of that chain, there is the common denominator consistent in the primacy of the individual over the decision-making power of the State. In the second chapter, we intend to articulate how the proposed rules of Hans Kelsen is closely linked with the modern jusnaturalism. It is suggested from the outset that Kelsen proposes the theory under which the state reduces to the law, or the State / Force the Norm / Law. Indeed, it is argued that the Order engineered by normativism active in the Weimar Republic, in attempting to "neutral", presupposes the absence of a decision-maker, since where rationality of Law operates no voluntas, with no place, therefore, to mention both the "state of exception" as the meaning of "sovereignty" policy, except the "Sovereignty of Law." For ultimate, intended to articulate the last chapter, the design of Power schmittian the likeness of the very phenomenon constitutive condition of human life in the world, and argue that their manifestation does not cease to exist, or else do not reduce their intensity when the political relationship between the men. In view of this, we aim to address two notions instilled in indissoluble relation between Power and Order. These are the notion of "constituent power" and the principle of formal political "representation." These two notions expressed in Carl Schmitt, the way becomes apparent homogeneity of the people at the expense of pluralism of liberal order. Altogether the work of Carl Schmitt, and outlined the proposal of this dissertation, the objective is, ultimately, to understand how the author, in his defense of the Political, undertakes a justification of State and Law, light inextricable relationship between power and Order. / Pretende-se nessa dissertação tematizar a noção de Poder na obra de Carl Schmitt de modo a problematizar o conceito de Político sob a tese de que Poder e Ordem se aperfeiçoam indissociavelmente no espaço conflitivo da política. Essa pretensão constitui estratégia argumentativa para a resposta do seguinte problema a ser tratado: se, de um lado, Carl Schmitt empreende uma incessante crítica ao normativismo da ordem liberal de modo a, todavia, não renunciar a necessidade de constituição de uma ordem normativa, como é possível, por outro lado, conciliar a normativadade com uma ordem política substancial e não-liberal? Nesse contexto, propôe-se tracejar dois âmbitos sistemáticos de exposição, a saber: 1) Um âmbito crítico: contendo uma exposição histórico-conceitual da estrutura política para a qual Carl Schmitt polemicamente enreda sua força antitética de argumentação; 2) Um âmbito dogmático-conceitual: no qual se expôe o posicionamento decisionista de Carl Schmitt, além do modo como o autor alicerça sua pretensão teórica de conceber o Político como um âmbito típico de conflito e de exercício do Poder e do Direito. Para satisfazer a presente proposta, estipular-se-á o desenvolvimento de três capítulos articulados. Assim sendo, pretende-se desenvolver no primeiro capítulo os pressupostos históricos e filosóficos da crise do Estado de Direito Moderno, a fim de ressaltar as principais teses articuladas pelos pensadores políticos da corrente contratualista que compuseram a denominada Doutrina do Direito Natural Moderno. Nesse escopo, sugere-se que, anotadas algumas nuances singulares e distintivas entre os principais teóricos daquela corrente, há o denominador comum consistente na primazia do indivíduo em detrimento do poder decisório do Estado. Ao segundo capítulo, pretende-se articular como a proposta normativa de Hans Kelsen está intimamente articulada com o jusnaturalismo moderno. Sugere-se, à partida, que Kelsen propõe a tese sob a qual o Estado reduz-se ao Direito, ou o Estado/Força à Norma/Direito. Com efeito, argumenta-se que a Ordem arquitetada pelo normativismo operante na República de Weimar, ao pretender-se neutra , pressupõe a inexistência de uma instância decisória, dado que, onde a racionalidade da Lei opera, não há voluntas, não havendo lugar, portanto, para se mencionar tanto o estado de exceção quanto o significado de soberania política, exceto a Soberania da Lei . Por derradeiro, pretende-se articular no último capítulo, a concepção schmittiana do Poder à semelhança de fenômeno constitutivo da própria condição da vida humana no mundo, bem como argumentar que sua manifestação não deixará de existir ou, então, não se reduzirá sua intensidade quando da relação política entre os homens. À vista disso, objetiva-se abordar duas noções incutidas na relação indissociável entre Poder e Ordem. Tratam-se da noção de poder constituinte e do princípio político-formal da representação . Essas duas noções expressam, em Carl Schmitt, a forma pela qual se torna manifesta a homogeneidade do povo em detrimento do pluralismo da ordem liberal. No conjunto da obra de Carl Schmitt, assim esboçada a proposta dessa dissertação, objetiva-se, em última instância, compreender como o autor, em sua defesa do Político, empreende uma justificativa do Estado e do Direito, a luz da relação inextrincável entre Poder e Ordem.

