Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Guilherme Diniz de Figueiredo Dominguez.pdf: 757597 bytes, checksum: 4f7baa814dd2ab6aa32018f6a3d38f1e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-06-09 / This paperwork is the result of a research that intends to investigate possible relations between Law and development, based upon an empiric study of the affirmative actions implemented by the Brazilian federal universities, mainly by means of the reservation of enrollment slots to minorities on its admission exams (social and racial quotas), but through the perspective of Court s decisions on the matter. The research focused on the analysis of whether or not such affirmative actions were held constitutional by the Regional Federal Courts of Brazil and by the Brazilian Supreme Court. Also the research intended to verify if such Courts recognized these quotas as public policies or affirmative actions (and thus if this recognition made them adopt a more detailed judicial review of such programs). Furthermore the research intended to study how the apparent conflict between the Executive Branch (universities) and the Legislative Branch, on whether a specific law is needed in order to authorize the adoption of such affirmative actions, was settled and how Courts acted when called to impose affirmative actions in the event of an omission by the Executive Branch. In addition to these specific issues, and assuming that affirmative actions are State policies directed to assure equality and, thus, reduce poorness and prejudice, aiming to promote social development, the main purpose of the research was to examine if such elements were part of the judicial debate that was studied and what was its importance on the examined decisions. We have verified that, considering absolute numbers, the quotas affirmative action is held constitutional by Federal Courts in Brazil. But by analyzing the decisions in each region of the Country we have noticed that a consensus on the subject is far and that there is no precedent of the Brazilian Supreme Court on the matter. In general, the Court s decisions value university autonomy on the implementation of affirmative actions, recognizing that such attribution does not belong only to the Legislative Branch, assessing such measures as public policies (and eventually, in more cases than anticipated, establishing or modulating these policies), although this assessment does not imply a deeper judicial review of the quotas programs, examining all its aspects. Beyond the debate on the constitutionality of the studied affirmative actions, the research detected a number of other problems related to its application, such as, for instance, the lack of a general and common provision on who could be considered a student from a public school in order to benefit from the social quotas, what suggests the need for a federal law determining the guidelines (standards) in order for such affirmative actions to be adopted by the federal universities in Brazil. Nonetheless, the debate on the constitutionality of such policies is marked by a clear discussion on its contribution or not to the development of the Country and, although that is not the main issue discussed on the decision, it is a strong element on the appreciation of the matter / Este trabalho é o resultado de uma pesquisa voltada a investigar possíveis correlações entre Direito e desenvolvimento a partir do estudo de um caso concreto: a implantação de ações afirmativas nas universidades federais brasileiras, especificamente por meio da reserva de vagas a minorias em seus vestibulares (cotas sociais e raciais), mas analisando a perspectiva da jurisprudência a respeito do assunto. O levantamento realizado tinha como objetivo examinar se essas medidas eram tidas como constitucionais pelos Tribunais Regionais Federais e pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, se essas Cortes reconheciam tais medidas como políticas públicas ou ações afirmativas (e se esse fato as induzia a realizar um controle judicial mais pormenorizado desses programas). Adicionalmente, a pesquisa buscou estudar como se decide o conflito de competência entre o Poder Executivo (universidades) e o Poder Legislativo a respeito da necessidade ou não de lei específica autorizando a adoção de ações afirmativas pelas universidades e qual era a postura dos Tribunais no caso de existir pedido de implantação de ação afirmativa em virtude de omissão administrativa. Além desses aspectos pontuais, a hipótese maior que pautou a pesquisa cujos resultados ora se apresentam partia da premissa de que ações afirmativas são medidas de Estado voltadas à promoção da igualdade material com redução de desigualdades econômicas e sociais, visando o desenvolvimento nacional. Nesse contexto, examinou-se se esses elementos estavam presentes ou não nos debates judiciais estudados e qual era o peso que tinham na decisão dos magistrados. Constatou-se que, em número absoluto de decisões analisadas, as cotas são tidas como constitucionais, porém examinando-se o conjunto de decisões em cada região do País, percebe-se que o assunto está longe de alcançar um consenso, não havendo ainda pronunciamento definitivo do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o tema. Em geral, a jurisprudência valoriza a autonomia universitária na implantação de ações afirmativas, afastando o possível conflito de competência com o Legislativo e reconhecendo tais ações como políticas públicas (e em mais casos do que se supunha o próprio Judiciário fixou ou modulou tais políticas), embora isso não implique uma revisão judicial mais aprofundada desses programas, contemplando todos os seus aspectos. Para além da discussão a respeito da constitucionalidade dessas ações afirmativas, a pesquisa levantou uma série de outros problemas relacionados à sua aplicação, como, por exemplo, a ausência de uma padronização a respeito de quem pode ser considerado estudante egresso do ensino público para ser beneficiário das cotas sociais, o que sugere a necessidade de uma lei federal fixando diretrizes (standards) para implantação dessas ações pelas universidades federais. Todavia, o debate sobre a constitucionalidade dessas medidas é pautado por uma discussão a respeito da sua contribuição ou não para o desenvolvimento do País, não sendo o fundamento principal das decisões, mas um elemento fortemente presente no exame da questão

