The World Trade Organization ("WTO") and its dispute resolution systém is unique in the international economic law, reasons are following: (i) enforcement, (ii) two-level proceding, (iii) exclusive jurisdiction of the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSU"). DSU continues to follow the case law based on GATT 1947 however develops more complex rule of law. How successful DSB is in this task is subject of examination of the thesis. Thesis is divided into two parts: theoritecal and practical. First chapter explains aim of the DSU, comparison of procedural rules with GATT 1947. Following, the second chapter explains the hard law and procedural rules, function and aim of WTO, followed by ideas for improvement of the dispute settlement. Last chapter of this parts is dedicated to methods of interpretation. The second part, practical, analyses the case law of DSU from its establishment in 1995 until now. It analyses possible conflicts between agreements of WTO or conflicts that arise during acting based on the agreements. Among the first cases belong the discrepancies between main 3 agreements - GATT 1994, GATS and TRIPS and cases such as Canada - Periodicals or Argentina- Textiles and Apparel, Indonesia - Auto; another group of cases represents isme of conflict between WTO agreement and other agreement of public...

O presente trabalho trata da legitimidade da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação do sistema de solução de controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio. A indagação que realizamos durante o trabalho é se o método interpretativo utilizado pelo Órgão de Apelação, em si, é legítimo e se, dadas as características específicas dos acordos da OMC, esse método reforça a própria legitimidade do sistema multilateral do comércio. Para tanto, definimos no primeiro capítulo o conceito de legitimidade do sistema multilateral de comércio no qual figuram, como elementos de fundamental relevância, as medidas de construção de confiança entre os Membros da OMC e a sua expectativa de que o sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC traga segurança e previsibilidade às regras negociadas por consenso durante a Rodada Uruguai. Argumentamos que a primazia dada à letra dos acordos é um dos elementos fundamentais da segurança e da previsibilidade buscada pelos Membros da OMC. Tratamos da legitimidade da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação da OMC comparando-a com outras técnicas utilizadas por outras cortes internacionais. Analisamos quais seriam os efeitos da aplicação de outros métodos interpretativos no sistema multilateral de comércio, como por exemplo, a interpretação teleológica. Para melhor compreender os fundamentos da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação, interessou-nos examinar os métodos de interpretação de outros sistemas de direito contemporâneo, notadamente, o Common Law e o Civil Law, e verificar se procede a afirmação de parte da doutrina especializada de que há uma influência predominante do Common Law no sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC, que supostamente colocaria em risco a legitimidade das decisões do Órgão de Apelação. Embora tenhamos denominado o presente trabalho como a técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação, verificamos que essa técnica não é mecânica. Não supomos ser suficiente que o Órgão de Apelação simplesmente siga matematicamente os critérios da Convenção de Viena sobre Direito dos Tratados para alcançar o resultado e a solução para o caso concreto. Verificamos que a interpretação de um tratado vai além da técnica, envolve um raciocínio e, em última análise, uma escolha. Estudamos essa técnica/arte de raciocínio no presente trabalho. Analisamos como os elementos exteriores à técnica mecânica fazem parte da interpretação, como, por exemplo, o confronto de juízes de nacionalidades distintas e o peso da denominada cultura jurídica na prática interpretativa, além do perfil cultural de parte dos membros do Órgão de Apelação. / This work deals with the legitimacy of the interpretive technique of the World Trade Organizations dispute settlement systems Appellate Body. We ask whether the interpretive method used by the Appellate Body is, in itself, legitimate, and whether, given the specific characteristics of the system, this method reinforces the legitimacy of the multilateral trade system itself. To this end, in the introductory chapter we define the concept of the legitimacy of the multilateral trade system, in which elements of fundamental importance include the measures to build confidence among the World Trade Organization members and their expectation that the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system brings predictability to the rules negotiated by consensus during the Uruguay Round. We argue that the primacy given to the letter of the agreements is one of the fundamental elements of security and predictability sought by WTO members. We deal with the legitimacy of the World Trade Organization Appellate Bodys interpretive technique, comparing it to other techniques used by other international courts. We