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

Die Arbeit soll zeigen, dass es zu einer breiteren Durchsetzung von Schadensersatzansprüchen wegen kartellrechtswidrigem Verhalten eines eigenständigen Informationsanspruchs des Rechtsanwalts als Organ der Rechtspflege gegenüber der EU-Kommission und den deutschen Kartellbehörden bedarf, und zwar sowohl aus tatsächlicher Notwendigkeit, als auch auf Grund europarechtlicher und grundgesetzlicher Vorgaben. Anhand des europarechtlichen Effektivitätsgrundsatzes aus Art. 4 Abs. 3 EUV und des Rechts auf effektiven Rechtsschutz aus Art. 47 der EU-Grundrechtecharta bzw. des Justizgewährungsanspruchs als Ausfluss des Rechtsstaatsprinzips, Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG, wird erörtert, wie ein solcher Anspruch mindestens beschaffen sein muss. Die Untersuchung bestehender, sekundärrechtlicher und einfachgesetzlicher Dokumentenzugangs-, Auskunfts- und Akteneinsichtsansprüche ergibt, dass bereits nach geltender Rechtslage dem Rechtsanwalt ein Informationsanspruch gegenüber der Europäischen Kommission und den deutschen Kartellbehörden zusteht. Die Interpretation der betreffenden Tatbestände nimmt hierbei die europarechtlichen und grundgesetzlichen Vorgaben auf und bewegt sich im Rahmen zulässiger Auslegung. Daneben wird ein Vorschlag unterbreitet, wie der Informationsanspruch über die Mindestvorgaben hinaus ausgestaltet werden könnte. / The work reveals that a for a better private enforcement of competition law in the form of damages claims an independent right of information vis-à-vis the EU-Commission and the German Cartel Authorities for an attorney without a client and a mandate is needed. This need not only derives from the factual necessity but also from European primary law and the German Grundgesetz. In light of the European principle of effectiveness, Article 4 para. 3 TEU, and the right to effective judicial protection, Article 47 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 20 para. 3 German Grundgesetz respectively, the author develops the right and its boundaries. The examination of information rights and rights to access documents in EU secondary law and German law then shows that an independent right of information and access to documents for an attorney without a client and a mandate already exists if the law is interpreted in accordance with the EU primary law and the German Grundgesetz. The author further develops a recommendation as to how such an information right could be extended beyond its core that is determined by EU primary law and the German Grundgesetz.

Inside the Peruvian civil process, there are warranties that seek to protect the rights of the persons who come to it. Since these warranties  are  affirmed in the   Peruvian Constitution and in international human rights treaties, they are considered as fundamental rights. One of them is the right to a second hearing.The present essay is a constructive critic of the principle of the right to appeal. The hypothesis consists in proving, through an economic analysis,  that  the  second hearing does not play a role in our legal system. / Dentro del proceso civil peruano, existen garantías que buscan la protección de los derechos de las personas que acuden al mismo.Estas garantías, al estar consagradas en laConstitución peruana y en tratados internacionales sobre derechos humanos, son con-sideradas  derechos  fundamentales.  Una de ellas es la doble instancia.El presente ensayo es una crítica constructiva al principio de doble instancia. La hipótesis que se sustenta consiste en acreditar a través de un análisis económico que la doble instancia no cumple una función en nuestro sistema jurídico.