Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tiago Cardoso Vaitekunas Zapater.pdf: 2994134 bytes, checksum: 9624f0c97cd74f248654c8e7c952dc90 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-08-11 / This study proposes to critically analyze the mechanisms implemented as a result of reforms in the Brazilian civil procedure in the last two decades, that aims to standardize court decisions and expedite procedure. The study sustains that , given the conditions under which the Law operates in contemporary society, these mechanisms are unusable to provide court decisions with predictability nor certainty, because these mechanisms tends to become, themselves, a source of uncertainty and unpredictability. Mechanisms of court decisions standardization, such as the Brazilian binding precedent ( súmula vinculante ), depends upon proceedings and legal requirements that undermine the autonomy of the Legal System s operational code, which exposes the system to attacks from the code of other systems, such as Economy and Politic. Mechanisms to expedite proceedings, such as the Court s monocratic ruling by the reporting Justice, by their turn, engender losses in the system s capacity to legitimate judicial decisions by means of the legal proceeding, which also generates uncertainty regarding the social adequacy of the judicial decision. The present work uses Niklas Luhmann s system theory to describe the conditions under which the Law operates in the society, as well as the interrelated Guilherme Leite Gonçalves s thesis, also based upon system theory, to whom problems related to certainty of Law arises out of modern society s semantic inadequacy to describe a society that no longer can count on the old metaphysic certainty centers of the pre-modern societies. The application of the system theory to the Brazilian s Judiciary is based upon Celso Fernandes Campilongo and Orlando Villas Bôas Filho s theoretical approaches, according to which Brazilian Law is a case of an autopoietic system, to which the system theory may be applied, and that suffers with the overload of burdens arising from its environment and hardship to protect the system s center (the Courts) from such burden, which jeopardize the system s autonomy. With this instrumental, the study analyzes the history of the control mechanisms of Court s interpretation of the Law, upon which standardization of Court decisions is based, as well as its main theoretical references, such as common Law s stare decisis et non quite movere and the recent jurisprudence on equality on the application of Law and the right to a expedite trial / Este trabalho propõe uma análise crítica dos mecanismos de uniformização de jurisprudência e de aceleração do procedimento processual implementados pelas reformas no processo civil brasileiro nas últimas duas décadas. Defende-se que, nas condições em que o direito da sociedade contemporânea opera, esses mecanismos não são capazes de propiciar previsibilidade para as decisões judiciais nem certeza do direito, uma vez que eles próprios tendem a se transformar em fontes de incerteza e imprevisibilidade. Mecanismos de uniformização de jurisprudência, como a súmula vinculante, dependem de procedimentos e requisitos que minam a autonomia do código operacional do sistema jurídico, expondo o sistema a investidas de outros sistemas, como a política e a economia. Por sua vez, mecanismos de aceleração do procedimento, como os julgamentos monocráticos pelo relator, importam em perdas na capacidade de legitimar as decisões pelo procedimento, gerando também mais incerteza com relação à adequação social da decisão judicial. O trabalho faz uso do instrumental da teoria dos sistemas de Niklas Luhmann para descrever as condições em que o direito opera na sociedade, bem como da correlata proposta de Guilherme Leite Gonçalves, igualmente baseada na teoria dos sistemas, para quem os problemas de certeza do direito decorrem da inaptidão da semântica da sociedade moderna para descrever uma sociedade que já não conta com os antigos centros de certeza metafísicos das sociedades pré-modernas. Para aplicar o instrumental sistêmico ao Poder Judiciário brasileiro, faço uso das propostas de Celso Fernandes Campilongo e Orlando Villas Bôas Filho, que consideram o direito brasileiro um caso de sistema autopoiético, ao qual a teoria dos sistemas pode ser aplicada e que sofre com a sobrecarga de demandas do ambiente e dificuldade de proteger o centro do sistema (os tribunais) do ônus de lidar com essas demandas, pondo em risco a autonomia do sistema. Com esse instrumental, é feita uma análise histórica dos mecanismos de controle da interpretação judicial do direito, em que a uniformização de jurisprudência se funda, no processo civil brasileiro, bem como de suas principais referências teóricas, isto é, o princípio do stare decisis et non quieta movere da common Law e as recentes construções sobre os princípios da igualdade na aplicação da lei e da celeridade processual

Text in Afrikaans / Alhoewel die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika die bestaande reg op regsverteenwoordiging uitgebrei het tot sy logiese eindpunt, is daar geen vaste inhoud aan hierdie reg gegee nie en sal die howe die omvang daarvan moet ontwikkel. Hierdie reg kan weens die heersende sosiale en ekonomiese omstandighede nie 'n absolute reg wees nie. Indien 'n beskuldigde nie 'n regsverteenwoordiger kan bekostig nie, sal een op staatsonkoste aan horn verskaf word, maar slegs indien <lit andersins tot wesentlike onreg sal lei. In so 'n geval het die beskuldigde nie die reg op 'n regsverteenwoordiger van sy keuse nie. Effektiewe regsverteenwoordiging word ook nie gewaarborg nie. Daar word derhalwe steeds nie aan die sine qua non van 'n volledige strafregplegingstelsel soos <lit oor tyd in die Verenigde State van Amerika ontwikkel het, <lit is die verskaffing van kostelose regsverteenwoordiging aan elke behoeftige persoon beskuldig van 'n emstige misdaad, voldoen nie / Although the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa has extended the existing right to legal representation to its logical conclusion, no definitive substance has been given to this right and the courts will have to develop the purview thereof. This right cannot be an absolute right because of ruling social and economic circumstances. Should an accused not be able to afford a legal representative, one will be supplied to him at state expense, but only if substantial injustice would otherwise result. In such an event the accused is not entitled to a legal representative of his choice. Effective legal representation is also not guaranteed. There is therefore still not compliance with the sine qua non of a comprehensive criminal justice system as has developed over time in the United States of America, that is the provision of free legal representation to every indigent person accused of a serious crime / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Straf en Prosesreg)