Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rogerio Dourado Furtado.pdf: 1182756 bytes, checksum: 8945addfd2483cde220d8f91b9d7aee7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-08 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / Globalization originated the formation of joint markets, aiming their protection and strengthening. These common markets are the result of the integration of standards, legislations and institution s adaptation in the long run. Member States belonging to these coalitions should opt for a management model that can be supranational (for the EU) or intergovernmental (in the case of Mercosur). The institutional model in place is of vital importance so the integration can reach the desired goals observed in their treaties of creation. The European is an example of successful integration whereas Mercosur has not yet achieved its basic goals. The supranationality in the European Union has brought huge benefits and developments, both for its Member States and for the regional bloc. Mercosur is known to be extremely inert and with immense difficulties to achieve its purposes, even the most basic ones. The primary goal of regional integration is the development and progress of its members, whether by the Institute of supranationality or intergovernmentalism. Thus it is expected that participants can settle their differences both internal and external, placating the concerns of all members / A globalização deu origem à formação de mercados comuns com o intuito de proteção e fortalecimento, sendo esta uma tendência mundial. Estes mercados comuns são o resultado de uma integração de normas, legislações e adaptação das instituições que ocorre a longo prazo. Os Estados-membros pertencentes a estas coligações deverão optar por um modelo de gestão, que pode ser supranacional (no caso da União Europeia) ou intergovernamental (no caso do Mercosul). O modelo institucional em vigor é de vital importância para que a integração atinja os objetivos almejados em seus tratados de criação. Como exemplo de integração bem sucedida temos a União Europeia enquanto o Mercosul ainda não atingiu os objetivos basilares propostos na sua fundação. A supranacionalidade da União Européia tem trazido enormes benefícios e desenvolvimentos, tanto para os seus Estados membros quanto para o próprio bloco regional. Já o Mercosul mostra-se extremamente inerte e com dificuldades imensas para atingir seus propósitos, até mesmo os mais básicos. A meta primordial de uma integração regional é a evolução e o progresso de seus membros, seja pelo instituto da supranacionalidade ou da intergovernabilidade. Com isso espera-se que seus participantes possam resolver suas diferenças tanto internas quanto externas, respondendo aos anseios de todos os integrantes

Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises. The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs. A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation. Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations. National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law. Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.

<p>Due to constant expansion of the European Community, the harmonization in the fields of European company law and development of internal European market have emerged into considerably bigger and more complex issues. Aspects of corporate mobility, having a direct simultaneous connection to the right of freedom of establishment, have been one of the most problematic spheres for reaching international consensus. Despite numerous directives adopted by Member States (MS) European undertakings continue to be regulated by national legislations. The idea of a common European limited liability company, sc. Societas Europaea (SE), was put into process of realization in order to facilitate the internal trade and to help multinational companies to obtain legal certainty and trans-European character by rising above the variety of national legislations. Furthermore, the SE was to make cross-border enterprise management more flexible and less bureaucratic and to help improving the general competitiveness of Community enterprises.</p><p>The process of formation of the European Company Statue took over forty years and the result of the final adoption turned out to be something completely different from the es-sential idea of the European Company. Due to the historical, socio-political and legal dif-ferences MSs had difficulties with compromising on the majority of aspects and instead of one common SE form, the Community had basically adopted 28 different alternatives, loosing the original valuable supranational character. The strongest advantage of the SE are the rights conferred to it by the Regulation. The frequent use of renvoi technique undermines this aspect of SE’s precedence over national legislation. The true potential of the European Company remains thus highly theoretical and the current shape of the SE presents only a weak alternative to the national corporate forms of the MSs.</p><p>A European Company cannot be freely incorporated solely by investment of private capi-tal. There is a need for existence of at least two legal enterprises which furthermore must fall under the scope of different national legislations. In other words in order to create an SE, the definite cross-border element between companies at hand must be visible or can be identified. It can be formed by means of merger, creation of a holding, incorporation of a subsidiary or conversion. The subscribed capital for the SE shall at its minimum equal €120 000. The Council Regulation on SE provides a flexible management regime, permit-ting companies to choose between two administration systems (one-tier/two-tier) that exist in the Community. The issues of employee involvement are regulated in separate directive that is a supplement to the Regulation.</p><p>Despite the recent developments of freedom of establishment through the case-law, the matter remains utterly complicated. The SE may seem on one hand as a logical solution, being able to incorporate in different MSs, to merge or to form a holding without burden-some processes of winding-up and re-incorporation. On the other hand the Regulation re-stricts the mobility of the SE by provisions prohibiting location of registered and head of-fice of the company in different MSs, depriving it thus from one of the basic Community freedoms. Prudent attitude to mobility and aspiration to protect national interests have partly diminished essential advantages of the SE. It appears to be impossible to conduct business in one MS while being registered in another. Possible amendments are awaited shortly, but so far the SE has definitely not achieved many of practical goals considering mobility and has fulfilled very few of its important theoretical expectations.</p><p>National perspective on the adoption of the SE seems to be relatively positive, accepting the theoretical advantages of corporate mobility, options of structure and management and possibility to obtain an essentially European trademark. However, there is also an amount of skepticism addressed to deficient practical functioning due to the lack of uniform legislation. European organizations and companies tend to have a slightly more cautious and restrained approach. The idea of a European Company is praised more for its genuinely European character. Representatives for established SEs prefer to talk about internationalization of trade, European recognition, enhanced competitiveness and market integration, while very little speaks about the true practical potential. The SE is furthermore often observed as a useful but still mainly theoretical legal instrument, playing an indispensable part in the overall development of European company law.</p><p>Political motives seem to be considerably heavier while discussing the question of necessity of adoption that later attracted so little interest. Additionally, the basic idea of the SE also seems to include definite measures for general European unification, granting SE the symbolic value of commonly European enterprise. Consequently, failing in purely practical application in the absence of a clear need for common limited liability company, the SE has its theoretical and crucially important socio-psychological purposes.</p>