analyze what the effects of the application of other interpretive methods, such as, for example, teleological interpretation, would be in the multilateral trade system. To better understand the fundamentals of the Appellate Bodys interpretive technique, we examine the interpretive methods of other contemporary legal systems, especially of the common law and the civil law systems, to determine whether the claim made in the specialized legal literature that there is a predominant influence of the common law in the WTO dispute settlement system, which is allegedly putting the legitimacy of the Appellate Bodys decisions at risk, is correct. Although we have given this work the name the interpretive technique of the Appellate Body, we suggest this technique is not mechanical. We do not suppose that it is sufficient for the Appellate Body to simply mechanically follow the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties criteria to reach the result and the resolution of a concrete case. We have found that the interpretation of a treaty goes beyond the technique and involves reasoning and, in the final analysis, a choice. We have studied this reasoning technique/art in this work. We analyze how the elements exterior to the mechanical technique are part of the interpretation, such as, for example, the confrontation of judges with different nationalities and the weight of the so-called legal culture in the practice of interpretation, in addition to the cultural profile of the members of the Appellate Body.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DuploGrauJurisdicao.pdf: 987365 bytes, checksum: fb042855b91d01263cb02a03980c7d22 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005-11-28 / This paper deals with the principle of the appellate jurisdiction, and attempts to construe it from the perspective of the 1988 Federal Constitution, offering as well a critique of recent changes introduced in the Procedural Civil Law Code by statute number 10.352 of December 26th, 2001, specially the ones made in articles 475 and 515. The reason for the choice of the current subject was influenced by the study of Procedural Constitutional Law, which led to an even deeper analysis whose conclusions encompass both Constitutional and Procedural Law. It was precisely the possibility of this remarkably updated interdisciplinary study that made this paper possible. Discussing the full implication and outreach of the appellate jurisdiction principle means to question the very behavior of the State, under the rule of law, in relation to its citizens since such a right prevents them from State arbitrary power and enables the revision and adjudication by a higher court of any matter that has been tried in a court of original jurisdiction. Needless to say that the State is well-known for being the most encompassing defendant in the country. The restrictions brought about on the principle of the appellate jurisdiction by the new statute rekindle the old-time debate, which has inflamed so many scholars around the world, over how to reconcile judicial predictability and procedural celerity, which aims at an effective judicial protection. In order to properly answer whether the changes brought about by statute 10.352/01 are constitutional or not, it was necessary to follow a long path of document and bibliography research which included the study of principles in general, above all the constitutional principles with special focus on the definition and outreach of the appellate jurisdiction principle. It also involved analyzing and establishing relationship between that principle and the existing Appeals, as well as the constitutional exam of the mandatory review law, its legal exceptions that represent a limit or a suppression of the aforementioned guarantee. Based on this study we came to the conclusion that the command of the article 515, # 3rd of the statute 10.352/01, as well as the mandatory review law are unconstitutional. Although following different way of reasoning, we based both conclusions on the unshakable grounds of the Major Law. / Tratamos no presente trabalho do princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição, procurando compreendê-lo à luz da Constituição Federal de 1988 para, em seguida, promover uma análise crítica sobre a constitucionalidade das recentes reformas introduzidas pela Lei 10.352, de 26 de dezembro de 2001, no Código de Processo Civil, especialmente as que se operaram nos artigos 475 e 515. A escolha do tema sofreu os influxos dos estudos desenvolvidos em Direito Processual Constitucional, propiciando o aprofundamento de matéria que interessa tanto ao Direito Constitucional quanto ao Direito Processual. Foi justamente a possibilidade desse estudo interdisciplinar, notadamente atual e relevante, que motivou a elaboração do presente trabalho. Discutir a garantia do duplo grau de jurisdição, sobretudo seu alcance e sua inserção constitucional, implica questionar as próprias ações do Estado em relação aos jurisdicionados, no âmbito de um Estado Democrático e de Direito, já que tal garantia viabiliza o reexame de decisões judiciais, inclusive, contra