Este trabalho trata da relação entre a teoria formalista do direito elaborada por Ernest Weinrib e sua teoria de fundamentação da responsabilidade civil derivada do formalismo. O objetivo do trabalho é mostrar que, apesar de o formalismo apresentar uma formulação distintiva e inovadora de racionalidade jurídica, que enfatiza a relação entre forma e conteúdo do direito, o modelo de racionalidade jurídica do formalismo não fornece uma explicação adequada para algumas áreas do direito e, especificamente no caso da responsabilidade civil, da responsabilidade objetiva, que, nessa visão, é considerada um erro jurídico. O formalismo jurídico weinribiano é um projeto teórico ambicioso que a um só tempo procura rechaçar posições céticas como os estudos críticos do direito (critical legal studies) e posições instrumentalistas, especialmente a análise econômica do direito e o positivismo jurídico. Ele apresenta uma teoria geral que mostra o direito como um lócus de racionalidade moral imanente e um método, fundado na inteligibilidade imanente, para compreender essa racionalidade e ver o direito como um fenômeno autônomo em relação à política e a outras esferas de racionalidade. O método formalista permite a intelecção do direito como um fenômeno imanentemente coerente por meio da apreensão das estruturas organizadoras e justificadoras implícitas nos arranjos jurídicos, isto é, as formas da justiça corretiva e da justiça distributiva. Com base nisso, o formalismo sustenta que a forma imanente ao direito privado e, consequentemente, à responsabilidade civil é a justiça corretiva. Este trabalho reconstrói criticamente as principais teses que integram o formalismo e que são fundamentais para entender a rejeição à responsabilidade objetiva, considerada uma monstruosidade conceitual, com especial ênfase na premissa epistemológica formalista da inteligibilidade imanente como a melhor maneira de se compreender o direito e na premissa da coerência estrutural que os arranjos jurídicos devem apresentar. A tese discute o modo como o formalismo jurídico se insere no debate metodológico contemporâneo, definindo o formalismo jurídico como uma teoria de avaliação e justificação jurídica e, portanto, dotada de uma dimensão prescritiva, e apresentando o impacto dessa definição na postura que o formalismo assume em relação à responsabilidade objetiva. A tese ainda analisa a relação entre essa dimensão prescritiva e o posicionamento do formalismo em relação à responsabilidade objetiva, rotulando-a de erro jurídico, e conclui com uma discussão sobre as razões desse posicionamento que, argumentase, é equivocado , que se baseiam na assunção das premissas da inteligibilidade imanente e do critério de coerência estrita que marcam o método de conhecimento formalista. / This dissertation focuses on the relationship between juridical formalism as elaborated by Ernest Weinrib and his theory of the foundation of tort law. The dissertation argues that despite formalisms distinctive and innovative account of legal rationality that emphasizes the relationship between laws form and substance, this account does not provide an adequate explanation for specific areas of law. Particularly in the case of tort law it does not adequately explain strict liability, which is deemed a juridical error. Weinribs juridical formalism is an ambitious theoretical project that challenges: skeptical accounts of law, such as critical legal studies; instrumentalists account of law exemplified by economical analysis of law; and juridical positivism. Weinribs theory attempts to explain law as a locus of immanent moral rationality. The theory is based on a methodology that adopts the premise of immanent intelligibility as a way to comprehend this rationality. This approach allows the theorist to grasp law as a phenomenon autonomous from politics and other spheres of rationality. The formalist method allows the intelligibility of law as an immanently coherent phenomenon through the apprehension of the organizing and justifying structures implicit in juridical arrangements, i.e., the forms of corrective justice and distributive justice with which formalism argues that the immanent form of private law and, therefore, of tort law is corrective justice. This dissertation reconstructs critically the main theses that support formalism, which are essential to understanding its rejection of strict liability considered a conceptual monstrosity. This dissertation focuses on the formalist epistemological assumption of immanent intelligibility as the best way of comprehending law and on the premise of internal structural coherence that juridical arrangements should display. This thesis discusses the way in which juridical formalism can be located within the contemporary methodological debate, and defines formalism as an evaluative and justificatory juridical theory. As such, formalism encompasses a prescriptive dimension. This dissertation also identifies how the definition of formalism as a prescriptive theory impacts on its analysis of strict liability. The dissertation then analyses the relationship between this prescriptive dimension and the formalist position regarding strict liability. It concludes that formalisms mistake regarding strict liability can be traced back to its epistemological assumptions regarding immanent intelligibility and coherence.

