Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigo Carneiro Cipriano.pdf: 883781 bytes, checksum: 621b438b7b12b6d4655e050cf68c46a7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-05-29 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The ever growing need for cooperation on the international plane led states, from the mid-19th century onwards, to create institutional structures currently known as international organizations, to which the exercise of global governance was progressively assigned. Due to the activity performed by such entities, which remains scarcely regulated by general international law, different theories were formulated as to explain the foundations of its powers, each of them differently establishing the limits of international organizations competences. The attributed powers doctrine posits that international organizations possess only those powers expressly laid down in the constitutive treaties, which should be restrictively interpreted, so that organisms can only act based on States will as literally manifested in constitutional provisions. Conversely, the theory of implied powers sustains that international organizations constitutions should be more loosely interpreted, defending that, in addition to the powers expressly conferred, there are others implicitly existent, which can be deduced from express powers or even from the organisms objectives. In its turn, according to the inherent powers doctrine, the founding States will is neither the source of the legal personality of international organizations nor of its competences, postulating that international law itself confer to organisms all the powers deemed necessary to perform its functions, limited solely by statutory prohibitions. The research conducted aimed at providing an outlook of these theories, verifying that, despite the predominance of the implied powers doctrine, the three theories are not necessarily excludent and can be jointly applied, given that each organization s specificities are properly considered / A necessidade de cooperação no plano internacional conduziu os Estados, a partir da metade do século XIX, a criarem estruturas atualmente conhecidas como organizações internacionais, às quais foi progressivamente confiado o exercício da governança global. Em função da atividade que desempenham, ainda escassamente regulada pelo direito internacional positivo, diferentes teorias foram formuladas para dar suporte aos poderes jurídicos de que são titulares, cada qual dimensionando de forma particular os limites de atuação das organizações internacionais. A teoria dos poderes atribuídos sustenta que as organizações possuem apenas os poderes expressamente previstos nos tratados constitutivos, interpretando-os restritivamente, de modo que a ação dos organismos está adstrita à vontade dos Estados manifestada na literalidade das disposições estatutárias. Por sua vez, a teoria dos poderes implícitos defende uma leitura mais ampla das cartas constitutivas, afirmando que, a par dos poderes nelas previstos, há outros cuja existência é implícita, podendo ser deduzidos a partir de outros poderes ou mesmo dos objetivos da organização. Já a teoria dos poderes inerentes, distanciando-se do voluntarismo estatal enquanto base da personalidade jurídica e das competências das organizações, entende que o direito internacional confere diretamente aos organismos todos os poderes necessários ao exercício de suas funções, limitados apenas por vedações estatutárias. A pesquisa desenvolvida buscou traçar o panorama geral de tais teorias, verificando que, muito embora a corrente dos poderes implícitos prevaleça na atualidade, a aplicação concertada das três correntes é admissível, desde que se atente às especificidades de cada organização considerada

Social comparison influences well-being, especially during psychological threat. Social comparison outcomes have been theorized to depend on motivation, frequency, contrast versus identification, with a better- versus worse-off other. To reduce this complexity in the theory, 94 senior-housing residents were interviewed and cluster analysis was conducted. Four clusters emerged. Half the interviewees formed a cluster using only adaptive social comparison methods. Adaptives were contrasted with a cluster of indiscriminate comparers, a cluster striving for improvement, and a cluster of participants disagreeing with most questions. Clusters differed especially in patterns of downward identification, upward and downward contrast. Self-evaluation and uncertainty-reduction also differed between clusters; self-enhancement and self-improvement motivations did not. Cluster membership had no direct effect on well-being, but moderation analysis demonstrated threat-buffering of high neuroticism in the adaptive cluster. The benefits were not due to self-esteem or educational level. By separating individuals rather than behaviors, cluster analysis provides a fresh perspective.

