This paper reviews both the law and the theoretical accounts of the doctrine of consideration with a view to look for a normative, consistent and public basis of it. The thesis argues that such a basis can only be found by justifying it as what it is instead of considering it as a proxy for something else. The most promising justificatory account of the doctrine should look at its main features and try to make sense of them in consistency, instead of putting up assumption before analysis.

This paper reviews both the law and the theoretical accounts of the doctrine of consideration with a view to look for a normative, consistent and public basis of it. The thesis argues that such a basis can only be found by justifying it as what it is instead of considering it as a proxy for something else. The most promising justificatory account of the doctrine should look at its main features and try to make sense of them in consistency, instead of putting up assumption before analysis.

En procédure civile, la connaissance des actes du procès par les parties est essentielle ; des garanties importantes y sont attachées, à commencer par le respect du principe du contradictoire. Une difficulté se pose, toutefois : il est malaisé de déterminer si une partie a eu connaissance de l’acte qui lui a été communiqué. Toute la question est alors de savoir comment le droit s’accommode de cette difficulté. À cette fin, deux modèles contraires peuvent être dégagés. Dans le premier, formaliste, il est fait le choix de favoriser la connaissance des actes du procès par les parties en amont, pour pouvoir se désintéresser de leur connaissance effective en aval, tous les moyens ayant été mis en oeuvre pour y parvenir. Dans le second, réaliste, on se désintéresse de la façon dont les actes du procès sont portés à la connaissance des parties, mais, par la suite, on prête beaucoup d’intérêt à la connaissance que les parties en ont réellement eue. L’étude révèle que le droit du procès civil reposait initialement sur un modèle à dominante formaliste, mais que ce modèle a évolué, particulièrement au cours des dix dernières années. Sous l’influence des soucis contemporains de rationalisation des coûts de la justice et de protection accrue des droits fondamentaux des parties, le formalisme du droit du procès civil s’est tempéré. Faudrait-il qu’il le soit davantage ? Ce travail ne plaide ni pour la subversion du modèle classique, ni pour son rétablissement. Plutôt, c’est une évolution nuancée du droit qui est suggérée, proposant d’exalter le formalisme lorsque la sécurité juridique l’exige, sans renoncer à tirer profit de règles l’atténuant quand cela s’impose. / In civil law procedures, the parties’ knowledge of the acts of the trial is essential; it guarantees that certain principles, such as the adversarial principle, will be respected. However, a difficulty arises: it is hard to determine whether a party has in fact become aware of the act which was communicated to him. The question is to determine whether the law can accept such a difficulty. To this end, two divergent models can be provided. In the formalistic one, the choice is made to favor the knowledge of the acts of the trial beforehand, in order to be able to become disinterested in their actual knowledge afterwards, all the means having been implemented to carry this out. In the realistic one, the way in which the acts of the trial are brought to the parties' attention is neglected, but thereafter, there is a resurgent focus on the knowledge the parties have genuinely had. The study reveals that the law of civil trial was initially based on a predominantly formalistic model, but this model has evolved, especially during the last decade. Under the influence of contemporary concerns in order to rationalize justice costs and increase the protection of the parties' fundamental rights, the formalism of civil lawsuit has been tempered. Should it be even more moderate? This work neither pleads for the subversion of the classical model nor for its reinstatement. Instead, it is a nuanced evolution of the law which is suggested. It suggests to promote formalism when legal certainty requires it, without sacrificing the benefit of lightening the rules when it is necessary.