Submitted by MARK WILLIAM DATYSGELD null (markwdt@gmail.com) on 2017-06-28T08:14:16Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao mestrado Mark-Final-1.pdf: 1155264 bytes, checksum: 2746bbe3837cd33a3221403026d8f0a8 (MD5) / Rejected by Luiz Galeffi (luizgaleffi@gmail.com), reason: Solicitamos que realize uma nova submissão seguindo a orientação abaixo: O arquivo submetido está sem a ficha catalográfica. A versão submetida por você é considerada a versão final da dissertação/tese, portanto não poderá ocorrer qualquer alteração em seu conteúdo após a aprovação. Corrija esta informação e realize uma nova submissão com o arquivo correto. Agradecemos a compreensão. on 2017-06-28T20:32:21Z (GMT) / Submitted by MARK WILLIAM DATYSGELD null (markwdt@gmail.com) on 2017-07-06T16:36:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao mestrado Mark-Final.pdf: 1072549 bytes, checksum: ed07ad610faed62cd8293f9a5d8c5c19 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by LUIZA DE MENEZES ROMANETTO (luizamenezes@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2017-07-12T20:42:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 datysgeld_mw_me_mar.pdf: 1072549 bytes, checksum: ed07ad610faed62cd8293f9a5d8c5c19 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-12T20:42:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 datysgeld_mw_me_mar.pdf: 1072549 bytes, checksum: ed07ad610faed62cd8293f9a5d8c5c19 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-05-10 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / O termo governança global tomou nova forma na Governança da Internet, onde a maior parte das instituições utiliza-se do modelo multistakeholder, formando espaços de diálogo e processos decisórios com diversos atores, sejam estes estatais, privados, civis ou acadêmicos. Propõe-se então a análise do estudo de caso da ICANN, instituição responsável pela administração dos contratos relacionados à regulação do uso dos Nomes e Números, o DNS. Por meio de leitura acadêmica, jornalística, pesquisa de campo, participação em conferências e entrevistas com pessoas relevantes à área. Procedeu-se a elaboração, utilizando-se do material dessas diversas fontes, de um panorama da contextualização da revolução tecnológica que levou à Internet atual, e também da governança global. Posteriormente, passou-se para o ecossistema de Governança da Internet como conceito e prática. Assim, o estudo de caso está inserido em um contexto maior, de modo que se possa compreendê-lo em seus intrincados pormenores. Ao contrário da maioria das instituições transnacionais, que acabam por ter caráter recomendativo, na ICANN as decisões são realmente efetuadas. Apesar de o modelo multistakeholder propor igualdade entre os atores, alguns possuem maior influência. Antes da Transição IANA, os Estados Unidos tinham um peso muito maior, agora largamente ocupado pelo setor privado. A Governança da Internet é única dentro da governança global. Esta deve sua distinção a algumas possíveis razões, como o desenho técnico da Internet. Portanto, há grande possibilidade de este não ser um modelo reprodutível em outras áreas. O modelo multistakeholder apresenta um modo divergente de avaliar-se as relações entre atores no Sistema Internacional e o limite do poder do Estado. Mesmo que não haja continuidade no modelo atual, o campo de estudos é extenso e ainda longe de alcançar sua maturidade. / The term global governance has taken a new form in Internet Governance, where most institutions use the multistakeholder model, forming spaces for dialogue and decision-making processes with various actors, including states, companies, civil society or academia. An analysis of the ICANN case study, the institution responsible for administering contracts related to the regulation of the use of Names and Numbers, the DNS, is then proposed. The research was done through academic reading, journalism, field research, participation in conferences and interviews with people relevant to the area. With the material from these various sources, it was elaborated a panorama of the technological revolution contextualization that led to the Internet as it is today, as well as to global governance. Subsequently, we moved on to the Internet Governance ecosystem as a concept and practice. Thus, the case study is embedded in a larger context, so that one can understand it in its intricate details. Unlike most transnational institutions, which are deliberation bodies, ICANN decisions are actually carried out. Although the multistakeholder model proposes equality among the actors, some have greater influence. Prior to the IANA Transition, the United States had a much greater weight, now largely occupied by the private sector. Internet Governance is unique within global governance. It owes its distinction to some possible reasons, such as the technical drawing of the Internet. Therefore, there is a great possibility that this is not a reproducible model in other areas. The multistakeholder model presents a divergent way of assessing the relations between actors in the International System and the limit of state power. Even if there is no continuity in the current model, the field of study is extensive and still far from reaching maturity.

