Inaug.-diss.--Zürich. / "Literatur": p. vi-vii.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Miami, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 218-230).

Originally presented as the author's Thesis (doctoral)--Deutsche Hochschule für Verwaltungswissenschaften Speyer, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-259).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 39-40). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1969. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Miami University, Dept. of Political Science, 2003. / Title from second page of PDF document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 106-117).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2006. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 290-308).

This thesis examines a number of closely connected counter-terrorist executive mechanisms in the United Kingdom (UK) and the manner in which they are administered, in order to evaluate the implications of the mechanisms for, and ultimately their compatibility with, the right to a fair trial under international human rights law (IHRL). More specifically, this study critically analyses Control Orders, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIMs), and Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEOs). For reasons made clear in this thesis, these mechanisms are termed ‘counter-terrorist hybrid orders’ and are collectively analysed as such. As the study identifies a number of issues pertaining to the current design and administration of these mechanisms that can adversely affect the right to a fair trial, the thesis argues that they should be substantially reformed to make them more consistent with IHRL fair trial standards. Moreover, the thesis examines how these mechanisms, as they are currently designed and administered, have been accepted in a legal system with a recognised and long-established attachment to upholding high human rights standards. Having identified, generated and analysed a substantial body of research to perform this task, the thesis argues that the acceptance of the mechanisms as they are currently administered may have occurred as a result of the establishment of a state of ‘perpetual quasi-emergency’. This denotes a particular legal phenomenon in which the UK has responded to an evolving legal problem, namely, how to deal with terror suspects who cannot be prosecuted, deported, or indefinitely detained, in a manner that, whilst being grounded in law, actually resembles the behaviour of States enduring ‘prolonged emergencies’. The thesis asserts that the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, which creates the space necessary for the acceptance of these mechanisms, was established and is preserved by a number of legal and extra-legal factors. As such, some of the research, analysis and methods used to evaluate the phenomena in this study represents an original contribution to knowledge. This study encompasses a variety of approaches in order to examine a particular type of counter-terrorist power, the implications of these mechanisms for the right to a fair trial under IHRL, and the relationships between these issues and wider society. The study requires traditional doctrinal analysis when exploring what the right to a fair trial in the context of national security entails, and in order to examine the various counter-terrorist hybrid order regimes in light of this framework. When assessing what factors may play a role in the establishment and preservation of the state of perpetual quasi-emergency, the study necessitates methods which are less doctrinal and more socio-legal in nature.

O objetivo da pesquisa é a análise da instalada e crescente crise do Poder Judiciário no Brasil e da reforma que pretende solucioná-la. Diante do exame perfunctório se verifica que a crise não é somente operacional, ocasionada pelo desaparelhamento do Judiciário, pelo processo, suas excessivas formalidades e por outros motivos apontados pelo meio jurídico. Embora presentes, a principal causa é de ordem institucional, pois trata do exercício de um dos três Poderes de Estado, que já não se apresenta em sintonia com a teoria clássica da separação dos poderes do século XVIII, em face da nova sociedade e da decorrente alteração dos fins do Estado. O Poder Judiciário vem evoluindo no sentido de administrar a Justiça e prestar a jurisdição de forma substancial, com base na concretização da Constituição, especialmente dos Direitos Fundamentais, o que leva, pelo menos aparentemente, a ditar o Direito e imiscuir-se na atividade política, em contradição à teoria clássica da separação dos poderes. De outro lado, nosso sistema de governo presidencialista, com a hegemonia do Poder Executivo, depõe contra a independência do Judiciário ao centralizar a cooptação dos componentes da mais Alta Corte e ingerir na formação dos Tribunais Superiores. Agora com a adoção do controle externo do Poder Judiciário, aumenta a concentração de poderes no Executivo, fazendo frente à pletora de competência que a Constituição atribuiu ao Poder Judiciário. A conclusão é de que a perda é da sociedade, com a subversão do regime democrático. A história dos países mais desenvolvidos está a indicar o caminho do consenso, como sendo o de um novo agenciamento de poderes, adotando-se o sistema parlamentarista e um Tribunal Constitucional independente. / The objective of the research is the analysis of the installed and crescent crisis of the Judicial Power in Brazil and the reform that intend to solve it. In front of the perfunctory we verify that the crisis is not just operational, caused by the lack of apparatus of the Judicial, by the process, its excessive formalities or other reasons pointed by the judicial environment. Although present, the main cause is from institutional order, because it’s about the prosecution of one of the three Powers of the State, which already is not shown in sintony with the classic theory of the separation of the powers from the XVII century, in regard to the new society and the current alteration of the finality of the State. The Judicial Power has been developing in the sense of managing the Justice and render the jurisdiction in a substantional way, based on the realization of the Constitution, specially the Fundamental Rights, that takes us, at least apparently, to dictate the Law and insert itself in the political activity, in contradiction to the classic theory of the separation of the Powers. On the other hand, our presidential government system, with the hegemony of the Executive Power, deposes against the independence of the Judicial centralizing the political choice of the components of the Highest Court and ingests the formation of the Superior Courts. Now with the adoption of the external control of the Judicial Power, raises the concentration of the powers in the Executive, initiating the exuberance of competence that the Constitution attributed to the Judicial Power. The conclusion is that the lost is of the society, with the subversion of the democratic regime. The history of the well developed countries is pointing the way of consensus, as been the way of a new placement of the powers, adopting the parliamentary system and a independent Constitutional Court.