Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_ricardo_sampaio.pdf: 357444 bytes, checksum: 4d6b142d62675ef2598381141a3e5416 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-06-19 / Brazil is a country of rigid constitution. Although the responsibility for drafting the laws belong, as a rule, to the parliamentarians who are elected directly by people, the judges, unlike those who are not elected, sometimes are submitted to public tender of evidence and securities or are indicated by political criterion , as the composition of the high courts that have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, nullifying them. Thus, there is a deficiency in the performance of the democratic constitutional jurisdiction. On this track, the doctrine suggests greater legitimacy as desirable in the interpretation made by the judges to exercise the control of constitutionality and reveal a mechanism of connection between the popular will and judgments of the intervention of civil society in the processes through Amicus curiae. The research examines the figure of the Amicus curiae in its trajectory inside concentrated control of constitutionality in Brazil, since the days when it was accepted informally, through its positive in Law 9868/99, until the present time in which the Supreme Court has granted other prerogatives that are under the law, showing the current phase which involves advancement of the judicial precedent in law / O Brasil é um país de constituição rígida. Embora a competência para a elaboração das leis pertença, em regra, aos parlamentares que são eleitos diretamente pelo povo; os juízes, ao contrário destes, que não são eleitos, ora se submetem a concurso público de provas e títulos ou são indicados por critério político, como acontece na composição das altas cortes, têm a prerrogativa de declarar a inconstitucionalidade das leis, anulando-as. Assim, se constata uma deficiência democrática na atuação da jurisdição constitucional. Nessa trilha, a doutrina aponta como desejável maior legitimação na interpretação realizada pelos juízes para o exercício do controle de constitucionalidade e revelam como mecanismo de ligação entre a vontade popular e as decisões judiciais a intervenção da sociedade civil organizada nos processos através do Amicus Curiae. A pesquisa analisa a figura do Amicus Curiae em sua trajetória no controle concentrado de constitucionalidade brasileira, desde a época em que era aceito informalmente, passando por sua positivação na Lei 9.868/99, até o momento atual em que o Supremo Tribunal Federal vem lhe concedendo prerrogativas outras não previstas na lei, evidenciando a fase atual de jurisprudencialização do direito

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ana_virginia_cartaxo_alves.pdf: 1213061 bytes, checksum: 9b842f50c89fb4a8c86415f69109e147 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-25 / The law has an intrinsic relationship with the concept of power and authority, which, in most cases, is perceived as authorized, coercive and irresistible physical force. However, this work had the aim to demonstrate the symbolic aspect of the power coming from the law, as developed by the Pierre Bourdieu s symbolic power theory. Indeed, according to Bourdieu's theory, the symbolic power is disputed at the legal field as the power to establish an authoritatively conception of law, from certain domination strategies in order to maintain the monopoly over the legitimate interpretation of law. rom this perspective, this paper analyzed the possible strategies used by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) as the most powerful court at the judicial review of laws. In developing this theme, we sought to investigate the potential exercise of symbolic violence by the STF ministers, using as a case in point, the judgment of ADPF 54. Then, from research conducted on the website of the Supreme Court, did a qualitative analysis of the votes cast by the STF ministers in that case, comparing the arguments brought by them; as well as established whether the participation of other social actors involved in the fight for authorized interpretation of law, as AGU, PGR and third dmitted as amicus curiae . The research included a literature review of the major works of Pierre Bourdieu, as primary sources, and a review of other works of scholars on the topics covered in this dissertation. / O direito possui uma relação intrínseca com o conceito de poder e autoridade, que, no mais das vezes, é percebido como poder ungente, autorizado, uma força física coercitiva e irresistível. No entanto, objetivou-se, com o presente trabalho, desnudar o aspecto simbólico do poder proveniente do direito, consoante desenvolvido pela teoria do poder simbólico de Pierre Bourdieu. Com efeito, segundo a teoria de Bourdieu, o poder simbólico em disputa no campo jurídico consiste no poder de enunciar autorizadamente o que é direito, a partir de certas estratégias de dominação com vistas à manutenção do monopólio sobre a interpretação legitima do direito. A partir dessa perspectiva, o trabalho analisou as possíveis estratégias de poder utilizadas pelos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), na condição de corte hierarquicamente superior, no controle de constitucionalidade abstrato das leis. Ao desenvolver este tema, buscou-se investigar o potencial exercício da violência simbólica por parte dos ministros do STF, tomando-se como caso paradigmático, o julgamento da ADPF 54. Então, a partir de pesquisa realizada no sítio eletrônico do STF, fez-se uma análise qualitativa dos votos proferidos pelos ministros do STF no referido caso, comparando as argumentações trazidas pelos mesmos; bem como, averiguou-se a participação de outros atores sociais envolvidos na disputa pelo direito, como AGU, PGR e os terceiros admitidos na condição de amicus curiae. A pesquisa compreendeu a revisão bibliográfica das principais obras de Pierre Bourdieu, como fontes primárias, bem como a revisão de outras obras de estudiosos sobre os temas abordados na presente dissertação.