No description available.

<p>The aim of this paper is to explain how the European Union’s common strategy for theCommon Foreign- and Security Policy (CFSP) will change with the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. A comparative case study and qualitative method is used. On the basis of Smith’s theory of institutionalization we will analyze two member states: France and Denmark. Our aim is to see which standpoints these countries have taken concerning the CFSP. We have chosen, in order to analyse the inner and outer factors, to use the liberal intergovernmental “two level game” theory as a theoretical approach. The purpose of the CFSP is to gradually increase the sovereign states’ foreign policy cooperation. The aim of the CFSP is to become an international visible and active player that represents the people of the European Union. At the moment the CFSP is an intergovernmental part of the EU, however there are presentiments that this will change and that CFSP will achieve supranationality. In conclusion, the results of the case study shows that Denmark is aiming for the CFSP cooperation to remain on an intergovernmental platform. France is aiming toward supranationality and a stronger cooperation within the CFSP. In time, with the full implementation of the CFSP, the EU will be able to compete on a global platform.</p>

The aim of this paper is to explain how the European Union’s common strategy for theCommon Foreign- and Security Policy (CFSP) will change with the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon. A comparative case study and qualitative method is used. On the basis of Smith’s theory of institutionalization we will analyze two member states: France and Denmark. Our aim is to see which standpoints these countries have taken concerning the CFSP. We have chosen, in order to analyse the inner and outer factors, to use the liberal intergovernmental “two level game” theory as a theoretical approach. The purpose of the CFSP is to gradually increase the sovereign states’ foreign policy cooperation. The aim of the CFSP is to become an international visible and active player that represents the people of the European Union. At the moment the CFSP is an intergovernmental part of the EU, however there are presentiments that this will change and that CFSP will achieve supranationality. In conclusion, the results of the case study shows that Denmark is aiming for the CFSP cooperation to remain on an intergovernmental platform. France is aiming toward supranationality and a stronger cooperation within the CFSP. In time, with the full implementation of the CFSP, the EU will be able to compete on a global platform.