O objetivo deste estudo é investigar a tutela coletiva dos interesses individuais homogêneos com a finalidade de mostrar como se comportam em juízo, como se adaptam aos instrumentos processuais existentes e quando a sua defesa judicial é possível, conveniente e necessária. O estudo começa da pesquisa sobre as características dos próprios interesses, passa pela crítica dos atributos da sua tutela coletiva e procura aplicar os resultados dessa investigação aos problemas antigos e atuais que mais têm dificultado a sua proteção jurisdicional. O trabalho foi delimitado pela perspectiva da coletividade, titular dos interesses individuais homogêneos, colocada no polo ativo do processo coletivo, no procedimento comum. A metodologia de trabalho utilizada constituiu-se de leitura, análise, resumo, interpretação, sistematização e compilação de textos, livros e revistas periódicas dedicados ao tema, além de relatórios e documentos pertinentes aos assuntos tratados, incluindo os disponíveis na rede mundial de computadores (Internet). Os interesses individuais homogêneos, sem perder sua essência individual, possuem uma dimensão coletiva que lhes aproxima dos demais interesses coletivos, que não se adaptam com facilidade aos instrumentos processuais criados para a jurisdição singular. A sua tutela coletiva é possível quando existir um núcleo homogêneo, sua principal característica; útil quando a lesão causada a esses interesses puder ser demonstrada sem questionar a própria existência desse núcleo; conveniente quando a sua relevância social e as dificuldades de acesso à justiça assim exigirem. Alguns dos principais problemas enfrentados pela tutela coletiva de interesses individuais homogêneos não têm solução com base na legislação vigente, nem são contemplados nas propostas de alteração atualmente em discussão. A legitimação do Ministério Público para a propositura de ação coletiva para defesa de interesses individuais homogêneos decorre de expressa previsão legal dessa legitimidade, da indisponibilidade do interesse ou da sua relevância social, não se estendendo à execução em favor de particulares. É possível o controle de constitucionalidade em ação coletiva, desde que com efeitos concretos e sujeito a recurso extraordinário. / The purpose of this study is to investigate the class action for damages in order to show how they behave in court, as they adapt to existing procedural tools and when their legal defense is possible, desirable and necessary. It departs from research on the characteristics of the interests, is critical of the attributes of its class treatment and seeks to apply the results of that research to ancient and current problems that have hampered its most court protection. The work was limited by the plaintiff class action and by the common procedure. The methodology used was the work of reading, analysis, summary, interpretation, and systematic compilation of texts, books, periodicals and magazines devoted to the subject, in addition to reports and documents relevant to the matters discussed, including those available on the World Wide Web (Internet). Individual interests commons to a class, without losing its essence individual, have a collective dimension to them approaching other collective interests, which do not adapt easily to the procedural tools created for the individual jurisdiction. Their collective protection by class action is possible when there is a homogenous core, its main feature; is useful when the damage caused to those interests can be demonstrated without question the very existence of that core; and is convenient when its social relevance and the difficulties of access to justice thus require. Some of the main problems faced by the class action for damages do not have solution based on current brazilian legislation, or are contemplated in the draft amendment under discussion. The legitimacy of the public attorney for the commencement of class action for damages follows express provision of legal authorization to this effect, the unavailability of interest or of its social relevance, and it is not extending the implementation in favor of individuals. It is possible the judicial review in class action, provided with practical effects and subject to special appeal.