Au-delà de l’instabilité qui la caractérise, la mise en état des affaires pénales s’illustre par sa métamorphose. A mesure de la multiplication des modes de traitement de la délinquance et de l’enrichissement des possibilités d’investigation en enquête de police, celle qui ne devait être qu’un préalable à l’ouverture d’une information judiciaire s’impose comme le cadre ordinaire dans un système qui n’avait pas été pensé pour elle. En résultent un recul des droits de la défense et du juge auxquels ni une vision d’ensemble de la procédure, ni les dernières réformes, pour une large partie inspirées des droits européens, n’ont pleinement pallié. Mettre les implications de la montée en puissance de l’enquête de police à l’épreuve des droits européens fait ressortir différents motifs d’inquiétude sur la pleine compatibilité du système actuel avec les standards supranationaux. Ils viennent ainsi au soutien d’aménagements promus tant par la doctrine que par des praticiens pour remédier au déséquilibre constaté. Si la mise en conformité du droit interne doit servir de guide aux ajustements préconisés, ces derniers doivent néanmoins être examinés à la lumière de leur simplications sur le système vu dans son ensemble. Le souci de cohérence encouragerait à promouvoir des solutions plus mesurées, combinant à un renforcement relatif des droits durant l’enquête de police, une articulation des cadres procéduraux d’investigation centrée sur le renforcement du contrôle du juge. La perspective de l’intégration d’un Parquet européen, dont la création a été formellement actée le 12 octobre 2017, et qui se caractérise par sa perméabilité avec les ordres juridiques nationaux, rend ces propositions précaires. Les ajustements que son intégration supposera soulèveront à court ou moyen terme, la question d’une recomposition de la mise en état des affaires pénales, favorable à la restauration de son équilibre et de sa cohérence. / Beyond the inconstancy which defines the pre-trial phase of proceedings, it is characterised by its metamorphosis. Because of the multiplication of ways of dealing with delinquency and the increasing possibilities of police inquiry, the pre-trial phase of proceedings, which should have been just a precondition to the preliminary judicial investigation, turns out to be the common framework, in a system not built for it. It leads to the decline of the rights of defence and of the judge. Neither a global perspective of the procedure nor the last reforms, for the most part inspired by European laws, fully overcame it. Confronting the consequences of police inquiry increasing with European rights, highlights several concerns on the full compatibility of the current system with the supranational standards. They support accommodations, encouraged by the searchers as well as the professionals, to solve observed imbalances. If the compliance of French law must guide the recommended adjustments, they should be reviewed in the light of their impacts on the global system, where inquiry and information still coexist. The will of consistency may encourage to promote more measured solutions, combining a moderate strengthening of the rights during police inquiries to an articulation of the investigation proceedings frameworks, focused on a reinforced control of the judge. The perspective of the integration of an European Public Prosecutor’s Office, which creation was formally acknowledged October 12th 2017, characterised by its openness to other national legal systems, makes these propositions uncertain. At short or medium term, adjustments ensued by its integration will lead to rethink the pre-trial phase of proceedings, to ensure its balance and consistency.

