No description available.

Pas de résumé / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Sverige har sju stycken tingsrätter har blivit utsedda till att behandla sjörättsmål. Sjörättsmål innebär antingen tvister eller brottmål med anknytning till sjöfarten på svenskt territorium. Syftet var att kartlägga och redogöra avgjorda brottmål och tvistemål hos sjörättsdomstolarna över tid. Studiens frågeställningar fokuserade på typer av mål, skillnader mellan domstolar och förändring över tid. Studien fördjupade sig i domar rörande handelssjöfarten. Som metod valdes litteraturstudie och vid uppföljande frågor gjordes intervjuer med myndigheter och sakkunniga. Litteraturen i denna studie var de 153 domarna som meddelades mellan 2009 och 2013. Av alla domarna var det fem tvistemål och 148 brottmålsdomar, om 13 olika rubriceringar. Den största skillnaden mellan domstolarna var antalet avgjorda mål och någon förändring över tid kunde inte påträffas.   Andra slutsatser var att fartygs befälhavare, som har det yttersta ansvaret, undvek åtal om denne inte varit närvarande vid åtalshändelsen. Ett mörkertal råder angående sjöfylleri bland yrkessjömän ute till havs. / In Sweden seven courts has been appointed to specialize in admiralty law cases. These cases are either civil or criminal cases with connection to shipping on Swedish territory. The objective was to examine and describe the admiralty law verdicts over time with focus on what types of cases, differences between courts and variation over time. The study focused on merchant shipping. Study of literature was chosen as method and with follow-up questions interviews were made with agencies and experts. The literature in this study was the 153 verdicts that were announced between 2009 and 2013. Of all verdicts collected were five civil cases and 148 criminal cases with 13 classifications. The largest difference between the courts was the sum of verdicts. A change over time could not be observed. Other conclusions that were made were that ships’ masters, that have the utmost responsibility, avoided prosecution when they were not present for the event of the prosecution.

The crime of cultural genocide refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction or erasure of the cultural heritage, traditions, practices, and institutions of a group. It involves actions or policies aimed at undermining, suppressing, or eradicating the unique elements that define a culture, such as its language, customs, beliefs and way of life. In China, the Uyghurs minority in Xingang have been subjected to oppression due to their differences from the majority Han Chinese. Many academics have classified thistreatment of the Uyghurs as cultural genocide. The term "cultural genocide" has been discussed for years about its historical implication. In the current international legal framework, the concept of cultural genocide lacks any binding legal authority as genocide is primarily associated with physical and biological destruction. Consequently, this has led to inconsistency regarding the role of international law in addressing cultural genocide. Thus, this thesis will assess and examine the legal position of cultural genocide within international law. The examination of the legal components will be conducted through anormative legal analysis. The second objective will investigate the power structures thatshaped the recognition and prevention of cultural genocide within the international legal framework Alongside, a poststructuralism theory will be implemented to identify thesignificant emphasis on the authority of entities to decide what we count as valid knowledge and that this power is achieved through the manipulation of discourse.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-10-10T10:10:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 André Muszkat.pdf: 896297 bytes, checksum: 501fce18390d18606874e91df80c378f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-10-10T10:10:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 André Muszkat.pdf: 896297 bytes, checksum: 501fce18390d18606874e91df80c378f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-09-04 / This work aims to analyze the methods of case law standardization existing in the Brazilian Civil Procedure Law, by putting into context the law, its evolution and comparing the common law and the civil law systems. It is notorious that the search for expeditious solutions before the Judiciary Branch, as well as greater legal certainty to judicial demands – particularly those dealing with the same object –, is continuous and was broadly discussed since the effectiveness of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015. In order to do so, we will trace an evolutionary overview of the standardization case law methods as from the first Brazilian encodings, detailing the current methods established in the Civil Procedure Code. Besides, we will conceptualize case law and the evolution of its use until current days, under the guiding principles of Civil Procedure. We will also delineate a parallel between the civil law (Brazilian) and common law systematics, highlighting common and differentiation aspects as to the use of case law standardization in each of the systematics. We will pursue, moreover, to dwell on the apparent conflict between the standardization of the case law and the legal certainty it represents and the judge’s discretion / Este trabalho visa analisar as formas de uniformização de jurisprudência existentes no Direito Processual Civil Brasileiro, por meio da contextualização da legislação, sua evolução e da comparação dos sistemas da common law e da civil law. É notório que a busca por soluções mais céleres perante o Poder Judiciário, bem como maior segurança jurídica nas demandas – especialmente as que tratam do mesmo objeto –, é uma constante e foi amplamente discutida quando do início da vigência do Código de Processo Civil de 2015. Para essa finalidade, traçaremos um panorama da evolução dos métodos de uniformização da jurisprudência desde as primeiras codificações brasileiras, discorrendo sobre as formas atuais de uniformização previstas no Código de Processo Civil. Além disso, conceituaremos jurisprudência e a evolução de sua utilização até os dias atuais, sob a ótica dos princípios norteadores do Processo Civil. Delinearemos, também, um paralelo entre as sistemáticas da civil law (brasileira) e da common law, destacando os aspectos comuns e os aspectos de diferenciação quanto ao uso da jurisprudência em cada um dos sistemas. Buscaremos, ainda, refletir sobre o aparente conflito existente entre a uniformização da jurisprudência e a segurança jurídica que ela representa e a discricionariedade do juiz