Este trabalho trata da relação entre a teoria formalista do direito elaborada por Ernest Weinrib e sua teoria de fundamentação da responsabilidade civil derivada do formalismo. O objetivo do trabalho é mostrar que, apesar de o formalismo apresentar uma formulação distintiva e inovadora de racionalidade jurídica, que enfatiza a relação entre forma e conteúdo do direito, o modelo de racionalidade jurídica do formalismo não fornece uma explicação adequada para algumas áreas do direito e, especificamente no caso da responsabilidade civil, da responsabilidade objetiva, que, nessa visão, é considerada um erro jurídico. O formalismo jurídico weinribiano é um projeto teórico ambicioso que a um só tempo procura rechaçar posições céticas como os estudos críticos do direito (critical legal studies) e posições instrumentalistas, especialmente a análise econômica do direito e o positivismo jurídico. Ele apresenta uma teoria geral que mostra o direito como um lócus de racionalidade moral imanente e um método, fundado na inteligibilidade imanente, para compreender essa racionalidade e ver o direito como um fenômeno autônomo em relação à política e a outras esferas de racionalidade. O método formalista permite a intelecção do direito como um fenômeno imanentemente coerente por meio da apreensão das estruturas organizadoras e justificadoras implícitas nos arranjos jurídicos, isto é, as formas da justiça corretiva e da justiça distributiva. Com base nisso, o formalismo sustenta que a forma imanente ao direito privado e, consequentemente, à responsabilidade civil é a justiça corretiva. Este trabalho reconstrói criticamente as principais teses que integram o formalismo e que são fundamentais para entender a rejeição à responsabilidade objetiva, considerada uma monstruosidade conceitual, com especial ênfase na premissa epistemológica formalista da inteligibilidade imanente como a melhor maneira de se compreender o direito e na premissa da coerência estrutural que os arranjos jurídicos devem apresentar. A tese discute o modo como o formalismo jurídico se insere no debate metodológico contemporâneo, definindo o formalismo jurídico como uma teoria de avaliação e justificação jurídica e, portanto, dotada de uma dimensão prescritiva, e apresentando o impacto dessa definição na postura que o formalismo assume em relação à responsabilidade objetiva. A tese ainda analisa a relação entre essa dimensão prescritiva e o posicionamento do formalismo em relação à responsabilidade objetiva, rotulando-a de erro jurídico, e conclui com uma discussão sobre as razões desse posicionamento que, argumentase, é equivocado , que se baseiam na assunção das premissas da inteligibilidade imanente e do critério de coerência estrita que marcam o método de conhecimento formalista. / This dissertation focuses on the relationship between juridical formalism as elaborated by Ernest Weinrib and his theory of the foundation of tort law. The dissertation argues that despite formalisms distinctive and innovative account of legal rationality that emphasizes the relationship between laws form and substance, this account does not provide an adequate explanation for specific areas of law. Particularly in the case of tort law it does not adequately explain strict liability, which is deemed a juridical error. Weinribs juridical formalism is an ambitious theoretical project that challenges: skeptical accounts of law, such as critical legal studies; instrumentalists account of law exemplified by economical analysis of law; and juridical positivism. Weinribs theory attempts to explain law as a locus of immanent moral rationality. The theory is based on a methodology that adopts the premise of immanent intelligibility as a way to comprehend this rationality. This approach allows the theorist to grasp law as a phenomenon autonomous from politics and other spheres of rationality. The formalist method allows the intelligibility of law as an immanently coherent phenomenon through the apprehension of the organizing and justifying structures implicit in juridical arrangements, i.e., the forms of corrective justice and distributive justice with which formalism argues that the immanent form of private law and, therefore, of tort law is corrective justice. This dissertation reconstructs critically the main theses that support formalism, which are essential to understanding its rejection of strict liability considered a conceptual monstrosity. This dissertation focuses on the formalist epistemological assumption of immanent intelligibility as the best way of comprehending law and on the premise of internal structural coherence that juridical arrangements should display. This thesis discusses the way in which juridical formalism can be located within the contemporary methodological debate, and defines formalism as an evaluative and justificatory juridical theory. As such, formalism encompasses a prescriptive dimension. This dissertation also identifies how the definition of formalism as a prescriptive theory impacts on its analysis of strict liability. The dissertation then analyses the relationship between this prescriptive dimension and the formalist position regarding strict liability. It concludes that formalisms mistake regarding strict liability can be traced back to its epistemological assumptions regarding immanent intelligibility and coherence.