Submitted by Biblioteca Central (biblioteca@unicap.br) on 2017-10-10T18:31:45Z No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_jose_tenorio.pdf: 800800 bytes, checksum: 1c0e5c39b1c03bb05f76ae3501b4c6a9 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-10T18:31:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_jose_tenorio.pdf: 800800 bytes, checksum: 1c0e5c39b1c03bb05f76ae3501b4c6a9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-15 / The present work analyzes the Influence of the Supervenient Facts into the Progress Process, in face of the article 462 of the Brazilian Civil Process Code. The study begins, with emphasis in the juridical institute of the Lawsuit´s stabilization present at the two legal statutes and their devices, with the analysis of the comparative aspects between the Canonic Procedural Law and the Civil Procedural Law. It talks about the juridical institute of the demand´s cause, their theories that objective to define and put it and locate on which theory our CPC adopted it and, finally, analyzes the influence of these facts in face of article 462 of the CPC, its influence in face of the judged thing, the Open legal System, the Emergency in the Procedural System, the legal security, the relativização of the considered thing and the Modulation of the decisions of the Supreme Federal Court. The research method was based on the reading of the bibliography about the juridical institutes which have relation with the project´s theme, based on the jurisprudence of the National and Greater Tribunals, on the brazilian and foreign doctrine, and based on an concret case´s precedent. The results of the study made a better comprehension of the project, with an precedent´s indication, and it contributived to the objective´s execution, specially to the judgements of the Local Tribunals, of the Justice Superior Tribunal and of the Federal Superior Tribunal, with the modulation of their respective decisions. / Trata o trabalho de analisar a Influência dos fatos supervenientes ao processo em andamento, em face do artigo 462 do Código de Processo Civil. O estudo parte, com ênfase no instituto jurídico da Estabilização da demanda nos dois diplomas legais e seus respectivos dispositivos, da analise dos aspectos comparativos entre o Direito Processual Canônico e o Direito Processual Civil. Discorre sobre o instituto jurídico da causa de pedir, suas teorias que procuram defini-la e posiciona-se sobre qual teoria o nosso CPC a adotou e, por fim, analisa a influência desses fatos em face do artigo 462 do CPC, sua influência em face da coisa julgada, o Sistema jurídico Aberto, a Emergência no Sistema Processual, a segurança jurídica, a relativização da coisa julgada e a Modulação das decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal. O método de pesquisa tomou por base a leitura do repertório bibliográfico sobre os institutos jurídicos que se relacionam com tema do projeto, com aporte na jurisprudência dos Tribunais Nacionais e Superiores, em doutrina, nacional e estrangeira, bem como abordado precedente de um caso concreto. Os resultados do estudo fizeram com que melhor esclarecesse o entendimento do projeto, com indicação de precedente, e contribuísse para o cumprimento do seu objetivo, especialmente aos julgados de Tribunais Locais, do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Supremo Tribunal Federal, com a modulação de suas respectivas decisões.

Rättstillämpningens enhetlighet i tingsrätt och Högsta domstolen (HD) är en utgångspunkt som kommer till uttryck genom regleringen av rättskipningen i RF och av instansordningen i RB. Däremot talar flera utomrättsliga faktorer för att rättstillämpningen ändå kan skilja sig åt mellan tingsrätterna och HD. Det finns skillnader mellan domstolarnas adressater, domstolarnas arbetssituation och domarnas bakgrund. För att uppfylla uppsatsens huvudsakliga syfte att empiriskt utvärdera om det finns tendenser till skillnader i rättstillämpningen i tingsrätten jämfört med i HD, används en rättsteoretisk analys för att identifiera ett problemområde där det råder oenighet bland domare och i doktrinen om hur rättstillämpningen ska gå till på ett abstrakt plan. Problemområdet som urskiljs är användningen av objektiva ändamålsöverväganden, vilket definieras som all sådan tolkning och argumentation som inte bygger på tillämpliga lagar, prejudikat eller förarbeten. Sex rättsfall analyseras, systematiserade under tre olika typfall, i syfte att belysa och nyansera de tendenser till skillnader i användningen av objektiva ändamålsöverväganden som observeras. Undersökningens resultat är att HD generellt visar en större benägenhet att beakta olika sorters ändamålsöverväganden i sin rättstillämpning. Det anses innebära att det finns större chans att vinna framgång i rättslig argumentation som förutsätter en analog tillämpning eller reduktionsslut i HD än i tingsrätt. Däremot kan HD:s prejudikatbildande roll ha en avhållande effekt på dess benägenhet att tillämpa objektiva ändamålsöverväganden, vilket indikeras av att skillnaderna mellan HD:s och tingsrättens rättstillämpning i rättsfallen var som störst när prejudikatets innebörd var som otydligast.