Social comparison influences well-being, especially during psychological threat. Social comparison outcomes have been theorized to depend on motivation, frequency, contrast versus identification, with a better- versus worse-off other. To reduce this complexity in the theory, 94 senior-housing residents were interviewed and cluster analysis was conducted. Four clusters emerged. Half the interviewees formed a cluster using only adaptive social comparison methods. Adaptives were contrasted with a cluster of indiscriminate comparers, a cluster striving for improvement, and a cluster of participants disagreeing with most questions. Clusters differed especially in patterns of downward identification, upward and downward contrast. Self-evaluation and uncertainty-reduction also differed between clusters; self-enhancement and self-improvement motivations did not. Cluster membership had no direct effect on well-being, but moderation analysis demonstrated threat-buffering of high neuroticism in the adaptive cluster. The benefits were not due to self-esteem or educational level. By separating individuals rather than behaviors, cluster analysis provides a fresh perspective.

Jurisprudence / LL. D.

C'est avec beaucoup de complexité et d'ambiguïté que les opérations de la paix des Nations Unies se sont déployées sur la scène internationale au cours des dernières décennies. Si le déploiement de ces opérations reflète avant tout la matérialisation de l’un des buts fondamentaux de l’ONU, à savoir : le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationale (Article 1(1) de la Charte des Nations Unies), il n'en reste pas moins manifeste que les actions qu’elles entreprennent sur le terrain sont susceptibles de produire des effets préjudiciables pour les tiers. La question que pose le présent mémoire est donc de savoir si, et dans quelle mesure, la responsabilité de l'ONU est régie par le droit international lorsque des tiers subissent des dommages matériels et corporels du fait des troupes des opérations de paix des Nations Unies. Que prévoit le droit international ? Existe-t-il pour les victimes des voies de réparations ? S’interroger sur la responsabilité de l’ONU suppose que l’on tienne compte avant tout de sa personnalité juridique internationale, car l’existence juridique de l’Organisation universelle constitue le postulat primaire sur lequel sera fondée sa responsabilité internationale. L’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice du 11 avril 1949 sur la Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies représente le moment précis de cette personnification de l’ONU sur la scène internationale. D’un point de vue plus substantiel, les contours de la responsabilité onusienne dans le contexte du maintien de la paix se dessineront autour d’un élément central : « le fait internationalement illicite ». Celui-ci comprend deux éléments; d’une part, un élément objectif consistant en un comportement précis (action ou omission)violant une obligation internationale; et, d’autre part, un élément subjectif attribuant à l’Organisation ce manquement au droit international. Cette ossature de la responsabilité onusienne permettra d’appréhender de façon plus précise dans quelle mesure l’Organisation pourrait être tenue responsable de ses actes ou omissions dans le contexte du maintien de la paix. Plus encore, elle nous permet de plaider pour une responsabilité intégrée tenant compte des facteurs endogènes propres à toute situation, mais aussi faisant de l’individu dans le droit international des sujets dont les intérêts sont susceptibles de protection juridique. / It is with great complexity and ambiguity that the United Nations Peace Operations took place on the international scene during the last decade. Since their deployment reflects first and foremost one of the most fundamental goal of the Unites Nations Organization, namely: to maintain international peace and security (Section 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations), it is predictable that the actions they undertake on the field may produce harmful effects for the third parties. The question raised by this thesis aims to discover if and to what extent the UN responsibility is governed by International Law when such third parties suffer from material and personal damages at the hand of UN Peace Operations troops. What does International Law provide? Are there any means of reparation for the victims? Searching for the UN responsibility includes the supposition that the Organization possesses the international legal personality, because its legal existence represents the basic postulate on which its responsibility will be based. The Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949 of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations constitutes the exact moment of the personification of the UN on the international scene. From a more substantial perspective, the outlines of the UN responsibility in the peacekeeping context are being drawn around one crucial element: « the internationally wrongful act ». This element includes two parts; on the one hand, an objective component which consists of a specific conduct (action or omission) breaching an international obligation; and, on the other hand, a subjective component attributing to the Organization the breach of this international obligation. This framework of the UN responsibility will allow a better understanding of the extent to which the responsibility of the Organization can be retained for actions or omissions committed in a peacekeeping context. More importantly, it allows us to plead for a responsibility which encompasses not only the endogenous characteristics of each situation, but also a legal protection by International Law of the interest of each individual.