This thesis explores the status of a specific subset of absent characters within twentieth century American drama. By borrowing the term “proximate cause” from tort law and illuminating its intricacies through David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, this thesis re-appropriates proximate cause for literary studies. Rather than focus on characters whose existence remains the subject of critical debate, this set of absent characters presumably exists but never appear onstage. Despite their non-appearance onstage, however, these absent characters nonetheless have a profound effect upon the action that occurs during their respective plays. Highlighting the various ways in which these characters serve as the proximate cause for the onstage action of a given play will expand the realm of drama and literary studies in myriad ways.

La tesi di dottorato fornisce una ricostruzione, sotto il profilo civilistico, del ruolo di standard e certificazioni nel mercato agro-alimentare europeo. Nel primo capitolo viene ricostruita la natura delle certificazioni e la loro evoluzione da strumento di competitività delle imprese a mezzo per colmare le asimmetrie informative presenti nel mercato. Nel secondo capitolo viene analizzato il “Sistema Qualità”, nel quale sono coinvolti quattro attori fondamentali: l’ente di normazione, l’ente di accreditamento, il certificatore e, infine, l’impresa che richiede la certificazione, e sono analizzate le varie problematiche sottese al suo funzionamento. Nella terza parte si è indagata la natura giuridica del contratto di certificazione di qualità e la rilevanza delle certificazioni di qualità sotto il profilo civilistico. Infine, nella quarta parte, si sono analizzate le conseguenze giuridiche scaturenti da una certificazione non veritiera, con particolare riguardo alla possibilità o meno di configurare una responsabilità extra-contrattuale del certificatore per i danni causati a consumatori e terzi in generale a seguito del rilascio di una certificazione non veritiera. / The dissertation examines the role of certification marks in the european food- sector. The first chapter analyses the function of certification and their development from instruments of competitive advantages within firms to a tool for fulfilling the information asymmetry between business and consumer. The second chapter deals with the “Quality System”: a system which involves four players: the standardization body, the accreditation body, the certification body and, finally, the producer seeking the certification. The third chapter analyses the certification activity and the obligations of the parties of the contract. The last chapter deals with the tort liability of certification bodies.

傳統涉外侵權行為準據法之選法，係依侵權行為地、法庭地、侵權行為地及法庭地併用來決定。以侵權行為地來選法，係指以行為事實發生地法來決定該侵權行為之成立及效力。適用行為地法的優點，是其結果對於判決結果可預測其可能性，避免法庭的選擇及法律的適用有一致性；缺點是侵權行為地常與當事人無實質上牽連關係，做為裁判當事人權利義務之準據法，不足以保護當事人權利。把所有侵權行為類型，一律以事實發生地法為準據法恐有不妥。例如製造者責任、名譽或信用的侵害、不正競爭等等侵權類型，應選擇與該類型侵權行為特徵相應的法律為準據法較為妥適。 美國於1960年代以後多已不再採行為地法，取而代之的是最重要牽連關係理論。法院選擇某一法律關係的準據法時，要綜合分析與該法律關係有關的各種因素，從質與量的角度將主客觀連結因素進行權衡，尋找或確定那一國家或法域與案件之事實和當事人有最重要牽連關係。最重要牽連關係理論優點在於選法規則具彈性、法制正規化；而缺點在於最重要關係標準過於抽象，法官在審理案件時，選擇法律若無一定的判斷標準，易流於形式及恣意。 我國涉外民事法律適用法現行條文第九條就因侵權行為而生之債，原則上採侵權行為地法。有關涉外侵權行為之損害賠償，我國法律及侵權行為地法均認為構成侵權行為者，不論行為地或結果發生地其一發生在我國，始得適用我國法律為請求損害賠償。惟採侵權行為地法，有時會發生不合理之結果。因此，涉外民事法律適用法修正草案爰參考奧地利國際私法第四十八條第一項、德國民法施行法第四十一條等立法例之精神，酌採最重要牽連關係理論，於但書規定另有關係最切之法律者，依該法律，以濟其窮。 我國的學者將分別適用法律(dépeçage)譯成「法律適用之分割方法」，美國學者認為就各個議題分別探討的選法分析方式對於解決現代的複雜法律訴訟具有重要性。分別適用法律制度的目的在於法律產生真衝突的情況下，分析出各個不同的特定議題，並適用有真正利益的法域法律。美國聯邦法院未曾使用過分別適用法律，各州的上訴法院及最高法院對於分別適用法律亦僅止於解釋何謂分別適用法律而已。分別適用法律恐會導致不符法律目的，然部分學者仍認為考量相關州的政策、保護正當的期待利益、特定法律領域的基本政策、結果的確定性、可預測性及統一性及適用法律便宜性等，似可採分別適用法律來解決法律之適用。我國最高法院97年度台上字第1838號及96年度台上字第1804號判決，擬嘗試跳脫我國涉外民事法律適用法，參考外國分別適用法律的（dépeçage）的法律制度，以突破傳統的準據法選法理論。 我國的涉外民事法律適用法的修正討論中，並沒有提到分別適用法律的問題。修正草案在有關消滅時效部分的議題，將分別適用法律特別提出討論，嘗試著要獨立規定準據法選擇的方式。涉外民事法律適用法修正條文草案第35條規定，請求權之消滅時效，依該請求權所由發生之法律關係所應適用之法律。其理由在於請求權之消滅時效，因各國關於其法律效果之規定不同，國際私法上有認定其為實體問題者，亦有以之為程序問題者。消滅時效規定於我國實體法，因此認定其為實體問題。由於消滅時效係針對特定之請求權而發生，而請求權又為法律關係效力之一部分，故應依其請求權所由發生之法律關係定其準據法。 立法者若認為消滅時效的問題有獨立認定準據法的必要性，應採用分別適用法律的方法，在各種法律關係中抽離出來，獨立認定其應適用的準據法為宜。在廣泛承認分別適用法律制度之前，我國或許可以考慮對於涉外侵權行為分為責任的成立及損害賠償的部分，分別規定應適用的準據法；前者依照我國原本的準據法選擇方式，後者之損害賠償認定的方式，則依照受害人常居所地或是本國法為標準。 / The law of selecting of the traditional tort applicable law concerning foreign affairs, and use the decision in accordance with spot of tort, spot of court, spot of tort and court. Selected the law by the tort, it is to determine establishment and effect of this tort by behavioral spot law of fact. Person who covered by behavior advantage of law, it is result that can predict possibility of the judgment, avoid the suitable to apply having consistency of choice and law of the court. The shortcoming is that the tort has not often involved the relation with the party in fact, as the applicable laws of party's rights and obligations of the judgment, it is non- enough to protect party's right. All tort types, it is probably improper to regard spot law of the fact as the applicable law without exception. Manufacturer responsibility, reputation or infringement, person who compete for type of infringing of credit, it is comparatively proper for applicable law to choose the law of the tort with corresponding characteristic with this type. It no longer adopted behavior law already after 1960 in U.S, the substitute is most important to involve relation theory. When the court chooses the applicable law of a certain legal relation, various factors of wanting comprehensive analysis to be related to this legal relation, will link the factor to weigh subjectively and objectively in terms of quality and quantity, will look for or confirm there is the most important relation of involving in the facts and parties of that land of country or legal field and case. Involve and concern theory advantage lying in selecting the regulation to be elastic, legal system regularization the most importantly. And the shortcoming lies in the most important relation standard is too abstract, the judge, while hearing a case, if do not have certain judging standard to choose law, it is apt to become a mere formality and wilfulness. The civil law concerning foreign affairs in our country is covered by article 9 of current clause and its debt cause of tort, adopt the law of tort spot in principle. About the compensation for damage of tort concerning foreign affairs, the person who forms tort for our country's law and tort, whether no matter the behavior or consequence one in the spot happens in our country, can begin to be applicable to the law of our country in order to ask for compensation for damage. Only person who adopt the law of tort, the unreasonable result takes place sometimes. So, concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law revision draft consult private international law of Austrian, 48th item 1, Germany civil law, article 41 legislative spirit of example, and adopt the relation theory, the persons who stipulate the law cut in the proviso most that there are relations besides the most importantly, depend on this law, in order to solve the conflict. Will the scholar of our country the applicable law of the difference (dépeçage) translate into ' the method of cutting apart that the law is applicable to ', what the American scholar is thought each topic to probe into separately selects law to analyze the way has importance in solving the modern complicated lawsuit. Differentiate applicable law of system produce situation that analyze each different particular conflict topics, is applicable to the law with real interests. American federal court has not used the differentiate the applicable law, the appellate court of every state and the Supreme Court also only explaining what it is mean. Differentiating the applicable law will probably result in not according with the legal purpose, but some scholars think that consider the policies of the relevant states, it suit to protect the proper expectation interests, basic policy, determinacy of the result, predictability, unity and applicable law in the particular legal field, can adopt, differentiate applicable law solve to suitable to apply law. The judgment of No. 1804 and No. 1838 of the Supreme Judicial Court of our country, is adjudicated on the platform try to take off our country concerning foreign affairs civil law suitable to apply law, consult foreign country differentiate the applicable law (dépeçage), for being which break through traditional select law theory. The amendments of Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements of our country has not referred to the question