Consensualism (Lat. Consensus ad idem – agreement to the same thing, common opinion) means that the will of contracting parties is regarded to be the most important in a contract in contract law. Due to this reason mutual rights and duties can be set only by the actions of capable contracting parties. The principle of consensualism is at the core of Contract law. It claims to regard the intentions and the will of the parties rather than certain parts of a contract, while interpreting the contract. In cases where during the interpretation of contracts differences between the real intentions of the parties and the meaning of linguistic text of the contracts occur, priority should be given to the general and genuine intentions of the contracting parties. In this case formalism is negated, while formalism, being contrary to consensualism, instead of giving the priority to the will of parties, gives it to the outward form of that will’s expression. Despite formalism in contract law occurs more seldom nowadays, in some cases it is not enough for contracting parties just to come to an agreement in order to have a valid contract. Sometimes the certain form of its expression is needed too. This diploma work deals with peculiarities of the principle of consensualism in contract law. The main aspects discussed in the paper are: the importance of the principle of consensualism interpreting the contracts within the Continental and Common law systems, relation between consensualism and... [to full text]

En matière de formation des contrats, le consentement de la partie qui s’oblige est soumis au principe de liberté des formes. Par exception, la volonté doit adopter une certaine forme contractuelle pour s’extérioriser. Face à l’évolution du droit des contrats et à la nécessité de combattre les déséquilibres contractuels propres aux rapports contractuels actuels, le formalisme expérimente un processus de revitalisation et de renaissance en droit contemporain dont la finalité principale consiste à protéger le consentement contractuel des parties au contrat. Cela rend indispensable l’analyse des fondements du formalisme et de son rôle dans la protection du consentement contractuel en droit contemporain, à travers la révision transversale de ses nouvelles manifestations, principalement en matière du droit de la consommation et du commerce électronique ; pour constater finalement ses véritables effets et conséquences en matière du droit des contrats. / In contract law, the agreement of the parties is ruled by the freedom of choice of forms of contract. In this way, contracts are signed by the mere consent of the parties, and there is a freedom regarding the ways for its externalization. Despite this, the evolution of contract law and the need to combat specific contractual imbalances of contractual relationships, formalism is experiencing a revitalization process and a rebirth in contemporary law, with the main purpose to protect the contractual consent. For these reasons it is necessary to analyze the role of formalism in the protection of contractual consent, reviewing its new manifestations, mainly in the field of consumer and commercial law ; finally finding its true effects and consequences in contract contemporary law.

Doktrininė diskusija ar sutarties sudarymui pakanka vien pažado (nudum pactum) ar šalių susitarimas privalo būti išreikštas tam tikra forma, yra labai sena. Konsensualizmo principo šalininkai teigia, jog sutarties sudarymui sutampančios šalių valios visiškai pakanka. Šis principas atsirado kaip logiška valios autonomijos teorijos pasekmė ir reakcija į romėnų teisės griežtumą. Apie formalizmą tenka kalbėti tais atvejais, kai vien ketinimo sukurti tam tikrus sutartinius santykius nepakanka, o suderinta šalių valia turi būti išreikšta tam tikra forma. Šiuolaikinei sutarčių teisei yra būdingas konsensualizmas, tačiau ir formalizmo principo, kuris padeda derinti atskirų individų laisvę, apsaugoti viešąjį interesą bei sąžiningas trečiąsias šalis, visiškai pagrįstai nėra atsisakoma. Kuriant naująjį Lietuvos Respublikos civilinį kodeksą, be kitų naujovių, buvo siekiama sumažinti formalizmo principo taikymo apimtį sandorio institute. Šio tikslo šiuo metu padeda pasiekti ir pažangių informacinių technologijų diegimas į kai kurių sandorių sudarymo procesą. Tačiau, nepaisant konsensualizmo principo įtvirtinimo ir formalių sandorių formos reikalavimų mažinimo, tam tikro formalizmo ir konsensualizmo principų disbalanso teisiniame sandorių reglamentavimo galutinai išvengti nepavyko. Kokybinio ir kiekybinio sandorio instituto vertinimo kriterijų pagalba atlikta analizė parodė, jog tam tikrais atvejais formalizmo ir konsensualizmo principų taikymas neatitinka jų tikslų, o valstybės kišimosi... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Doctrin debate, if nudum pactum is enough for the creation of contract is very old. In the modern law prevails consensualism, but the formalism, that helps to adjust the freedom of different presons, protect the public interest and rights of honest third parties is not refused. / Wissenschaftliche Diskussion, ob ein bolßes Versprechen (nudum pactum) für die Vertragsschliessung genügt, oder es in der bestimmten Form zum Ausdruck gebracht werden soll, ist sehr alt. Die Anhänger des Formfreiheitsprinzips behaupten, daß der übereinstimmende Willen, der Vertragsparteien für die Vertragsschliessung völlig genügt. Dieser Prinzip findete sich wie eine logische Autonomietheoriefolge und eine Reaktion auf die Strenge des römischen Rechts. Über den Formalismusprinzip wird es damals gesprochen, wenn es für die Vertragsschliessung nur eine Absicht nicht genügt und der übereinstimmende Willen der Vertragsparteien in einer bestimmten Form ausgedrückt werden soll. Das Kennzeichen des heutigen Rechts ist Formfreiheitsprinzip, aber auf den Formalismusprinzip, der eine Freiheit der einzelnen Individuum in Übereinstimmung bringt, öffentliche Interesse und Interesse der dritten gewissenhaften Personen schützen hilft, wird es berechtigterweise nicht verzichtet. Bei der Schaffung des Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches der Republik Litauen, ohne anderen Neuigkeiten, wurde nach der Verringerung des Formalismusprinzipseinflusses im Geschäftsinstitut gestrebt. Dieses Ziehl hilft auch die Einführung der fortschrittlichen Informationstechnologien in den Geschäftsbildungsprozeß zu erreichen. Doch, abgesehen von der Befestigung des Formfreiheitsprinzips und Verringerung der Geschäftsformforderungen, es wurde nicht eine bestimmte Ungleichgewicht von diesen Prinzipien vermieden. Mit der... [der volle Text, siehe weiter]