arbitrariedades do Poder Público, o qual, aliás, é reconhecidamente o maior litigante habitual dos processos judiciais em trâmite no nosso País. As limitações trazidas pela nova lei ao duplo grau de jurisdição reabrem nova discussão sobre a antiga polêmica de como conciliar segurança jurídica e celeridade processual, com vistas à obtenção de uma tutela jurisdicional efetiva, da qual vêm se ocupando processualistas de todo o mundo. Para responder à indagação sobre a constitucionalidade ou não das alterações anteriormente mencionadas, foi necessário percorrer um longo trajeto, que exigiu o desenvolvimento de pesquisa documental e bibliográfica envolvendo o estudo dos princípios, em particular, dos princípios constitucionais, a compreensão do princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição, sua definição e alcance, bem como suas relações com outros importantes princípios previstos expressamente na Constituição Federal em vigor. Foi necessário, ainda, estabelecer as ligações entre o princípio do duplo grau e os recursos previstos no ordenamento pátrio e daquele com o instituto do reexame obrigatório, analisando-se, outrossim, do ponto de vista constitucional, as exceções dispostas em lei que limitam ou suprimem a garantia em tela. A partir do estudo desenvolvido, pôde-se concluir pela inconstitucionalidade da nova regra constante do parágrafo terceiro do artigo 515, bem como pela inconstitucionalidade da remessa necessária, por fundamentos diversos, porém seguramente construídos com amparo na Lei Maior.

The purpose of this research was to examine the patterns and themes of litigation in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) disability discrimination cases charged under the theory of disparate impact. Specifically, this study used Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR) to identify and review all U.S. Appellate Court ADA disparate impact cases as reported by Westlaw, a commercial electronic case law reporting system owned by Thomson Reuters. This study used a two-step, mixed methods approach to analyze the data relevant to the research questions and sub-questions. First, the researcher employed content analysis (Hall & Wright, 2008) to identify and characterize patterns and trends of litigation in all reported U.S. Appellate Court ADA cases charged under the theory of disparate impact from 1992 through 2012. Cases were analyzed chronologically, and variables included number of published and unpublished cases, distribution of jurisdiction, distribution of ADA titles, EEOC involvement, case fact patterns, and characteristics of charging and opposing parties. Frequency analyses were conducted on these data. Second, the researcher identified a subset of the ADA disparate impact cases analyzed in the first step: Title I, or employment discrimination cases. Qualitative analysis employing the constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was used to identify and characterize patterns and themes of the judicial opinions in the Title I disparate impact cases. The researcher developed a framework for analysis based on a review of the literature of the sociopolitical perspective of disability to guide the analysis of the judicial opinions in the subset of disparate impact cases. The results of the frequency analyses conducted on these data revealed four trends: (a) Precedent, (b) Circuit and Judge Effects, (c) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Successes, and (d) Sutton Case Effect. The results of the qualitative analysis of the text of the judicial opinions produced four themes and three relationships among the themes. The four themes were accommodation(s); workplace culture, norms, and policies; judicial process; and policy space. The three relationships were gap-filling, weighing and balancing, and maintaining status quo versus effecting social change. The themes and relationships are depicted in a concept map that visually displays the conceptual framework revealed in the study. The findings in this study may inform disability and rehabilitation scholars about ADA disparate impact cases, a body of law about which little is known. The patterns and trends identified in ADA Title I disparate impact cases may provide information about the types of policies and practices that are most frequently litigated. Rehabilitation practitioners may be able to use the results of this research to develop education and outreach strategies for employers on best practices for hiring, accommodating, and promoting employees with disabilities. Because the workplace policies and procedures identified in the cases that comprise this study are neutral on their face rather than intentionally discriminatory, employers may benefit from information that assists them in evaluating their policies and procedures proactively, which may avoid costly and time-consuming litigation. Finally, workplace policies and procedures that fairly represent the essential functions of the job and are applied uniformly to workers with and without disabilities will contribute to a more diverse workforce.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Regensburg.