The author argues that the Court Challenges Program’s 2006 cancellation was based on claims that judicial review is undemocratic, including those made by three academics, Rainer Knopff, F.L. Morton and Ian Brodie; the Court Party Theorists (the “CPT”). Through a study of Charter equality cases, this paper examines the CPT’s arguments regarding judicial activism, interest groups and interveners and finds they are largely unsupported by statistical evidence. Further, the debate about judicial review and democracy obscures judicial review’s important auditing function over the legislature’s constitutional adherence. This audit depends on individuals’ capacity to pursue Charter litigation, an ability compromised by the access to justice crisis. The author examines this crisis and the efforts to fill the funding gap left by the CCP’s cancellation and concludes that a publicly-funded program like the CCP is best-placed to ensure that the Charter remains a relevant tool for enforcing fundamental human rights in Canada.

The author argues that the Court Challenges Program’s 2006 cancellation was based on claims that judicial review is undemocratic, including those made by three academics, Rainer Knopff, F.L. Morton and Ian Brodie; the Court Party Theorists (the “CPT”). Through a study of Charter equality cases, this paper examines the CPT’s arguments regarding judicial activism, interest groups and interveners and finds they are largely unsupported by statistical evidence. Further, the debate about judicial review and democracy obscures judicial review’s important auditing function over the legislature’s constitutional adherence. This audit depends on individuals’ capacity to pursue Charter litigation, an ability compromised by the access to justice crisis. The author examines this crisis and the efforts to fill the funding gap left by the CCP’s cancellation and concludes that a publicly-funded program like the CCP is best-placed to ensure that the Charter remains a relevant tool for enforcing fundamental human rights in Canada.

This research is an enquiry to find an electoral formula that conforms to Canadian constitutional values. Three core values that are pertinent to the issue of electoral systems are identified: democracy, diversity, and efficiency. Each of these core values is divided into different aspects. These aspects will form the backbone of the evaluation of different electoral systems in this work. I will begin with an evaluation of the plurality model of elections, which is currently used in Canada. I will demonstrate that many of the attributes of the current system are not in tune with Canadian constitutional values, in particular with the progressive interpretation that the Supreme Court of Canada has given to the right to vote as enshrined in Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the interpretation of the right to vote will be the main thrust of the constitutional scrutiny in this work, attention will also be given to other pertinent rights such as equality rights, minority rights, and the freedom of expression. Next, I will examine provincial electoral reform initiatives that were initiated in five Canadian provinces. All of these initiatives - three of which were put to referenda and eventually defeated - proposed adopting a variant of proportional representation. Accordingly, I will evaluate proportional systems according to the intended values. I will conclude that these systems have problems of their own and they also cannot strike a fine balance between competing values. In the final stage, I will make a new proposal for elections to the Canadian Parliament. First, I will demonstrate that majority systems are better candidates to attain the envisioned values. Then I will introduce a new variant of the majority model, which I call a majority-preferential two-round variant. I will demonstrate that this new variant will outperform the other variants in the attainment of values if adopted for elections to the House of Commons. Finally, I will argue that the combination of a House of Commons elected through the majority-preferential formula and a proportionally elected Senate will result in a more balanced approach to the relevant constitutional values.

The theme running through this dissertation is intended to prove that the Supreme Court has a role to play in the promotion, enforcement and sustenance of a proper democratic system of government, good governance and fundamental human rights and freedoms in Ghana. The Study would therefore address the role of the Supreme Court in the development of Constitutional Law in Ghana, with particular emphasis on the court's contribution to the underlying concepts of the Fourth Republican Constitution of 1992; the guiding principles of constitutional interpretation and the vexed issue of whether the court should adopt a mechanical and literal approach to the interpretation of the Constitution or adopt a liberal, beneficent and purposive approach. The Supreme Court has asserted in the locus classicus decision: Tuffuor v Attorney-General [1980] GLR 637 that the 1979 Constitution as the supreme law, must be construed as a living political document capable of growth. Is there any evidence now to support that claim? The study shall also investigate the question of the power of the Supreme Court to review legislative and executive action. We shall also examine the role of the Supreme Court in the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms in relation to the rights and obligations of the individual and the State with the view to achieving good governance. The 1992 Constitution itself is founded on the premise that there are limitations to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms. What is the extent of such limitations as determined by the Supreme Court? What has been the Supreme Court's contribution to the sustenance of political stability and democratic governance and, especially, in matters relating to coup d'etats and to enforcement of the Constitution itself as distinct from the enforcement of fundamental human rights and freedoms? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce the Constitution and the existing law where there is proven case of injustice and illegality? Has the Supreme Court power to enforce Directive Principles of State Policy as formulated in chapter 6 of the 1992 Ghana Constitution? / Jurisprudence / LL.D.