Le rapport d’expertise du médecin légiste a souvent un rôle déterminant dans de nombreux procès criminels pour condamner ou relaxer un mis en cause. En révélant des faits utiles à l’enquête, le médecin légiste a le devoir d’être neutre, d’utiliser les données actuelles de la science et de rechercher la vérité de ce qui s’est passé. Mais la position classique de neutralité axiologique est-elle pertinente? Peut-on évacuer les valeurs de l’expertise ? La vérité est-elle accessible ? Qu’est-ce que la science en médecine légale ? Le médecin légiste n’utiliserait-il pas d’autres outils pour arriver à ses conclusions ? Pour répondre à ces questions, ce travail se propose d’étudier le rapport entre faits et valeurs au sein de l’expertise médico-judiciaire ainsi que d’examiner comment s’élaborent les conclusions du médecin légiste et la manière dont il les exprime. / The expert report composed by a forensic pathologist often plays a key role in many criminal trials in order to either free or convict the defendant. By unearthing useful facts for the inquiry, the forensic pathologist has a duty to be neutral, use up-to-date scientific knowledge and data and to search for the truth in underlying events. But is the usual position of axiological neutrality relevant? Can values be evacuated from the expertise? Can the truth be achieved? What is actually science in the field of forensics? Is the forensic pathologist not using other tools to reach a conclusion? To address these issues, this work proposes to investigate the relationship between facts and values in the field of forensic expertise, as well as to examine the way the forensic scientists draw conclusions and in turn how these are stated.

What does it mean when there is nothing behind the façade? The schism between Russia and the international society reached a new level of depth as of February 2022. Тhis predicament was facilitated by events and developments prior to it, and this build-up also saw itself reflected in the sphere of international law. There was a crucial moment in 2015 when the Russian Constitutional Court passed decree 21-P. This decision was the culmination of a long legal struggle between the Russian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion was that if a judgment of an international court is incompatible with the Russian Constitution, then the execution of measures foreseen in the judgment of its legal order can be prevented. This thesis seeks to delineate in what way key aspects of legal scholar Mikhail Antonov’s dissertation Formalism, Realism and Conservatism in Russian Law are found manifest in the linguistic properties and legal methodology applied by the Constitutional Court in decree 21-P. The document concerning decision 21-P was subjected to a three-step assessment including an analysis of the document’s quantitative properties, a discourse analysis, as well as an analysis of the court’s legal methodology. The research results indicate that Antonov’s conception of the Russian legal system expresses itself in a diffuse multi-dimensional system in decision 21-P. It is a multifaceted pattern where different elements can elicit formalism, realism, or both simultaneously, with different degrees of prevalence. / Eсли за фасадом ничего нет, что это значит? Раскол между Россией и международным сообществом достиг нового уровня после февраля 2022 года. Этому затруднительному положению способствовали предшествующие ему события и эта эскалация нашла отражение и в сфере международного права. Переломный момент был в 2015 году, когда Конституционный Суд РФ принял постановление № 21-П. Это решение стало кульминацией длительной правовой борьбы между Конституционным судом России и Европейским судом поправам человека. Был сделан вывод о том, что в случае несовместимости решения международного суда с Конституцией РФ исполнение предусмотренных в решении мер его правопорядка может быть предотвращено. В данной диссертации делается попытка определить, каким образом ключевые аспекты диссертации профессора Михаила Антонова «Формализм, реализм и консерватизм в российском праве» проявляются в лингвистических свойствах и правовой методологии Конституционного Суда РФ в постановление № 21-П. Документ Был подвергнут трехступенчатой оценке, включающей анализ количественных характеристик документа, дискурсивный анализ, а также анализ правовой методологии суда. Результаты исследования показывают, что концепция российской правовой системы Антонова выражается в многоаспектной системе в решении № 21-П. Это многогранный паттерн, в котором разные элементы могут вызывать формализм, реализм или и то, и другое одновременно, с разной степенью преобладания. / Vad betyder det om det inte finns något bakom fasaden? Schismen mellan Ryssland och det internationella samhället nådde en ny nivå i februari 2022. Denna splittring förutsågs av händelser som ägde rum i förväg och finns även återspeglade inom internationell rättssfär. Det fanns ett avgörande ögonblick 2015, när den ryska författningsdomstolen antog dekret 21-P. Detta beslut var kulmen på en lång rättskamp mellan den ryska författningsdomstolen och den europeiska domstolen för mänskliga rättigheter. Slutsatsen var att om en dom från en internationell domstol är oförenlig med den ryska konstitutionen, kan implementeringen av åtgärder som förutses i bedömningen av dess rättsordning förhindras. Detta arbete syftar till att utforska vilket sätt de centrala aspekterna av rättsforskaren Mikhail Antonovs avhandling Formalism, Realism and Conservatism in Russian Law manifesteras i de språkliga egenskaper och den juridiska metodik som tillämpas av författningsdomstolen i dekret 21-P. Det officiella dokumentet rörande beslut 21-P genomgick en trestegsanalys som inkluderar en granskning av textens kvantitativa egenskaper, en diskursanalys samt en analys av domstolens juridiska metodik. Forskningsresultaten indikerar att Antonovs uppfattning om det ryska rättssystemet uttrycker sig i ett diffust flerdimensionellt system i beslut 21-P. Det är ett mångfacetterat mönster där olika element kan framkalla formalism, realism, eller båda samtidigt, med olika grader av prevalens.