Univ., Diss.-2005--Regensburg, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [335] - 348.

O presente trabalho trata da legitimidade da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação do sistema de solução de controvérsias da Organização Mundial do Comércio. A indagação que realizamos durante o trabalho é se o método interpretativo utilizado pelo Órgão de Apelação, em si, é legítimo e se, dadas as características específicas dos acordos da OMC, esse método reforça a própria legitimidade do sistema multilateral do comércio. Para tanto, definimos no primeiro capítulo o conceito de legitimidade do sistema multilateral de comércio no qual figuram, como elementos de fundamental relevância, as medidas de construção de confiança entre os Membros da OMC e a sua expectativa de que o sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC traga segurança e previsibilidade às regras negociadas por consenso durante a Rodada Uruguai. Argumentamos que a primazia dada à letra dos acordos é um dos elementos fundamentais da segurança e da previsibilidade buscada pelos Membros da OMC. Tratamos da legitimidade da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação da OMC comparando-a com outras técnicas utilizadas por outras cortes internacionais. Analisamos quais seriam os efeitos da aplicação de outros métodos interpretativos no sistema multilateral de comércio, como por exemplo, a interpretação teleológica. Para melhor compreender os fundamentos da técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação, interessou-nos examinar os métodos de interpretação de outros sistemas de direito contemporâneo, notadamente, o Common Law e o Civil Law, e verificar se procede a afirmação de parte da doutrina especializada de que há uma influência predominante do Common Law no sistema de solução de controvérsias da OMC, que supostamente colocaria em risco a legitimidade das decisões do Órgão de Apelação. Embora tenhamos denominado o presente trabalho como a técnica interpretativa do Órgão de Apelação, verificamos que essa técnica não é mecânica. Não supomos ser suficiente que o Órgão de Apelação simplesmente siga matematicamente os critérios da Convenção de Viena sobre Direito dos Tratados para alcançar o resultado e a solução para o caso concreto. Verificamos que a interpretação de um tratado vai além da técnica, envolve um raciocínio e, em última análise, uma escolha. Estudamos essa técnica/arte de raciocínio no presente trabalho. Analisamos como os elementos exteriores à técnica mecânica fazem parte da interpretação, como, por exemplo, o confronto de juízes de nacionalidades distintas e o peso da denominada cultura jurídica na prática interpretativa, além do perfil cultural de parte dos membros do Órgão de Apelação. / This work deals with the legitimacy of the interpretive technique of the World Trade Organizations dispute settlement systems Appellate Body. We ask whether the interpretive method used by the Appellate Body is, in itself, legitimate, and whether, given the specific characteristics of the system, this method reinforces the legitimacy of the multilateral trade system itself. To this end, in the introductory chapter we define the concept of the legitimacy of the multilateral trade system, in which elements of fundamental importance include the measures to build confidence among the World Trade Organization members and their expectation that the World Trade Organization dispute settlement system brings predictability to the rules negotiated by consensus during the Uruguay Round. We argue that the primacy given to the letter of the agreements is one of the fundamental elements of security and predictability sought by WTO members. We deal with the legitimacy of the World Trade Organization Appellate Bodys interpretive technique, comparing it to other techniques used by other international courts. We analyze what the effects of the application of other interpretive methods, such as, for example, teleological interpretation, would be in the multilateral trade system. To better understand the fundamentals of the Appellate Bodys interpretive technique, we examine the interpretive methods of other contemporary legal systems, especially of the common law and the civil law systems, to determine whether the claim made in the specialized legal literature that there is a predominant influence of the common law in the WTO dispute settlement system, which is allegedly putting the legitimacy of the Appellate Bodys decisions at risk, is correct. Although we have given this work the name the interpretive technique of the Appellate Body, we suggest this technique is not mechanical. We do not suppose that it is sufficient for the Appellate Body to simply mechanically follow the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties criteria to reach the result and the resolution of a concrete case. We have found that the interpretation of a treaty goes beyond the technique and involves reasoning and, in the final analysis, a choice. We have studied this reasoning technique/art in this work. We analyze how the elements exterior to the mechanical technique are part of the interpretation, such as, for example, the confrontation of judges with different nationalities and the weight of the so-called legal culture in the practice of interpretation, in addition to the cultural profile of the members of the Appellate Body.

