The idea of sovereignty of the people offers a concept which allows searching for legitimacy of power. The legitimacy of power is one of the key structures establishing a relation between those who govern and those who are governed. Whether this relation is accepted, acceptable, functional, desirable or undesirable is a matter of finding the very definition of sovereignty of the people as such. The aim of this doctoral thesis, titled The Concept of Sovereignty of the People and the Political Party System in the First Czechoslovak Republic (1918 - 1938) and in the Czech Republic since 1993, is, firstly, to define the concepts of the people, on one hand, and sovereignty, on the other hand, in the historical, political and legal context from the ancient times up to now while reflecting the role of political parties in relation to the sovereignty of the people. Secondly, this thesis aims at exploring and describing the functioning of the party systems in the interwar Czechoslovakia and in the Czech Republic after 1993. Thirdly, this thesis seeks to answer the following questions: who represents the people in liberal democracies which are based on sovereignty of the people; how do the people exercise their power; and what is the role of the political parties in this process.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoCFDJ_DISSERT.pdf: 2239139 bytes, checksum: 6274158f5866cc9d35f70c49136bffb7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-26 / This work presents an analysis about the legitimation of independent regulatory commission`s rulemaking power by participation procedure. It is observed that political and administrative decentralization and fragmentation of State, with the purpose of approaching citizens and provide, more efficiently, the functions acquired by the passage of the Welfare State, leads to a deficit of legitimacy (democratic crisis), which is noticeable in the making of legal norms by directors of independent regulatory commission to regulate specific economic sector. However, we understand that this crisis stems from the observation of the contemporary world from dogmas and legal institutions of the eighteenth century, without their evolution and adaptation to the modern world. The legitimacy must be perceived as the justification of power, relation command /obedience, which, from the Modern State, has the democracy as standard. Therefore, just as the world has evolved and demanded political and administrative decentralization to accompany him, it is necessary to the development of the idea of representative democracy (formal legitimacy) to participatory democracy (legitimacy stuff). Legitimacy is not confused with the legality: as the legality is on observance to internal legal system, the "rules of play"; legitimacy, as inputs to be fed into this system, the selection of the different expectations in the environment. Nevertheless, the legitimacy will take place by legality, through introduction of rational and communicative procedures: procedures get fundamental importance because these will be the means to select the expectations to be introduced in the legal system in order to make decisions more fair, rational and qualified towards society. Thus, it is necessary to its opening to the environment for dialogue with the government. In this context, we try to make an analysis of constitutional norms based on systematic and teleological interpretation of these norms to build these arguments. According to the Constitution of 1988, participatory democracy is a result of the democratic principle (sole paragraph of art. 1 of the Constitution), and it is an expression of citizenship and political pluralism, both foundations of Republic (respectively Art. 1st, inc . V and II of the Constitution), as well as the national consciousness. From another point of view, that principle consists of an evolution in the management public affairs (principle of Republic). The right of interested participate in the rulemaking process derives both the principle of popular participation (part of the democratic principle) and the republican principle as the due process constitutional (art. 5, LIV and LV, CF/88) and the right to petition (Art . 5 ?, inc. XXXIV, "a", CF/88), and it is the duty of the State not only be open to participation and encourage it. Ignoring stakeholder involvement in procedures and / or expressions compiled can be causes of invalidation of the rule of law produced by addiction of procedure, motive, motivation and/or because of the administrative act. Finally, we conclude that the involvement of stakeholders in the process of making rules within the independent regulatory commission is the legitimacy and the validity of rules; and that, despite of the expressions do not bind the decision making, they will enter the system as juridical fact, balancing the field of technical discretionary of agencies / O trabalho apresenta um estudo sobre a legitima??o do poder normativo das ag?ncias reguladoras pelo procedimento participativo. Constata-se que a descentraliza??o fragmenta??o pol?tico-administrativa do Estado com o objetivo de se aproximar dos cidad?os e prestar, de forma mais eficiente, as fun??es adquiridas pela passagem do Estado Social ocasiona um d?ficit de legitimidade (crise democr?tica); o qual ? percept?vel na cria??o de normas jur?dicas por particulares (os dirigentes das ag?ncias reguladoras) para regular determinado setor econ?mico. No entanto, entendemos que essa crise decorre da observa??o do mundo contempor?neo a partir de dogmas e institutos jur?dicos oitocentistas, sem a sua evolu??o e adequa??o ao mundo atual. A legitimidade deve ser entendida como a justifica??o do poder; rela??o comando/obedi?ncia, a qual, a partir do Estado Moderno, tem como ?nico crit?rio a democracia. Assim, da mesma forma que o mundo evoluiu e exigiu a descentraliza??o pol?tica-administrativa para acompanh?