O objeto central deste trabalho é a investigação da natureza jurídica da Lei de Orçamento em consonância com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Tradicionalmente, tem sido defendido o entendimento de que nossa lei orçamentária possuiria a natureza de mera lei formal, visto que o Poder Executivo não se encontraria obrigado a executar o Orçamento tal como aprovado pelo Poder Legislativo. Nesta dissertação, defende-se ponto de vista oposto à corrente majoritária existente no meio jurídico brasileiro. Por meio do confronto entre as premissas e postulados firmados pela teoria clássica do Orçamento, que tem em Paul Laband seu maior expoente, e o tratamento conferido pela sistemática orçamentária brasileira, procura-se indicar a insuficiência da tese da lei formal. A dignidade constitucional do Orçamento, que possui seus contornos extraídos direta e centralmente da Constituição da República dá a medida da importância da lei orçamentária em nosso meio. Defende-se que a citada Lei possui uma multiplicidade de comandos, revelando em seu corpo não somente autorizações, como também proibições e determinações ou obrigações. São os fins que emprestam à Lei de Orçamento o condão de obrigatoriedade. Destarte, os objetivos e metas fixados na peça orçamentária possuem nítido caráter obrigatório, ao vincular toda a administração pública à sua consecução e alcance. As dotações orçamentárias, por sua vez, enfeixam o caráter de limites financeiros autorizados em face da incidência dos princípios constitucionais da eficiência, eficácia, economicidade e efetividade. Os recursos financeiros são os meios que permitem o alcance dos fins, contudo, são os fins que são obrigatórios. Assim, a denominação lei de meios põe ênfase naquilo que não indica a real natureza da Lei de Orçamento. As leis orçamentárias são leis de fins e, dessa forma, a medida do seu cumprimento somente se revela em face do alcance dos objetivos que se lhe encontram associados. / The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the juridical nature of the Budget Law in accordance with the Brazilian juridical ordainment. Traditionally, the understanding that our budget law has a mere formal law nature has been advocated as the Executive branch is not obliged to comply with the Budget as passed by the Legislative branch. In this dissertation a contrary point of view to the existing major tendency in the juridical environment is defended. Through confronting the premises and postulates backed up by the Budget classical theory, whose main exponent is Paul Laband, and the treaty conferred by the Brazilian budget systematics, the insufficiency of the formal law thesis is indicated. The constitutional dignity of the budget, whose outlines were directly and centrally extracted from the Constitution of the Republic, sets the importance of the budget law in our environment. It is defended that the Budget Law has a multiplicity of commandments, not only revealing authorizations in its scope, but also prohibitions, and determinations, or obligations. It is the ends that lend the Budget Law the prerogative of obligatoriness. Thus, the objectives and aims established in the budget piece have a clear obligatory character, linking all the public administration to its execution and attainment. Budget dotations, however, bundle up the character of authorized financial limits, in the light of the constitutional principles of efficiency, efficacy, economicity and effectiveness. The financial resources are the means that allow reaching the ends; however, it is the ends that are obligatory. Thus, the term law of means places emphasis on what does not indicate the real nature of Budget Law. Budget Laws are laws of ends, and thus, the measure of its accomplishment can only be gauged after reaching the goals with which they are associated.

