O presente trabalho consiste no estudo da atuação de dois juristas no contexto do regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal, ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), foi aposentado compulsoriamente em janeiro de 1969, em decorrência do Ato Institucional n° 5/1968; Raymundo Faoro, presidente do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) entre 1977-1979, tornou-se importante interlocutor da sociedade civil com o Governo Geisel, pelo retorno da democracia. As obras dos dois juristashistoriadores, respectivamente Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil (1949), e Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (1958), reeditadas em 1975, também são analisadas, a partir de tema específico: o poder público e o poder privado no Brasil e sua relação com o desenvolvimento incompleto da cidadania no país. Apesar de adotarem perspectivas teóricas distintas, as obras servem à compreensão do debate clássico da historiografia brasileira entre privatismo e patrimonialismo, o que não as reduz a categorias estanques. Por sua vez, retratam dois perfis intelectuais: Faoro, o pensador de temas abrangentes, sem a formação técnica de historiador, e Leal, representante das primeiras gerações dotadas de saber acadêmico especializado. / The present essay aims at investigating the performance of two jurists throughout the Military Government in Brazil (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal Minister of the Supreme Court (STF) retired compulsorily in January 1969 as a consequence of the Institutional Act number 5/1968; and Raymundo Faoro President of the Federal Council of the Brazilian Lawyers Order (OAB) from 1977 to 1979 became an important interlocutor between civil society and the government of President Geisel, on behalf of the return to democracy. Additionally, the works of these two jurists and historians, respectively: Coronelismo: municipality and representative government in Brazil (1949), and The Owners of Power: the Formation of Brazilian Political Patronage (1958), both re-edited in 1975, are under analyses due to a common topic: the incomplete development of citizenship in Brazil and its relation to public and private power in the country. Despite of adopting a different theoretical perspective, both works are helpful to the understanding of the classic debate on Brazilian historiography between Privatism and Patrimonialism, although these are not depurate categories. Furthermore, these works portray two very distinct intellectual biographies: Faoro, a thinker of broad themes, who had no technical studies in History; and Leal, who represents the first generations of a specialized academic knowledge.

O presente trabalho consiste no estudo da atuação de dois juristas no contexto do regime militar brasileiro (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal, ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), foi aposentado compulsoriamente em janeiro de 1969, em decorrência do Ato Institucional n° 5/1968; Raymundo Faoro, presidente do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) entre 1977-1979, tornou-se importante interlocutor da sociedade civil com o Governo Geisel, pelo retorno da democracia. As obras dos dois juristashistoriadores, respectivamente Coronelismo, enxada e voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil (1949), e Os donos do poder: formação do patronato político brasileiro (1958), reeditadas em 1975, também são analisadas, a partir de tema específico: o poder público e o poder privado no Brasil e sua relação com o desenvolvimento incompleto da cidadania no país. Apesar de adotarem perspectivas teóricas distintas, as obras servem à compreensão do debate clássico da historiografia brasileira entre privatismo e patrimonialismo, o que não as reduz a categorias estanques. Por sua vez, retratam dois perfis intelectuais: Faoro, o pensador de temas abrangentes, sem a formação técnica de historiador, e Leal, representante das primeiras gerações dotadas de saber acadêmico especializado. / The present essay aims at investigating the performance of two jurists throughout the Military Government in Brazil (1964-1985): Victor Nunes Leal Minister of the Supreme Court (STF) retired compulsorily in January 1969 as a consequence of the Institutional Act number 5/1968; and Raymundo Faoro President of the Federal Council of the Brazilian Lawyers Order (OAB) from 1977 to 1979 became an important interlocutor between civil society and the government of President Geisel, on behalf of the return to democracy. Additionally, the works of these two jurists and historians, respectively: Coronelismo: municipality and representative government in Brazil (1949), and The Owners of Power: the Formation of Brazilian Political Patronage (1958), both re-edited in 1975, are under analyses due to a common topic: the incomplete development of citizenship in Brazil and its relation to public and private power in the country. Despite of adopting a different theoretical perspective, both works are helpful to the understanding of the classic debate on Brazilian historiography between Privatism and Patrimonialism, although these are not depurate categories. Furthermore, these works portray two very distinct intellectual biographies: Faoro, a thinker of broad themes, who had no technical studies in History; and Leal, who represents the first generations of a specialized academic knowledge.

A tension arises whenever the South African private law fails to meet constitutional right norms. To remedy a deficiency, two law-making options are available. The first is for the judiciary to develop or change private law principles and rules in order to provide protection for the implicated constitutional norm. The second is for the judiciary to enforce an obligation upon Parliament to enact legislation to amend or replace existing private law rights and obligations so as to safeguard the norm against interference from a private individual or entity. The former is the more conventional option, but, in recent years, the law reports record an increasing reliance on the legislative duty to protect constitutional right norms in private legal relationships. The thesis investigates the extent to which the latter phenomenon - which will be described as a 'pivot towards legislative remedies' - exists, and the circumstances in which the courts pivot towards legislative remedies rather than developing private law of their own accord. The thesis finds that legislative schemes that give effect to constitutional rights are likely to contain an array of benefits that are absent from or reduced in the judicial law-making process. The judicial pivot towards legislative remedies is thus a strategy to enhance the process through which conflicting rights are resolved, as it allows for the constitutional rebuilding of private law in a way that the judiciary is unable to do on its own. Importantly, however, theories of judicial deference do not explain the pivot. On the contrary, the courts have exercised a strict level of control over the legislative law-making pathway. Through either statutory interpretation or the review of legislation, the courts require legislation to contain the essentials of the judicial law-making framework. From this perspective, the judicial law-making process produces the floor of the rebuilding project and the legislative law-making process enhances that framework.