[pt] Este é um trabalho sobre a natureza das razões as quais a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos recorre para resolver casos envolvendo a liberdade de discurso. Considero que sejam dois os tipos de razões que orientam o processo decisório da Primeira Emenda: as formais e as substantivas. As razões substantivas são aquelas que o direito compartilha com outros domínios da ação social humana, como a moral, a economia e a política. As formais, por sua vez, são razões jurídicas autoritativas - no sentido de derivarem de uma norma jurídica válida (Constituição, leis, regulamentos, precedentes, contratos, e outros documentos normativos afins) – e compulsórias (ou excludentes), pois geralmente excluem do horizonte do raciocínio decisório razões substantivas concorrentes. O meu objetivo nesta dissertação é descrever a maneira pela qual o raciocínio jurídico formal e o raciocínio jurídico substantivo foram em certa medida conciliados no âmago da prática decisória da Suprema Corte norte-americana. Para tanto, esforço-me em apresentar, comentar e comparar entre si alguns dos mais emblemáticos julgamentos levados a cabo pela Corte ao longo de mais de um século de jurisdição constitucional da Primeira Emenda. Procuro mostrar também que os métodos adjudicatórios por ela desenvolvidos podem ser classificados de acordo com a importância que cada um deles atribui às razões formais (ou, por outro lado, às razões substanciais) da liberdade de discurso. Por exemplo: o conflito entre “balanceamento” e as metodologias pertencentes a “tradição definicional” (e.g., absolutismo, categorização) nada mais representa senão uma instância particular do conflito mais geral entre forma e substância no pensamento jurídico norte-americano. Mas se até meados da década de 1960 a discussão sobre métodos decisórios da liberdade de discurso era completamente dominada pela oposição entre balanceamento e absolutismo, aos poucos a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, em companhia com grandes nomes do pensamento jurídico daquele país, foi abrindo seus olhos para a existência de pontos médios entre aqueles dois extremos. O resultado disto foi a criação de novas teorias normativas da decisão (e.g., o balanceamento definicional), bem como de uma série de testes, fórmulas, parâmetros e presunções, tornando assim possível que elementos formais e substantivos do raciocínio jurídico da Primeira Emenda passassem a conviver no domínio das mesmas metodologias decisórias. Para além do meu esforço em reconstruir racionalmente as transformações pelas quais passaram as abordagens metodológicas da Suprema Corte ao longo das últimas décadas, me proponho também a dotá-las de algum sentido. Interpreto que a preocupação que a Corte historicamente tem demonstrado com a estabilização de seus procedimentos decisórios, bem como com a previsibilidade de seus julgamentos, guarda íntima relação com a crença de que as justificativas subjacentes à Primeira Emenda (e.g., maior controle do governo pelo povo; busca pela verdade e autoexpressão artística e intelectual) são mais eficazmente promovidas mediante a adoção de uma abordagem decisória que priorize o alcance de melhores resultados em um nível global em detrimento daquilo que muitas vezes parece ser o melhor resultado para o caso mais imediato. / [en] This is a paper about the nature of the reasons that the United States Supreme Court uses to resolve cases involving freedom of speech. I believe that there are two types of reasons that guide the First Amendment decision-making process: formal and substantive. Substantive reasons are those that law shares with other domains of human social action, such as morality, economics and politics. Formal reasons, in turn, are authoritative legal reasons - in the sense that they derive from a valid legal norm (Constitution, laws, regulations, precedents, contracts, and other related normative documents) - and compulsory (or exclusionary), because they generally exclude competing substantive reasons from the horizon of decisional reasoning. My aim in this dissertation is to describe the way in which formal legal reasoning and substantive legal reasoning have to some extent been reconciled at the heart of the decision-making practice of the US Supreme Court. To this end, I endeavor to present, comment on and compare with each other some of the most emblematic judgments carried out by the Court over more than a century of First Amendment constitutional jurisdiction. I also try to show that the adjudicatory methods she has developed can be classified according to the importance each of them attaches to the formal reasons (or, on the other hand, the substantial reasons) for freedom of discourse. For example: the conflict between balancing and the methodologies belonging to the definitional tradition (e.g., absolutism, categorization) represents nothing more than a particular instance of the more general conflict between form and substance in American legal thought. But while until the mid-1960s the discussion about methods of deciding freedom of speech was completely dominated by the opposition between balancing and absolutism, little by little the United States Supreme Court, in company with the great names of legal thought in that country, opened its eyes to the existence of middle points between those two extremes. The result was the creation of new normative theories of decision (e.g., definitional balancing), as well as a series of tests, formulas, parameters and presumptions, thus making it possible for formal and substantive elements of First Amendment legal reasoning to coexist in the realm of the same decision-making methodologies. Beyond my effort to rationally reconstruct the transformations that the Supreme Court s methodological approaches have undergone over the last few decades, I also propose to give them some meaning. I argue that the Court s historical concern with the stabilization of its decision-making procedures, as well as with the predictability of its judgments, is closely related to the belief that the justifications underlying the First Amendment (e.g., greater control of government by the people; the search for truth; and artistic and intellectual self-expression) are most effectively promoted by adopting a decision-making approach that prioritizes the achievement of better outcomes on a global level over what often appears to be the best outcome for the most immediate case.