L’intervention est l’acte par lequel un Etat tiers intervient dans une instance pendante pour protéger ses droits. Elle est prévue aux articles 62 et 63 du Statut. La première disposition reconnaît le droit d’intervention à tout Etat tiers justifiant d’un intérêt juridique en cause. En revanche, la seconde accorde aux seuls Etats tiers également partie à une convention dont l’interprétation est en cause la possibilité d’intervenir. La question principale soulevée par l’intervention est de savoir si cette procédure est conforme au principe du consensualisme qui gouverne le Statut de la Cour. Concernant que l’article 62 du Statut, cette question s’explique par la controverse au sein de la doctrine au sujet du statut de l’Etat intervenant. En effet, certains auteurs soutiennent que l’Etat intervenant est partie à l’instance. Dans ce cas, ils considèrent que l’article 62 ne respecte pas le principe du consensualisme. Afin de concilier l’intervention avec ce principe, ils pensent que la Cour ne peut admettre l’intervention sans le consentement des parties. D’autres avancent, au contraire, que l’intervention est conforme au principe du consensualisme parce que l’Etat intervenant n’est pas partie à l’instance. D’autres soutiennent encore que l’article 62 du Statut admet les deux formes d’intervention développées par les précédents auteurs. L’objet de l’étude est de démontrer que l’article 62 du Statut donne lieu à une interprétation large, en ce sens qu’il autorise non seulement une intervention en tant que non partie, mais aussi une intervention en tant que partie et que le principe du consensualisme est respecté dans les deux cas. En effet, cette étude établit que tant les conditions que les effets de l’intervention sont conformes à ce principe. / Intervention is the procedure by which a third State intervenes in a pending proceeding to protect its rights. It is laid down in Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute. The first provision recognizes to every State justifying a legal interest in the case in question the right to intervene. In contrast, the second gives the third States also party to a Multilateral Convention whose interpretation is in question the right to intervene. The main issue raised by the intervention is whether this procedure is consistent with the principle of consent that governs the Statute of the Court. Concerning Article 62, this issue is due to the controversy within the doctrine on the status of the intervening State. Indeed, some authors argue that the intervening State is a party to the proceeding. In this case, they consider that Article 62 does not respect the principle of consent. To reconcile this principle with the intervention, they think that the Court can not accept the intervention without the consent of the parties. Others argue, however, that the intervention is consistent with the principle of consent because the intervening State do not become a party to the proceeding. Others still argue that Article 62 recognizes two forms of intervention as developed by the previous authors. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate that Article 62 gives rise to a broad interpretation, as it allows not only intervention as a non-party, but also as a party and that the principle of consent is respected in both cases. Indeed, this study shows that both the conditions and the effects of the intervention are consistent with this principle.

[pt] O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar as potencialidades da justiça restaurativa no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Partindo do pressuposto de que o sistema criminal está em crise de legitimidade, pelo foco na manutenção do viés punitivo-repressivo e pelo discurso deste paradigma. Neste sentido, indaga-se se a proposta restaurativa pode representar um caminho mais humanizador e apto à resolução de conflitos na seara criminal. Para tanto, buscou-se inicialmente, entender a crise do sistema penal, para posteriormente, desvendar as origens do paradigma restaurativo, como movimento internacional, comparando-o na oportunidade, com o paradigma retributivo. Buscou-se analisar ainda o surgimento da justiça restaurativa no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, estabelecendo-se um panorama geral de aplicação, a fim de que fossem evidenciadas as condições de seu desenvolvimento. Por fim, demonstrou-se através de pesquisas viabilizadas pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça, as particularidades dos projetos pioneiros de Justiça Restaurativa, bem como, verificou-se o estado da arte do movimento restaurativo no sistema judicial, com suas potencialidades e desafios na construção da brasilidade restaurativa, que demonstra um déficit democrático atrelado a uma cultura jurídica brasileira de expansionismo da rede de controle penal. / [en] The present work aims to analyze the potential of restorative justice in the Brazilian legal system. Assuming that the criminal system is in crisis of legitimacy, due to the focus on maintaining the punitive-repressive bias and the discourse of this paradigm. In this sense, it is questioned whether the restorative proposal can represent a more humanizing and apt path to conflict resolution in the criminal field. Therefore, we initially sought to understand the crisis of the penal system, and later, to unveil the origins of the restorative paradigm, as an international movement, comparing it at the opportunity, with the retributive paradigm. It was also sought to analyze the emergence of restorative justice in the Brazilian legal system, establishing an overview of its application, so that the conditions of its development were evidenced. Finally, it was demonstrated through research made possible by the National Council of Justice, the particularities of the pioneering projects of Restorative Justice, as well as, the state of the art of the restorative movement in the judicial system, with its potentialities and challenges in the construction of the restorative Brazilianity, which demonstrates a democratic deficit linked to a Brazilian legal culture of expansionism of the penal control network.