Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-10-04T11:03:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 José Carlos Abissamra Filho.pdf: 1027017 bytes, checksum: 87280348631952fc79a02adf3395ccc7 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-04T11:03:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 José Carlos Abissamra Filho.pdf: 1027017 bytes, checksum: 87280348631952fc79a02adf3395ccc7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-20 / According to Michel Foucault’s studies (or, papers based on Michel Foucault studies), there are no defined limits between legality and illegality; legality and illegality do not necessarily oppose each other; on the contrary, their relationship is useful and functional. Legal system follows the same path that drives economics. Distancing itself from the speech which makes it legitimate, the legal system ends up not accomplishing its social goals, not granting safety and predictability, and not restraining itself. The principle of legality, when applied on everyday situations, ends up being used as a tool to violate rights, which means the opposite of sustaining economic order and safety (legal predictability), leading to vulnerability and unpredictability. That might be the reason why legal system’s legitimacy has been gradually challenged. Tolerance is one way to mitigate the legal system’s inaccuracy. Prior to installing a new criminal policy or before adhering to an already existing one, and, before approving a bill, models (legal prototypes) should be created, which could help to mitigate the effects of the legal system’s inaccuracy as well / Segundo estudos de (e a partir de) Michel Foucault, não há limites rígidos entre ilegalidade e legalidade; legalidade e ilegalidade não se opõem necessariamente; ao contrário, muitas vezes, relacionam-se numa articulação útil, funcional. O Direito segue os mesmos fluxos econômicos e políticos da ordem vigente. Distanciando-se do discurso que o legitima, o Direito não cumpre a sua finalidade de pacificação da sociedade; não confere previsibilidade e segurança; enfim, não se contém. O princípio da legalidade, quando aplicado no dia a dia, revela-se como uma autorização para violar direitos, o que significa o contrário de sustentação da ordem econômica e segurança, mas vulnerabilidade e falta de previsibilidade. É provavelmente por isso que a legitimidade do Direito tem sido gradativamente questionada. Tolerância é uma forma de mitigar os efeitos da inidoneidade do Direito; da mesma forma, protótipos legais antes de instalar uma nova política criminal ou de aderir a uma já existente, ou, antes de aprovar um projeto de lei, também poderia ser uma forma de mitigar os efeitos da inidoneidade do Direito

La résilience peut être définie comme une adaptation réussie en dépit du risque et de l’adversité. Que serait aujourd’hui le fonctionnement du secteur de l’économie numérique ou bien celui des travaux publics sans la certitude que les réseaux et les infrastructures véhiculant les services qu’ils offrent sont susceptibles de faire face à toutes les agressions extérieures dont ils peuvent être l’objet ? Et comment pourrait-on l’affirmer si l’on n’avait pris toutes les précautions qu’une telle situation requière dans les contrats qui ont permis leur édification ? Tel est l’objet de la présente thèse : montrer que le contrat administratif est « résilient » au sens où il fait face aux aléas qui peuvent l’affecter, s’y adapte, y résiste, les anticipe et mieux, les intègre. L’originalité du contrat administratif repose notamment sur l’existence d’un certain nombre de principes d’ordre public et de mécanismes juridiques permettant à ce dernier de répondre à l’aléa et d’assurer ainsi sa stabilité face à la contingence. Ainsi les deux premiers critères de la résilience paraissent satisfaits : l’adaptation et la résistance à l’aléa. Or l’évolution du contexte dans lequel se trouvent conclus les contrats administratifs ainsi que l’influence des principes fondamentaux relevant de l’ordre public concurrentiel révèlent l’insuffisance de ces mécanismes. Sans que ces derniers ne disparaissent pour autant, de nouvelles solutions complémentaires des premières ont donc dû être développées. La prévention se trouve alors progressivement placée au cœur du contrat administratif. Elle y dévoile la présence des deux autres critères de la résilience à savoir l’anticipation et l’assimilation de l’aléa. Ainsi la satisfaction des quatre critères de la résilience par le contrat administratif semble non seulement faire émerger un nouveau concept de « contrat administratif résilient », mais participe aussi à faire de ce dernier un contrat plus sûr et moins singulier. / Resilience can be defined as the ability to successfully adapt to changing conditions despite risks and adversity. How would function the digital economy