Cette thèse prend pour objet la construction d’un discours politique et social nouveau - celuide l’Europe communautaire. Ce processus est appréhendé comme le résultat du travail demultiples collectifs d’acteurs politiques et savants. Ces collectifs ont contribué à l’invention duvocabulaire communautaire, d’une part, et à la normalisation de certains savoirs etinterprétations des Communautés, d’autre part. Il s’agit alors de mettre en lumière lesconditions historiques de ce travail collectif dans deux Etats fondateurs de la constructioneuropéenne – la France et l’Allemagne. L’enjeu est d’explorer tout à la fois les conditions depossibilité de l’innovation politique et les conditions de légitimation d’un objet politiquenouveau.En mobilisant des sources historiques variées, ce travail retrace les carrières dans les débatscommunautaires de deux des définitions largement utilisées pour définir l’Europecommunautaire jusqu’à aujourd’hui - la « supranationalité » et « l’économie sociale demarché ». L’étude croisée de leurs usages permet d’examiner les controverses politicoacadémiquesdans lesquelles l’Europe communautaire a été définie comme type institutionneldistinct (de l’Etat-nation) et comme mode de gouvernement spécifique (du marché). A reboursde l’hypothèse d’une « révolution communautaire », la thèse invite à réinscrire l’inventioncommunautaire dans le temps plus long de la construction des Etats nationaux et de leurssavoirs. A l’opposé d’une lecture génétique de la construction communautaire commedéploiement d’un sens défini depuis les années 1950, elle donne à voir la diversité desinterprétations et des savoirs qui ont été produits et se sont affrontés dans les premières, etidentifie les conditions de leurs succès différenciés. / This dissertation aims to understand the construction of a new type of political and socialdiscourse: that of the European Economic Community (EEC). This process is taken, on theone hand, to be the invention on the part of political actors and scholars of a vocabulary andconceptual apparatus which made the EEC thinkable. On the other hand, the process isunderstood as the constitution of specialized disciplines which, by more or less successfullyasserting their legitimacy to produce discourse on the EEC as an object, have contributed torendering certain interpretations obligatory. The dissertation highlights the historical conditionsin which actors have contributed to the emergence, circulation and stabilization of suchknowledge in two founding member states of the EEC - France and Germany – up to the firstenlargement of the EEC in 1973. Beyond the specific case of European integration, thechallenge is to explore the conditions both for political innovation and for the legitimization ofa new political object.Making use of several types of historical source, the thesis retraces the careers of two of thedefinitions widely used to define the EEC up to the present - "supranationality" and the "socialmarket economy". Examination of the uses of these terms makes it possible to identify andinvestigate politico-academic controversies in which the EEC has been defined as a distinctinstitutional type (of the nation-state) and as specific mode of government (of the market).In contrast to the hypothesis of a "revolution" in the EEC, the thesis calls for the reinsertion ofthe invention of the EEC into the longer history of construction of national states andgovernment sciences. Contrary to a genetic interpretation of European integration as a definiteproject from the 1950s, it reveals the diversity of interpretations and knowledges which wereproduced and which competed with one another in the early years of the EEC, and identifiesthe conditions for their unequal success. Finally, the dissertation leads us to qualify thehypothesis of the formation of "common sense" about the EEC, emphasizing the national anddisciplinary differences which persist in their interpretations.

La qualification de l’Union Européenne d’entité juridique supranationale fonctionnelle, nécessite l’application d’une méthodologie fondée sur deux idées principales: la première idée est celle de la supranationalité européenne; caractéristique qui met l’intégration européenne actuelle dans une phase supérieure des formes de la coopération internationale sans pour autant aboutir à l’intégration totale et la fusion complète, telle que cette forme est représentait par l’Etat fédéral, ceci nous oblige à comparer cette entité aux principales personnes internationales tels que l’Etat fédéral et les organisations internationales. La deuxième idée de notre recherche est la notion de la fonctionnalité et son application dans le cadre de la l’Union Européenne , cette idée sera rapprochée selon les théories de l’intégration européenne, tout en privilégiant la théorie néo fonctionnelle qui selon nous est la plus pertinente dans l’explication du processus d’intégration européen, après nous traitons les aspects d’application de cette idée dans le cadre de l’Union et ses différentes formes dans les fonctions et attributions qui lui sont reconnues. Ainsi que les principes et les notions qui régissent les fonctions de l’Union qui ont donné une spécificité et une originalité à cette entité. / This study analyses the qualification of the European Union as a supranational and functional entity. In order to prove the validity of this hypothesis, I applied a methodology founded on two principal ideas: the first idea is that of the European supranationality which characteristically puts current European integration in a position that is superior to other forms of international cooperation without actually achieving total integration and complete fusion, such as this form is represented by the federal State. This requires us to compare this entity to primary international players such as the federal State and international organizations. The second idea of our research is the notion of functionality and its application in the framework of the European Union. This idea will be approached according to theories of European integration, privileging the neo-functional theory, which is, in our opinion, the most relevant in explaining the process of European integration. Afterwards, we consider the factors to applying this idea to the Union framework and its different forms within the functions and allocations that are recognized by it. We also look at the principles and concepts that preside over the Union’s functions, giving it a specificity and originality.