Plus de soixante ans après sa signature, qui sont les personnes bénéficiaires de la qualité de réfugié au sens de l’article 1A de la Convention de Genève relative au statut de réfugié de 1951? En effet, si cette convention compte parmi les plus ratifiées au monde et n’a jamais été remise en cause, celle-ci fait pourtant l’objet de polémiques croissantes portant sur sa capacité à protéger les personnes contraintes de s’exiler. Elle s’applique par ailleurs dans un contexte politique de suspicion grandissante à l’égard des demandeurs d’asile. On peut donc se demander qui sont aujourdh’ui les personnes qui se voient reconnaître la qualité de réfugié ? A cette fin, l’étude s’appuie sur une analyse comparée des jurisprudences de plusieurs pays occidentaux : Australie – Belgique - Canada - Etats-Unis - France – Grande-Bretagne – Nouvelle-Zélande. Elle s’appuie aussi sur une analyse systémique de l’article 1A et ses interprétations jurisprudentielles à la lumière des évolutions du droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit international humanitaire. Ainsi, l’analyse met en lumière plusieurs points. Plus que les motifs invoqués ou la nature des mauvais traitements craints, c’est sur le caractère individuel ou collectif des persécutions que se dessine une ligne de fracture entre les Etats occidentaux. En effet, ces derniers ont, de manière convergente, fait évoluer leur interprétation de la qualité de réfugié quand les requérants invoquent des persécutions individuelles. C’est ainsi que les individus craignant d’être persecutés en raison de l’expression de leurs opinions politiques ou religieuses dissidentes, ou du libre exercice de leurs droits fondamentaux, quel que soit leur genre ou leur orientation sexuelle, se voient aujourd’hui communément reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Dans le cadre de ces persécutions individuelles, les Etats ont aussi développé de manière convergente une interprétation assouplie des agents de persécution, acceptant ainsi de protéger les personnes fuyant des mauvais traitements perpétrés par des agents étatiques et des personnes privées. En revanche, il existe encore de nombreuses divergences entre les Etats lorsque les individus revendiquent fuir des persécutions collectives. S’appuyant sur la reconnaissance d’une interprétation plus ou moins individualiste de la qualité de réfugié, les personnes craignant d’être persécutées en raison de leur race, de leur nationalité ou de leur appartenance à un groupe religieux ne doivent pas satisfaire aux mêmes exigences pour se voir reconnaître la qualité de réfugié. Et dans le contexte actuel où de plus en plus de personnes fuient des persécutions collectives perpétrées dans un Etat en situation de conflit armé, ces divergences sont d’autant plus importantes. / Sixty years after its signatory, who can be qualify as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugee ? If it is one of the most ratified treaty of the world, it’s relevance have nevertheless recently been questioned and some commentators don’t hesitate to speak of an outdated Convention. Moreover, it applies in a political context of clear suspicion against asylum-seekers. So, we can wonder who can nowadays qualify as a refugee among the million of persons fleeing their home ? To answer to this question, the study focuses on judicial review of many industrialized countries, such as Australia – Belgium – Canada – United States – France – Great-Britain and New Zealand. A systemic interpretation of Article 1A and its judicial interpretation in the light of both international human right law and international humanitarian law also helps to conduce the study. First, the analyse reveals that it is not on the motives of persecution neither the nature of the treatment feared that we can observe similarities or differences between the countries. It is on individual or collective persecutions. When asylum seekers look for international protection based on individual persecutions, States have commonly adopted a dynamic interpretation of article 1A . Persons who have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because they have freely express their dissent political or religious opinion, their sexual orientation, or because they refuse to conform to the roles and identities attributing to their gender, can be recognised as refugees in all the countries of the study. In the context of individual persecutions, States have also commonly developed an evolutive interpretation of the persecution agents. They protect all the persons who risk to be persecuted by state agents or non-state agents. On the contrary, there are many continuing and growing divergences between States when persons flee collective persecutions because of their race, their nationality of their belonging to a religious group. They keep on developing a different interpretation of the individualist definition of the refugee. And while more and more person ask for international protection because they flee collective persecutions during an armed conflict, these divergences are even more important.