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Paula Vespoli Godoy.pdf: 1033219 bytes, checksum: b0627d8e3884f58a0190d7761ac4e9bc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-10 / The purpose of this work is to analyze the debates between the jurists Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt occurred in between wars, during the Weimar Republic. It also purports to consider the theory and the concepts of each author on issues such as democracy, sovereignty, the power of a governor and his limitations, State of Law, strength and function of the Constitution. It analyzes the dualisms involved in this debate, among which, normativism and decisionism, Law and Power, Legal and Political affairs, normality and exception, reflections which eventually led them to the diverse answer on who must be the guardian of the Constitution : the Constitutional Court according to Kelsen s conception and the President of the Reich according to Schmitt s conception. The theoretical accounts of each author regarding the control of law constitutionality, notwithstanding having occurred on the first half of the twentieth century, still bring about studies and fierce criticisms, whether it is due to Kelsen s exacerbated formalism or to Schmitt s reactionary and authoritarian ideology. Many indoctrinators of the Theory and the Philosophy of contemporary Law and Constitutional Law address the subject to deal with the present problems of the constitutional jurisdiction. The criticisms to the formalist normativism, to the state of exception and the demo-liberal parliament model, are amongst the most analyzed issues. The contemporanity of this debate and its importance in the relentless search for the improvement of the control of constitutionality of the law and assurance of the democratic principle and the rights introduced in the Constitution is the goal of the present study / Este trabalho visa abordar o debate entre os juristas Hans Kelsen e Carl Schmitt ocorrido no entreguerras, durante a República de Weimar. Procura analisar a teoria e os conceitos que cada autor possui sobre questões como democracia, soberania, poder de um governante e seus limites, Estado de Direito, força e função da Constituição. Analisa os dualismos que permeiam este debate, dentre os quais, normativismo e decisionismo, Direito e Poder, Jurídico e Político, normalidade e exceção, reflexões que os levaram às respostas diversas sobre quem deve ser o guardião da Constituição : o Tribunal Constitucional na concepção de Kelsen e o Presidente do Reich na concepção de Schmitt. As posições teóricas de cada autor quanto ao controle de constitucionalidade das leis, não obstante terem ocorrido na primeira metade do século XX, ainda provocam estudos e críticas acirradas, seja pelo formalismo exacerbado de Kelsen ou pela ideologia reacionária e autoritária de Schmitt. Muitos doutrinadores da Teoria e da Filosofia do Direito e do Direito Constitucional contemporâneos abordam este tema para tratar dos problemas atuais da jurisdição constitucional. As críticas ao normativismo formalista, ao estado de exceção e ao modelo parlamentar demoliberal, destacam-se entre os temas mais analisados. A contemporaneidade deste debate e sua importância na incessante busca pelo aperfeiçoamento do controle de constitucionalidade das leis e garantia do princípio democrático e dos direito inseridos na Constituição são o objeto do presente estudo

Ce mémoire porte sur la pensée politique du juriste allemand Carl Schmitt, plus précisément sur sa critique de l’universalisme libéral. Sur la base d’une analyse de ses principaux textes, nous démontrons que la pertinence de cet auteur controversé réside dans le défi renouvelé que présente son antinormativisme pour la pensée politique contemporaine. Nous soutenons qu’il y a chez Schmitt un souci constant de rattacher le droit à l’ordre concret, qu’il soit institué ou reçu. Nous démontrons ensuite comment l’antinormativisme se prolonge en droit international dans la critique de l’universalisme, entendu comme l’ambition de penser le politique à partir de l’humanité comme sujet unique. D’une perspective décisionniste, l’universalisme masque des intérêts impérialistes qu’il convient de dénoncer ; d’une perspective institutionnaliste, l’universalisme néglige l’ordre spatial concret sur lequel repose le droit international. Nous affirmons que Schmitt démontre l’importance de préserver l’autonomie de la science juridique envers la morale et la technique. / This essay examines Carl Schmitt’s political theory and more specifically his critique of liberal universalism. The aim is to show that the relevance of this controversial writer lies in the renewed challenge that his antinormativism represents to contemporary political theory. I maintain that there is in Schmitt’s thinking a constant attempt to establish the modalities of a relationship between law and order, whether it be instituted order or given order. I further illustrate how schmittian antinormativism, in international law, gives rise to a critique of universalism, understood as the attempt to think the political from the perspective of humanity considered in its unity. From a decisionist perspective, universalism hides imperialistic interests that must be unveiled; from an institutionalist perspective, universalism neglects the concrete spatial order on which international law is grounded. It is thus argued that Schmitt demonstrates the significance of preserving the autonomy of jurisprudence towards moral and technic.

No description available.