and the public works sector today, if we were not sure that the networks and the infrastructures which provide their services are able to face any potential external attack? And how could we be sure of this, if we had not taken all the precautions required by such a situation in the contracts that have enable to build them? The purpose of the present work is precisely to show that the administrative contract is "resilient", in the sense that it is able to deal with the vagaries that may affect it, to adapt to them, to resist to them, to anticipate them, and even better, to incorporate them. What particularly makes the originality of the administrative contract is the existence of a number of principles of public order and legal mechanisms, which enable it both to handle any vagary and to remain stable when faced to contingency. Thus, the first two criteria for resilience: the adaptation and the resistence to vagaries, seem to be met. The evolution of the context in which administrative contracts are signed, as well as the influence of the basic principles of competitive public order, have however shown that these mechanisms seem insufficient. Without making them disappear, new complementary solutions have thus emerged. The notion of prevention has been progressively placed at the heart of administrative contracts. It highlights the presence of two other criteria for resilience: the anticipation and the integration of vagaries. Thus, as the four criteria for resilience are met by administrative contracts, a new concept known as "resilient administrative contract" seems to be emerging, which contributes to make the administrative contract safer and less singular.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:34:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gabriel Barreira Bressan.pdf: 1154120 bytes, checksum: a7375b6d9effc4d63b25e4ea2e3832ce (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-02-04 / This paper discusses the changes highlighted in the New Civil Code project in your text , however, before entering in specific situations was seeking what had changed , so that a new procedural law was necessary. Plan, the first response was found to promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988, which brought profound sociological, philosophical and theoretical amendments to the Constitutional Law, allowing for a period called neoconstitutionalism. Due to neoconstitutionalism and its change of historical, philosophical and theoretical framework, the modification of the feature of the process, which also happened to be new, because it was guided by the Constitution, because of the constitutionalization process as well as the obligation to have occurred effect of the centrality of the constitutional text, ie to ensure the fundamental rights. Thus, this period became known as neoprocessualismo, at what stage would have appeared different methodological step of procedural law , known as formalism - evaluative , because the process beyond the way that safeguards the legal certainty is represented by values. In this intellection , it is for the magistrate to decide the deal fairly , arriving at a fair , qualified results , through a procedure that is fair, with effectiveness , ie , within a reasonable time , however, with respect to all guarantees established instrumental in the constitution , this is in regard to legal certainty. / O presente trabalho discute as mudanças apontadas no projeto do Novo Código Civil, em seu texto, porém, antes de adentrar nas situações específicas foi buscar o que havia mudado, para que fosse necessário um novo diploma processual. De plano, a primeira resposta encontrada foi a promulgação da Constituição Federal de 1988, que trouxe profundas alterações sociológicas, filosóficas e teóricas para o Direito Constitucional, ensejando um período denominado de neoconstitucionalismo. Em decorrência do Neoconstitucionalismo e sua mudança de marco histórico, filosófico e teórico, ocorreu a modificação da feição do processo, que passava a ser novo também, pois pautava-se na Constituição, em razão da constitucionalização do processo, bem como por ter a obrigação de efetivar a centralidade do texto constitucional, ou seja, de assegurar os direitos fundamentais. Deste modo, esse período ficou conhecido como neoprocessualismo, fase na qual teria surgido outra etapa metodológica do direito processual, conhecida por formalismo-valorativo, pois o processo para além da forma que salvaguarda a segurança jurídica é representado por valores. Nessa intelecção, cabe ao magistrado decidir a lide de forma justa, chegando à um resultado justo, qualificado, por meio de um procedimento que seja justo, com efetividade, ou seja, em tempo razoável, porém, com respeito a todas as garantias instrumentais fixadas na Constituição, isto é, em respeito a segurança jurídica.