La Cour de Justice Communautaire (CJC), la Cour des Comptes Communautaire (CCC) et la Cour Commune de Justice et d’Arbitrage (CCJA) sont les trois juridictions supranationales créées respectivement par les traités de la CEMAC et de l’OHADA pour renforcer les nouveaux processus d’intégration économique et juridique des Etats membres. Dans la mesure où ces juridictions exercent un contrôle juridictionnel déterminant de la norme communautaire, le premier contrôle étant effectué par les juridictions nationales des Etats parties, la conception, l’organisation, le fonctionnement, les caractéristiques, les rôles ou compétences de ces juridictions nouvelles ainsi que la destinée des décisions qu’elles rendent dans leurs fonctions strictement judiciaires ou dans celles accessoires d’appui à la procédure arbitrale, présentent un intérêt digne d’une recherche doctorale. S’il est apparu que des jalons supplémentaires d’efficacité des nouveaux processus d’intégration ont été plantés par la création desdites juridictions, il a également été constaté que des pesanteurs d’ordre juridictionnel, structurel ou fonctionnel continuent d’en retarder la vitesse de croisière. Les solutions que nous avons proposées pour surmonter ces difficultés se regroupent en une réorganisation des juridictions communautaires, une répartition claire des compétences entre elles, un renforcement de la procédure de contrôle du droit communautaire, une vulgarisation permanente du droit de l’intégration, une revalorisation des titres exécutoires, une clarification des fonctions du juge d’exécution, une restriction du domaine de l’immunité d’exécution, un réaménagement des procédures de recouvrement, une formation continue des acteurs de la justice, une amélioration de leur condition de travail et de vie, une résurgence de l’éthique morale, une réelle indépendance de la justice… C’est dire que l’étude met un accent sur les obstacles qui entravent les nouveaux processus d’intégration et propose des solutions pour parfaire les textes législatifs et leurs interprétations jurisprudentielles, dans la perspective d’accélérer le développement économique des Etats concernés en particulier, pour une meilleure prospérité globale des économies mondiales. / The Communautary Court of Justice (CCJ), the Communautary Court of Account (CCA) and the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA) are the three supranational jurisdictions respectively created by EMCAC and OHBLA treaties to reinforce the new processes of economical and judicial integration for their member States. In the measure where these jurisdictions are competent to exercise a juridictional control, by determining the communautary norms, the first control being carried out by the national juridictions, the conception, the organisation, the functioning, the characteristics, the roles or competences of these new jurisdictions and also the destiny of the decisions they rend in their strictly judiciary functions or in their accessory functions of supporting the arbitral procedure, present an interest worthy of a doctorate research. If it appears that the supplementary Milestones of efficiency of the new processes of integration had been installed by the creation of the said jurisdictions, it had also been observed that the gravities of jurisdictional, structural or functional order continue to delay the speed of cruise. The solutions that we have proposed to overcome these difficulties involves the reorganization of communautary jurisdictions, the clearly distribution of competences between them, the reinforcement of the communautarian law control procedure, a permanent vulgarisation of integration law, a revalorisation of executary titles, a clarification of immunity of execution domain, a development of the recovery procedures, a continual training of judicial actors, and improvement of their working and living conditions, a resurgence of moral ethic, a real independence of the Justice… This means that the study put a stress on the obstacles which hold up the new processes of integration and propose solutions to perfect the legislative texts and their jurisprudential interpretations, in the perspective of accelerating the economic development of the concerned States, for the best global prosperity of the world’s economies.