L’interprétation des dispositions des accords de l’OMC constitue l’enjeu principal de la phase d’appel du système de règlement des différends. Ce processus intellectuel vise à établir le sens des normes. La compétence d’interprétation procure donc un pouvoir normatif important que l’Organe d’appel est, en pratique, le seul à détenir en dernier ressort à l’OMC. Cependant, elle est encadrée par l’obligation, imposée par le Mémorandum d’accord sur les règles et procédures régissant le règlement des différends, d’assurer la sécurité et la prévisibilité du système commercial multilatéral. Or, l’interprétation est une opération, par nature, quasi discrétionnaire. Elle ne peut donc théoriquement pas répondre à l’objectif de sécurité. Cette thèse montre que l’Organe d’appel parvient pourtant à faire face à ce double défi : procurer, par le biais de l’interprétation, un sentiment de sécurité juridique aux membres, et assurer un minimum de sécurité juridique au système. L’Organe d’appel a conscience que l’interprétation est avant tout perçue comme une opération technique et soigne sa mise en œuvre. Sa technique interprétative rationnelle, sans être en mesure de garantir la prévisibilité, lui permet néanmoins de procurer aux membres de l’OMC un sentiment de sécurité juridique. Sa politique interprétative, basée sur l’intégration du droit de l’OMC dans le système juridique international et sur le développement et le maintien de l’unité du système OMC, lui permet, quant à elle, d’instaurer de facto une situation de relative sécurité juridique. L’Organe d’appel parvient ainsi à faire de la sécurité juridique un principe d’interprétation. / The interpretation of WTO rules is the main stake of the appeal stage of the Dispute Settlement System. This intellectual process aims at establishing the meaning of the rules. The Appellate Body has thus a strong normative power. Moreover it is de facto the only one to exercise this competence without appeal. However, this competence is limited by the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes which requires the Appellate Body to provide security and predictability to the multilateral trading system. Yet, interpretation is a near discretionary operation by nature and cannot, in theory, meet the security goal. This study demonstrates that the Appellate Body, though, manages to face this double challenge. It has to bring, thanks to interpretation, a security feeling to the WTO Members and to provide security to the system. The Appellate Body is careful about the implementation of interpretation because it is aware that interpretation is above all understood as a technical operation. Its interpretative technique is rational and, even if it is not able to ensure predictability, it brings the Members a security feeling. Its interpretative policy is based on the integration of WTO law in the international legal system and on the development and preservation of unity of the WTO system. It establishes a situation of relative legal certainty. In this way, the Appellate Body manages to use legal certainty as an interpretative principle.

The problem. --The problem in this study was to describe the issues arising in employment decisions appealed to the Texas Commissioner of Education. Decisions made in courts are binding on school officials, and they are published in law reporters found in most libraries. The Commissioner's decisions are also binding on school officials, but they are not published or widely reported. Thus, this important body of information may not reach those who are responsible for its application. Methods. --The decisions of the Commissioner were examined to determine the issues and the underlying rationale used by the Commissioner in the process of deciding the appeals. A series of data reductions allowed a determination of patterns found in the outcomes of the decisions which favored the employee and those which favored the school districts. The analysis produced a set of data from which implications for decision making could be drawn.