of the applicable law of the difference. The draft is in the topic about the fulfillment of prescription, will differentiate the applicable law and especially propose discussing, the attempt should stipulate the way in which the applicable law choose independently. Concerning the 35th regulation of clause draft of law's revision, ask for the fulfillment of prescription of right, in accordance with asking for the law that right should be applicable to by the legal relation happening. Its reason lies in asking for the fulfillment of prescription of right, because various countries are about stipulating the difference of their legal results, assert it is entity's question. There are persons who regards it as procedure question on the private international law. The fulfillment of prescription and stipulate in the substantive law of our country, so assert it is entity's question. The fulfillment of prescription takes place to particular request, and a part of legal relation, so should be made its applicable law by the legal relation of request. If legislators think the question of eliminating prescription asserts the necessity of the applicable law independently, should adopt the way of differentiating the applicable law, release in various legal relations before coming out, assert the applicable law that it should be applicable independently. Before acknowledging differentiating the system of applicable law extensively, perhaps our country can consider that is divided into the establishment of responsibility and part of compensation for damage the tort concerning foreign affairs, should part regulation applicable law, the former choose the way according to our country's original applicable law, the way asserted in compensation for damage of the latter, often the spot of dwelling or this national law is a standard according to the victim.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1995. / Title from title page screen, viewed May 10, 2006. Dissertation Committee: John R. McCarthy (chair), Marcilene Dutton, Edward R. Hines, David L. Tucker. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 147-153) and abstract. Also available in print.

Récemment, le débat concernant la pensée politique est en venu aborder les concepts de démocratie et de reconnaissance. Jacques Rancière est surtout connu pour ses idées sur la démocratie, mais ses recherches sur l’émancipation ouvrière au XIXe siècle en France l’ont amené à proposer des réflexions importantes sur la question de la reconnaissance. En partant de l’idée de « post-démocratie », la présente recherche remarque qu’il n’y a pas chez Rancière une « théorie » de la démocratie ou de la reconnaissance qui donnerait de ces concepts une définition complète, mais que ces deux concepts sont l’occasion d’une « intervention critique » en faveur de « la part des sans-part ». On montre également que la manière dont Rancière a développé cette intervention a pris des formes différentes. Dans sa période de la maturité, il a identifié l’espace social à la « police », en risquant ainsi de produire une dichotomie entre le social et la « politique ». Néanmoins, dans cette même période, il a pensé l’agentivité du sujet socio-politique entre le social et la politique. Ce continuum du social et du politique avait été amplement exploré dans les années 1970, à l’occasion de ses premiers écrits sur la « parole ouvrière » des années 1830-1851, qui était interprétée comme une expérience qui ré-tord ou dé-tord la non-reconnaissance par la nomination d’un sujet supplémentaire. Dans les années 1980, Rancière a changé de position en mettant au second plan l’expérience sociale et en centrant l’analyse sur l’expérience individuelle. Il a ainsi abouti à une conception « suspensive » de la reconnaissance. Pour faire ressortir les enjeux de cette transformation, cette thèse pose Rancière au cœur du débat contemporain par l’intermédiaire de confrontations critiques avec des auteurs et des traditions de pensée. La conclusion générale est qu’il faut entendre l’« intervention critique » de Rancière comme une manière de penser et d’intervenir déterminée par les expériences du tort. / Recent debates on political thought often circle around the concepts of democracy and recognition. Jacques Rancière is mostly known for his work on the former, but in