O objeto central deste trabalho é a investigação da natureza jurídica da Lei de Orçamento em consonância com o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro. Tradicionalmente, tem sido defendido o entendimento de que nossa lei orçamentária possuiria a natureza de mera lei formal, visto que o Poder Executivo não se encontraria obrigado a executar o Orçamento tal como aprovado pelo Poder Legislativo. Nesta dissertação, defende-se ponto de vista oposto à corrente majoritária existente no meio jurídico brasileiro. Por meio do confronto entre as premissas e postulados firmados pela teoria clássica do Orçamento, que tem em Paul Laband seu maior expoente, e o tratamento conferido pela sistemática orçamentária brasileira, procura-se indicar a insuficiência da tese da lei formal. A dignidade constitucional do Orçamento, que possui seus contornos extraídos direta e centralmente da Constituição da República dá a medida da importância da lei orçamentária em nosso meio. Defende-se que a citada Lei possui uma multiplicidade de comandos, revelando em seu corpo não somente autorizações, como também proibições e determinações ou obrigações. São os fins que emprestam à Lei de Orçamento o condão de obrigatoriedade. Destarte, os objetivos e metas fixados na peça orçamentária possuem nítido caráter obrigatório, ao vincular toda a administração pública à sua consecução e alcance. As dotações orçamentárias, por sua vez, enfeixam o caráter de limites financeiros autorizados em face da incidência dos princípios constitucionais da eficiência, eficácia, economicidade e efetividade. Os recursos financeiros são os meios que permitem o alcance dos fins, contudo, são os fins que são obrigatórios. Assim, a denominação lei de meios põe ênfase naquilo que não indica a real natureza da Lei de Orçamento. As leis orçamentárias são leis de fins e, dessa forma, a medida do seu cumprimento somente se revela em face do alcance dos objetivos que se lhe encontram associados. / The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the juridical nature of the Budget Law in accordance with the Brazilian juridical ordainment. Traditionally, the understanding that our budget law has a mere formal law nature has been advocated as the Executive branch is not obliged to comply with the Budget as passed by the Legislative branch. In this dissertation a contrary point of view to the existing major tendency in the juridical environment is defended. Through confronting the premises and postulates backed up by the Budget classical theory, whose main exponent is Paul Laband, and the treaty conferred by the Brazilian budget systematics, the insufficiency of the formal law thesis is indicated. The constitutional dignity of the budget, whose outlines were directly and centrally extracted from the Constitution of the Republic, sets the importance of the budget law in our environment. It is defended that the Budget Law has a multiplicity of commandments, not only revealing authorizations in its scope, but also prohibitions, and determinations, or obligations. It is the ends that lend the Budget Law the prerogative of obligatoriness. Thus, the objectives and aims established in the budget piece have a clear obligatory character, linking all the public administration to its execution and attainment. Budget dotations, however, bundle up the character of authorized financial limits, in the light of the constitutional principles of efficiency, efficacy, economicity and effectiveness. The financial resources are the means that allow reaching the ends; however, it is the ends that are obligatory. Thus, the term law of means places emphasis on what does not indicate the real nature of Budget Law. Budget Laws are laws of ends, and thus, the measure of its accomplishment can only be gauged after reaching the goals with which they are associated.

No description available.

Harming the dignity of the learner; refusing to hear his side of the story; neglecting to help him retrieve his stolen property : such are the unfortunate occurrences at many South African schools, and such are the experiences that have led to this research. Dedicated educators sometimes default, leaving their wronged learners out m the cold. The questions are therefore: • What causes this conduct of educators and why does it recur? • Is it ignorance of their legal position? • Is it insensitivity to common law principles and statutory provisions? • Is it sheer carelessness? Mindful of the introduction of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996, wh1ch contains the long-awaited Bill of Fundamental Rights, this study has been undertaken to give an educational-juridical perspective of the educator-learner relationship 1n South African public schools by means of a literature study and an elementary legal comparative study. Various legal terms which influence the educator-learner relationship significantly are defined. In conjunction with the private law status of the learner, the position of the learner within the school system, and the fundamental rights of the learner in the context of the administration of justice are identified and dealt with in so far as they have any bearing on the educator-learner relationship, Moreover, the legal determinants of the educator-learner relationship and the educator's duty of care are pinpointed to determine their significance in an accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationship, A comparative school law perspective of the sources of school law, the duties and responsibilities of educators, the fundamental rights and legal obligations of the learner, the educator's duty of care, discipline and legal liability in England and Wales, Canada, Japan, and South Africa is presented in terms of similarities and differences, Attention is paid to the necessity of informing educators and learners concerning their respective rights and duties, in order to develop accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationships in South African schools, / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 2000

Harming the dignity of the learner; refusing to hear his side of the story; neglecting to help him retrieve his stolen property : such are the unfortunate occurrences at many South African schools, and such are the experiences that have led to this research. Dedicated educators sometimes default, leaving their wronged learners out m the cold. The questions are therefore: • What causes this conduct of educators and why does it recur? • Is it ignorance of their legal position? • Is it insensitivity to common law principles and statutory provisions? • Is it sheer carelessness? Mindful of the introduction of the South African Constitution Act 108 of 1996, wh1ch contains the long-awaited Bill of Fundamental Rights, this study has been undertaken to give an educational-juridical perspective of the educator-learner relationship 1n South African public schools by means of a literature study and an elementary legal comparative study. Various legal terms which influence the educator-learner relationship significantly are defined. In conjunction with the private law status of the learner, the position of the learner within the school system, and the fundamental rights of the learner in the context of the administration of justice are identified and dealt with in so far as they have any bearing on the educator-learner relationship, Moreover, the legal determinants of the educator-learner relationship and the educator's duty of care are pinpointed to determine their significance in an accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationship, A comparative school law perspective of the sources of school law, the duties and responsibilities of educators, the fundamental rights and legal obligations of the learner, the educator's duty of care, discipline and legal liability in England and Wales, Canada, Japan, and South Africa is presented in terms of similarities and differences, Attention is paid to the necessity of informing educators and learners concerning their respective rights and duties, in order to develop accountable, responsive and open educator-learner relationships in South African schools, / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 2000