-lo, ? necess?ria a evolu??o da ideia de democracia representativa (legitimidade formal) para a democracia participativa (legitimidade material). A legitimidade n?o se confunde com a legalidade: enquanto a legalidade consiste na observ?ncia interna ao sistema jur?dico, nas regras do jogo ; a legitimidade, nos inputs a serem introduzidos nesse sistema, na sele??o das diversas expectativas presentes no ambiente. Entretanto, a legitimidade decorrer? da legalidade, atrav?s de introdu??o de procedimentos racionais e comunicativos: os procedimentos adquirem fundamental import?ncia, pois, ser?o o meio a selecionar as expectativas a serem introduzidas no ordenamento jur?dico, no intuito de produzir decis?es mais justas, racionais e qualificadas perante a sociedade. Assim, ? necess?rio a sua abertura ao ambiente para o di?logo com o Poder P?blico. Nesse contexto, busca-se fazer uma an?lise das normas constitucionais com base na interpreta??o sistem?tica e teleol?gica dessas para construir tal argumenta??o. Conforme a Constitui??o Federal de 1988, a democracia participativa ? uma decorr?ncia do princ?pio democr?tico (par?grafo ?nico do art. 1? da CF), e ? express?o da cidadania e do pluralismo pol?tico, ambos fundamentos da Rep?blica (respectivamente art. 1?, inc. V e II, da CF), assim como da consci?ncia nacional. Sob outro ponto de vista, o princ?pio ora em comento consiste em uma evolu??o na gest?o da coisa p?blica (princ?pio da Rep?blica). O direito dos interessados participarem do processo normativo decorre tanto do princ?pio de participa??o popular (vertente do princ?pio democr?tico) e do princ?pio republicano quanto do devido processo legal constitucional (art. 5?, LIV e LV , CF/88) e o direito de peti??o (art. 5?, inc. XXXIV, a , CF/88); sendo, portanto, um dever do Estado n?o s? estar aberto ? participa??o quanto incentiv?-la. A n?o observ?ncia da participa??o dos interessados nos procedimentos e/ou das manifesta??es elaboradas pode ser causa de invalida??o da norma jur?dica produzida por v?cio no procedimento, no motivo, motiva??o e/ou causa do ato administrativo. Por fim, conclu?mos que a participa??o dos interessados no processo de cria??o normativa no ?mbito das ag?ncias reguladoras consiste na pr?pria legitimidade e, por conseguinte, validade das normas; e que, apesar das manifesta??es n?o vincularem a tomada de decis?o, elas ingressar?o no sistema como fato jur?dico, relativizando o campo de discricionariedade t?cnica das ag?ncias

Comment une prise de pouvoir par la force peut-elle donner naissance à un ordre juridique stable? Peu étudié par les juristes, le coup d’Etat moderne n’est pas seulement un procédé permettant l’accession au pouvoir, il est également l’un des modes d’enclenchement du pouvoir constituant originaire, moment de rupture et de reconstruction constitutionnelles. Cette notion se trouve être au croisement de la science politique, de la philosophie du droit, et de l’histoire. Permettant l’instauration d’une nouvelle constitution, le coup d’Etat moderne est une prise de pouvoir soudaine par un petit groupe d'hommes appartenant à l’appareil de l’Etat et utilisant la force. En se fondant sur différents évènements historiques majeurs, comme les coups de Bonaparte, Lénine, Pinochet, etc., il paraît nécessaire de définir ce concept, le distinguant de la révolution. Il est possible d’établir une classification des différents types de coups, selon leurs protagonistes et leur impact sur l’ordre juridique : coup d’Etat révolutionnaire, coup d’Etat classique, coup d’Etat moderne, putsch, et pronunciamiento. Il se dégage alors les techniques de préparation, de mise en oeuvre, et de maintien du coup qui touchent à la fois aux sphères politique et juridique. / How can the violent overthrow of a government generate a stable legal order? Often overlooked by the legal community, a modern coup is not just a process of accession to power; it is also one of the ways of engaging the original constituent power, of constitutional rupture and of reconstruction. This concept is located at the intersection of political science, of the philosophy of law and of history. The modern coup, which permits the establishment of a new constitution, is the sudden, illegal replacement of a government by a small group of the existing state establishment by the use of force. Based on various historical events, such as the coups d’état of Bonaparte, Lenin, Pinochet, etc., we define this concept and distinguish it from a revolution. We establish a classification of different types of coups, according to their protagonists and their impact on the constitutional system: revolutionary coups, classical coups, modern coups, putsches, and pronunciamienti. We also define the techniques of preparation, implementation and preservation of the coup which affect both the political and legal spheres