"The judiciary in Zimbabwe used to be viewed as a progressive bench recognised for its activism, particularly its purposive approach in interpreting the Bill of Rights to ensure protection of human rights. It was one of the best Commonwealth judiciaries, which was inspired by international standards in interpreting human rights and at the same time contributed to the origination of normative standards through its decisions. Although Zimbabwe is a dualist system, the judiciary accepted and drew inspiration from international human rights treaties. The Supreme Court (SC) under Chief Justice (CJ) Gubbay (the Gubbay bench) made several progressive pronouncements that favoured the promotion and protection of human rights. In tandem with its tradition of judicial independence, the judiciary interpreted draconian legislation in favour of human rights often striking down the offensive clauses in legislation. Indeed the perception towards the judiciary by the common person was that of a protector of human rights. One landmark human rights decision on the Land Reform Programme (LRP) stated that farm invasions were unlawful and an affront to section 16 of the Constitution. The SC ordered the executive to take necessary measures to ensure that invasions were sanctioned. It further requested the executive to furnish a plan of action for the LRP. The execuitve did not welcome this ruling and the SC judges wre hounded out of office in a clear culmination of judiciary-executive tension. A new bench came in under CJ Chidyausiku (the Chidyausiku bench). This bench made several rulings that took away individual property rights without justification. In a clear shift of jurisprudential ideology, the current bench has not engaged in activism resulting in less, if not no, protection of human rights. The disparity in the jurisprudence is evident in other cases. The current bench seems to have abrogated its mandate to protect human rights. This study is thus prompted to investigate why the different benches in Zimbabwe have produced totally variant jurisprudence, particularly in light of the fact that the judiciary is operating under the same laws and is appointed under the same procedures as before. ... Chapter 1 sets out the focus and content of the study. Chapter 2 gives a national framework for human rights protection in Zimbabwe. This looks at the structure of courts in Zimbabwe. Special emphasis is placed on the SC as the court that has the prime mandate of protecting human rights. Constitutional guarantees for the independence of the judiciary and the Bill of Rights, among others, is analysed. Chapter 3 deals with human rights jurisprudence of the SC benches. The chapter focuses on approach of the benches to human rights protection. It examines the approach to procedural and technicalities that often hinder human rights litigation and protection such as standing, delay, interpretation, compliance with court orders and use of international instruments. Chapter 4 focuses on the experiences from Uganda and analyses the approach of the Ugandan courts. Chapter 5 consists of best practices from the two jurisdictions, conclusion and recommendations for the Zimbabwean judiciary." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2005. / Prepared under the supervision of Professor Frederick Jjuuko at Human Rights and Peace Centre, Faculty of Law, Makerere University in Uganda / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

Book Summary: Offering a unique resource for students, scholars, and citizens, this work fully explains all of the 21 enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress, from the "power of the purse" to the power to declare war. • Presents comprehensive coverage of all congressional powers through authoritative essays by recognized experts • Enables readers to connect the long-ago goals and perspectives of the Founding Fathers to current issues and controversies • Facilitates a fully contextualized understanding of the legislative power of Congress―and the extent and limitations of leverage that it can wield on domestic and foreign policy • Provides an accessible gateway to further, more detailed research of each of the individual congressional powers • Includes appendices containing the full texts of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Constitution of the United States

No description available.

While rankings of presidents are quite common, rankings of Supreme Court justices are much rarer. Herein I produce one and make use of both to see if perceived greatness of one actor can effect perceptions of greatness for the other. This work examines those influences that indicate success for Supreme Court Justices by seeking to determine what the historically great justices have in common. I first develop a composite score of all the Supreme Court Justices based on the limited previous ranking research and relevant indictors to rank the Justices 1-112. Next, I examine potential indicators of such success; previous experience, personal characteristics, conformation vote, and most interestingly the perceived greatness of their appointing president. This research finds a direct relationship between perceptions of presidential greatness and perceptions of judicial quality. Overall the great Justices are statistically more likely to be appointed by a great president, consistent with the appointment literature that often describes an appointer-appointee relationship as a legacy impacting one.

Hyperbole is the common response in the wake of any Supreme Court decision, but which cases have a lasting negative impression and why? This work seeks to clarify which rulings of the Court cause consternation among several different audiences. Through an experimental framework I conduct an examination of reactions to rulings in controversial cases among political scientists, legal scholars, and the public. I discover that there are some commonalities among the respondents, but also significant disagreement along issue areas, particularly cases decided based on economic property rights. Additionally I observe that partisan ideology has little impact on the perception of historic decisions, but in contemporary rulings the opposite is discovered. This finding suggests that time serves to mitigate partisan bias in evaluating the Supreme Court. Ultimately this work details information concerned with responses to previous Court decisions, but also provides context clues for predicting various reactions to future controversial rulings.

No description available.