The legislative supremacy of Parliament has dominated the constitutional law of South Africa for a very long time. In the pre-constitutional era, the judiciary had no power to question the deeds of Parliament. Despite the need for the judiciary to be independent from the two other governmental branches to execute its function effectively, it was surely dependent on them. However, the creation of the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) as a separate governmental department by the Constitutional Seventeenth Amendment Act, read together with Superior Court Act, mandated by the requirements of a supreme Constitution (and not Parliament), changed things so that the judiciary is no longer dependent on government for its day-to-day administration. This thesis examines the independence of the OCJ and its role in promoting judicial transformation in the new South Africa. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. M. (Human Rights Law)

Reflet du rapport des individus avec le pouvoir public, le droit de la procédure administrative non contentieuse a sensiblement évolué depuis quatre décennies, en France comme en Grèce. Cette évolution, rattachée dans les deux pays à des projets politiques et juridiques de réforme administrative, a pu nourrir la réflexion doctrinale sur l’avènement d’une « démocratie administrative ». Or, l’évolution des règles qui concernent en particulier la procédure d’édiction de décisions individuelles répond toujours à un problème juridique aussi classique que fondamental : celui de la protection des individus vis-à-vis du pouvoir unilatéral de l’administration, dont l’exercice intervient dans la sphère des droits et libertés substantiels. Pour l’exploration de la situation juridique des administrés dans la procédure administrative non contentieuse, la prise en compte de la fonction qu’accomplissent dans cette procédure les droits procéduraux des administrés paraît dès lors nécessaire. La contribution des droits procéduraux, et plus spécialement des droits d’être entendu et à la motivation, à la protection des droits individuels substantiels mis en jeu dans l’opération normatrice de l’administration s’avère être un étalon essentiel pour la détermination de la portée juridique des droits procéduraux en cause. La qualité de ces derniers comme instruments de protection individuelle permet en effet la compréhension cohérente de l’évolution des sources juridiques des droits d’être entendu et à la motivation, de la délimitation du domaine d’application de ces droits et du traitement réservé par les juges français et grec de l’excès de pouvoir aux hypothèses de violation des mêmes droits. / Reflection of the individuals’ relation to state power, law in the field of administrative procedures has significantly evolved during the last four decades in France and in Greece.This evolution, associated in both countries with political and normative projects aspiring to administrative reform, has largely alimented doctrinal debate on the establishment of an“administrative democracy”. However, the evolution of rules governing in particular individual decision making is also a response to a classic and fundamental legal problem, namely the protection of individuals against unilateral administrative intervention in the sphere of their substantive rights and liberties. The legal status of individuals during the elaboration of individual acts deserves therefore to be explored in view of the function accomplished by procedural rights -such as the right to hearing and to reason giving- in administrative procedures of such type. In fact, the contribution of procedural rights in the protection of substantive rights concerned by the individual decision making process turns out to be crucial for the treatment of procedural rights under French and Greek administrative law. More specifically, the quality of procedural rights as instruments of individual protection allows to coherently understand the evolution of their sources and scope as well as various aspects of judicial handling of their eventual violation by administrative bodies.

1 The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the main aspects of the Czech legal regulation of the arbitration proceeding under the view of the particular Western European national and international legal orders. By doing so, the author strives for critical review of the arbitration proceeding as per the Czech legal order under the worldwide perspectives and with the prism of modern Western European and world legal theory of the arbitration proceeding. The intention of such research is to determine if the contemporary Czech legal regulation of the arbitration proceeding is in conformity with the modern theory and practice of the arbitration proceeding. This thesis also aims to answer a question whether the Czech courts shall have the right to review the application of law by the arbitrators. The author is seeking to answer this question by comparing the the Czech, or rather Continental system of law with the law of England and Wales.