C'est avec beaucoup de complexité et d'ambiguïté que les opérations de la paix des Nations Unies se sont déployées sur la scène internationale au cours des dernières décennies. Si le déploiement de ces opérations reflète avant tout la matérialisation de l’un des buts fondamentaux de l’ONU, à savoir : le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationale (Article 1(1) de la Charte des Nations Unies), il n'en reste pas moins manifeste que les actions qu’elles entreprennent sur le terrain sont susceptibles de produire des effets préjudiciables pour les tiers. La question que pose le présent mémoire est donc de savoir si, et dans quelle mesure, la responsabilité de l'ONU est régie par le droit international lorsque des tiers subissent des dommages matériels et corporels du fait des troupes des opérations de paix des Nations Unies. Que prévoit le droit international ? Existe-t-il pour les victimes des voies de réparations ? S’interroger sur la responsabilité de l’ONU suppose que l’on tienne compte avant tout de sa personnalité juridique internationale, car l’existence juridique de l’Organisation universelle constitue le postulat primaire sur lequel sera fondée sa responsabilité internationale. L’avis consultatif de la Cour Internationale de Justice du 11 avril 1949 sur la Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies représente le moment précis de cette personnification de l’ONU sur la scène internationale. D’un point de vue plus substantiel, les contours de la responsabilité onusienne dans le contexte du maintien de la paix se dessineront autour d’un élément central : « le fait internationalement illicite ». Celui-ci comprend deux éléments; d’une part, un élément objectif consistant en un comportement précis (action ou omission)violant une obligation internationale; et, d’autre part, un élément subjectif attribuant à l’Organisation ce manquement au droit international. Cette ossature de la responsabilité onusienne permettra d’appréhender de façon plus précise dans quelle mesure l’Organisation pourrait être tenue responsable de ses actes ou omissions dans le contexte du maintien de la paix. Plus encore, elle nous permet de plaider pour une responsabilité intégrée tenant compte des facteurs endogènes propres à toute situation, mais aussi faisant de l’individu dans le droit international des sujets dont les intérêts sont susceptibles de protection juridique. / It is with great complexity and ambiguity that the United Nations Peace Operations took place on the international scene during the last decade. Since their deployment reflects first and foremost one of the most fundamental goal of the Unites Nations Organization, namely: to maintain international peace and security (Section 1(1) of the Charter of the United Nations), it is predictable that the actions they undertake on the field may produce harmful effects for the third parties. The question raised by this thesis aims to discover if and to what extent the UN responsibility is governed by International Law when such third parties suffer from material and personal damages at the hand of UN Peace Operations troops. What does International Law provide? Are there any means of reparation for the victims? Searching for the UN responsibility includes the supposition that the Organization possesses the international legal personality, because its legal existence represents the basic postulate on which its responsibility will be based. The Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949 of the International Court of Justice on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations constitutes the exact moment of the personification of the UN on the international scene. From a more substantial perspective, the outlines of the UN responsibility in the peacekeeping context are being drawn around one crucial element: « the internationally wrongful act ». This element includes two parts; on the one hand, an objective component which consists of a specific conduct (action or omission) breaching an international obligation; and, on the other hand, a subjective component attributing to the Organization the breach of this international obligation. This framework of the UN responsibility will allow a better understanding of the extent to which the responsibility of the Organization can be retained for actions or omissions committed in a peacekeeping context. More importantly, it allows us to plead for a responsibility which encompasses not only the endogenous characteristics of each situation, but also a legal protection by International Law of the interest of each individual.