his archival studies of the Nineteenth Century French workers’ movement the latter appears central. Starting from his idea of “post-democracy”, this study claims that Rancière doesn’t have a “theory” of democracy or of recognition that would provide an exact explanation of what these concepts mean. Rather, both are objects of a “critical intervention” in favour of “the part that has no part” in the political space. However, the way in which Rancière develops his intervention has taken different forms. In fact, in his mature period he classifies the social space as the “police” order in a way that risks to produce a dichotomy with “politics”. At the same time, he nonetheless thinks the agency of the socio-political subject between the domain of the social and the domain of politics. Such an interrelation has been explored extensively in the 70s, in his early writings on the “workers’ speech/voice” [parole ouvrière] of 1830-1851 as a social experience twisting the non-recognition by means of the nomination of a supplementary subject. In the 80s, Rancière changed his position moving away from the analysis of the social experience while scrutinizing more deeply the individual experience of the wrong. The goal was a “suspensive” idea of recognition. Thus, to evaluate such a transformation, this dissertation places Rancière’s work in the contemporary debate through critical confrontations with some thinkers and traditions. Finally, the study stresses that the Rancièrian “critical intervention” should be understood as a way of thinking and intervening informed by the experiences of the wrong.

With the arrival of the Economic Analysis of Law, some scholars began to consider Law as a set of “official prices” given by the legislature or the courts. Such change of perspective created some ius-economic inconsistencies because  a  large segment of the doctrine didn’t realize the impossibility of efficiently regulating the economy by recurring only toorders and mandates.In this article, the author argues that it is necessary to establish the ius-economic differences between sanctions and prices, i.e. between those hypotheses in which Lawsets a price on a behavior and those cases which Law looks forward to impose a sanction. Such ideas should be applied to Tort Law, specifically in the definition and understanding of allocation criteria. / Con la llegada del Análisis Económico del Derecho se pasó a considerar el Derecho comoun conjunto de “precios oficiales” dados por ellegislador o por los jueces. El cambio de perspectiva creó algunas incoherencias ius-econó-micas, ya que un amplio sector de la doctrinano cayó en la cuenta de la imposibilidad deregular eficientemente la economía usando sólo órdenes y mandatosEn el presente artículo, el autor sostiene que resulta necesario establecer las diferencias ius-económicas entre las sanciones y los pre- cios; es decir, entre aquellas hipótesis en que el Derecho atribuye un precio sobre un com- portamiento y aquellos supuestos en que el Derecho se ocupa de imponer una sanción, ideas que deberán ser aplicadas a la responsabilidad extracontractual, específicamente a la delimitación y comprensión de los criterios de imputación.

A situation that has been generated several confusions is the inclusion of person damage next to moral damage in the Civil Code of 1984, both in the national doctrine and judicial decisions.The Author analyses the problems arising from non-property damages in the Peruvian legal system, giving a brief description of its arrival to our Legislation and noting the major directions Doctrine has taken. He focuses on the old and new challenges Judges have on this matter and elaborates a list of considerations to positions seated on the Peruvian Civil Procedure. / Una situación que ha generado severas confusiones es la inclusión del daño a la persona junto al daño moral en el Código Civil de 1984, tanto en la doctrina nacional como en los pronunciamientos judiciales.En este artículo el autor examina la problemática de los daños extrapatrimoniales en el ordenamiento peruano, reseñando su génesis legislativo y las principales tendencias doctrinarias al respecto. Se enfoca en los viejos y nuevos retos de los Juzgadores en el daño extrapatrimonal y ofrece cuestionamientos a posturas mayoritarias en el ámbito procesal.