This dissertation is motivated by a straightforward question about a drastic change to American politics: why has the process of staffing the circuit courts of appeals, once so agreeable and bipartisan, seemed to have descended into almost complete partisan bitterness? Across the entire time series, these are, after all, the same courts endowed with the same power of judicial review. And when the process of staffing them was harmonious, the courts were nevertheless deciding the fate of major, controversial policies of national importance---such as the New Deal in the 1930s and civil rights in the 1950s---just as they do today. Yes, many other aspects of American politics have changed through the decades. But what could possibly explain such a complete reversal of course? I argue that this change, toward divisiveness and partisan warfare, is actually about the judiciary itself and the substantive manner by which the nominees are thought of---namely, the entry of judicial ideology into the debate through the innovation of circuit judges being evaluated on ideological terms. While taken for granted as central today, any ideological assessment of circuit court nominees, and in particular viewing them as having a comprehensive judicial philosophy as opposed to just a position on singular pressing issue of the day, was almost nonexistent for generations. Its entry into the process was piecemeal and somewhat complicated, but it eventually came to dominate and irrevocably polarize the business of staffing the courts. I argue that this was the key factor that leaves us where we are today. Broadly speaking, I consider the contributions and particular strengths of my dissertation, relative to previous scholarship, to be threefold. First is my argument and accompanying analyses which put the crucial (and severely understudied) role of judicial ideology front and center. Second, I analyze the entire lifespan of the circuit courts, whereas the previous scholarship looks only at (often relatively brief) subsets of their history. As far as I know, this is the first study to systematically look at all circuit court nominations from the establishment of these courts in 1891 through the modern era. Third, I collect and analyze a great deal of new data. In particular I focus on systematically utilizing extensive archival resources and build two original data sets related to the Senate's public and private evaluation of judicial nominees; and while there is certainly a qualitative aspect to much of this research, I also synthesize and make sense of it with quantitative analysis. In chapter 1, I explain the puzzle motivating this research, elaborate my argument, and lay out the theoretical, methodological, and data collection contributions of this dissertation. I also review the literature and describe the three existing schools of thought. In chapter 2, I give an overview of the history of the circuit courts from their founding to the present. In this data-heavy chapter, I examine multiple metrics individually, and using several of these I build a robust composite score of divisiveness for each nominee ever made to the circuit courts, from 1891 through 2020. As far as I know this has never been done before. I find overwhelming evidence that the process has fundamentally changed and become more divisive. In chapter 3, I dig more deeply into the timing of this change, and begin to explore how and why it happened---and begin my attempt at demonstrating how the evaluation of judicial ideology is central to this change. To do this I examine a massive data source that has never been utilized: the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for all nominees. With both qualitative and quantitative analysis, I show that the evaluation of nominees has varied widely over time. Prior to 1979, nominees were evaluated almost exclusively based on their qualifications, with ideology examined only under special circumstances, which I explore in depth. In this time period, ideological scrutiny predicted a contentious confirmation process, providing evidence for my argument that ideological evaluation drove divisiveness. Also in this chapter, I analyze the post-1979 transition to the routine ideological evaluation that permanently altered the confirmation process. I find that Republicans and comprehensive judicial philosophies both played a key role. In chapter 4, I examine the senators' private evaluation of nominees, in part to serve as a check on the validity of my earlier data analysis and also to see if there is any difference between the senators' public and private goals in relation to the judiciary. To do this, I build an original data set of over 1000 internal letters and memoranda from senators, by searching the archival records of nearly every president since Benjamin Harrison as well as over 150 senators. Studying this material qualitatively and quantitatively, the findings here largely align with the analysis of the public committee hearings: for much of history senators were concerned mainly about qualifications, with ideological concern rare and under special circumstances, but eventually ideology came to be the predominant concern which ended the consensual and placid process. This immense historical record also brings to light additional senatorial goals, such as ensuring residents of their own state as well as personal friends obtain judicial appointments. In chapter 5, I focus in on the post-1979 era and I find that the more ideologically distant a nominee is from the Senate, the more divisive the confirmation process is. This provides evidence that the process is defined by ideology related to the nominees, not garden variety polarization of the system. In chapter 6, I conclude, trying to synthesize all of my findings as well as offer some thoughts on areas of future research.