This essay examines and juxtaposes Mario Jori’s and Frederick Schauer’s ideas on legal formalism. Although developed independently of each other, these ideas show remarkable similarities: both focus on the notion of norm or rule as a tool for clarifying the notion of legal formalism; both defend legal formalism from the criticisms routinely moved against it. The author maintains that Jori’s and Schauer’s theories may contribute to shed light on (and criticize) the controversial notion of defeasibility of legal rules; they may also contribute to scale down, from a legal-theoretical point of view, the novelties of contemporary constitutional orders; finally, it may help to better understand their working machinery. / In questo saggio vengono esaminate e messe a confronto le idee di Mario Jori e di Frederick Schauer in tema di formalismo giuridico. Pur essendo state elaborate l’una indipendentemente dall’altra, presentano notevoli somiglianze, perché entrambe usano la nozione di norma o regola come punto focale per chiarire la nozione di formalismo giuridico, e perché entrambe difendono quest’ultimo dalle critiche usualmente rivolte ad esso. L’autrice ritiene che l’esame delle idee dei due autori possa contribuire a chiarire (e criticare) la controversa nozione di defeasibility delle norme giuridiche e possa altresì, in via generale, contribuire a ridimensionare, dal punto di vista teorico-giuridico, le novità del diritto degli odierni Stati costituzionali, oltre che a comprenderne meglio i meccanismi di funzionamento. / En este trabajo se examina y compara las ideas de Mario Jori y de Frederick Schauer en relación con el formalismo jurídico. A pesar de haber sido desarrolladas de forma independiente unas de las otras, dichas ideas presentan notables semejanzas ya que ambos autores utilizan el concepto de una norma o regla como punto focal para aclarar la noción de formalismo jurídico, y porque ambos lo defienden de las críticas que usualmente se le dirigen. La autora considera que el examen de las ideas de los dos autores puede contribuir a aclarar (y criticar) la controvertida noción de defeasibility (derrotabilidad) de las normas jurídicas y, de modo general, también a redimensionar, desde el punto de vista teórico-jurídico, las novedades que presentan los derechos de los modernos Estados constitucionales, y comprender mejor los mecanismos de su funcionamiento.

Crime and Punishment in the Eyes of Cesare Beccaria An Analysis of an Enlightenment Penal Law Reform The Ph.D. dissertation is centred around a relatively concise, but extremely influential book: Cesare Beccaria's treatise On Crimes and Punishments (Dei delitti e delle pene). This work, first published in 1764, sums up in a clear, yet intellectually penetrating way all the main Enlightenment principles of a complex penal law reform. In its time, the book was not only of great philosophical importance and it not only changed the way western societies perceived crime and punishment, but it also served as a concrete guideline for various penal law reformers. It is therefore by no means an overstatement to say that it caused a true paradigm shift in both legal and moral philosophy. The main aim of the thesis is to give a legal-philosophical account of Beccaria's thoughts on crime and punishment, to examine their historical as well as moral background and show the actual impact they had on the legislation of many different, mainly European states. The first chapters of the dissertation are focused on Beccaria's life, his intellectual background and his formative influences (particularly the French, English and Scottish Enlightenment, the social contract theory, utilitarianism, Montesquieu's thoughts on penal...

Crime and Punishment in the Eyes of Cesare Beccaria An Analysis of an Enlightenment Penal Law Reform The Ph.D. dissertation is centred around a relatively concise, but extremely influential book: Cesare Beccaria's treatise On Crimes and Punishments (Dei delitti e delle pene). This work, first published in 1764, sums up in a clear, yet intellectually penetrating way all the main Enlightenment principles of a complex penal law reform. In its time, the book was not only of great philosophical importance and it not only changed the way western societies perceived crime and punishment, but it also served as a concrete guideline for various penal law reformers. It is therefore by no means an overstatement to say that it caused a true paradigm shift in both legal and moral philosophy. The main aim of the thesis is to give a legal-philosophical account of Beccaria's thoughts on crime and punishment, to examine their historical as well as moral background and show the actual impact they had on the legislation of many different, mainly European states. The first chapters of the dissertation are focused on Beccaria's life, his intellectual background and his formative influences (particularly the French, English and Scottish Enlightenment, the social contract theory, utilitarianism, Montesquieu's thoughts on penal...