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2018-04-23T12:33:19Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Felipe Augusto de Toledo Moreira.pdf: 1977877 bytes, checksum: 38f5dbba5cdd105c74554fa4654d4752 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-23T12:33:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Felipe Augusto de Toledo Moreira.pdf: 1977877 bytes, checksum: 38f5dbba5cdd105c74554fa4654d4752 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-13 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / This is a research paper in the field of Civil Procedural Law focused on the investigation of the theoretical foundations of legal opinions on judicial precedents within the scope of the common law system, as well as on the challenges and prospects faced by law professionals in the Brazilian legal system when interpreting and applying (or attempting to apply) said legal opinions based of the precedents characteristic of civil law systems. On one hand, practical objectives are sought in both legal systems, namely: legal certainty, uniformity and stability of judicial decisions, respect for the effective equality of persons under the jurisdiction of the courts and for predictability against judicial discretion. On the other hand, based on distinct legal traditions and social, political and cultural environments, one demonstrates the necessary theoretical work that is necessary to produce assumptions for the development of a true and effective Brazilian theory of binding judicial decisions, avoiding the artificial nature of the mere, detached and reckless, importation of concepts that are of no use to present society. The precedents characteristic of the civil law system, above all the precedents of Brazilian courts, whether binding or not, aim to transform the ratio decidendi into general precedents that will serve as models for future decisions. However, the slightest flaw in this process of abstraction (questioning, form the outset, whether it can be deemed useful to the present system) can give rise to disastrous consequences to the decision-making system as a whole, falsely legitimizing subverted judicial relief. A clear example of this is the mistaken interpretation and application of precedent nos. 84 and 308 of the Precedent of the Superior Court of Justice which, detached from the cases that substantiated them, bind judicial decisions in a manner that is entirely distorted, surprising the persons subject to the jurisdiction of the court and violating the principles of legality, equality and certainty, which are so dear to our legal system. The earnest study of the forms of control and of the limitations of these binding effects, having the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure as a legal framework and endeavouring to establish criteria for the proper representation of the ratio decidendi by means of general precedents (should this prove to be truly possible and beneficial to our legal system), is a necessary measure so as to shed light on the development of the formulation of a Brazilian theory of binding judicial decisions / Trata-se de pesquisa no campo do Direito Processual Civil voltada à investigação das bases teóricas da doutrina do precedente judicial no âmbito do sistema do common law, bem como dos desafios e das perspectivas que se colocam frente ao operador do sistema jurídico brasileiro ao interpretar e (tentar) aplicar essa doutrina a partir das fórmulas enunciativas típicas do sistema do civil law. De um lado, em ambos os sistemas jurídicos, buscam-se os mesmos objetivos práticos, quais sejam: segurança jurídica, uniformidade e estabilidade das decisões judiciais, prestígio da igualdade substancial entre os jurisdicionados e previsibilidade contra o arbítrio judicial. De outro, parte-se de tradições jurídicas e de ambientes sócio-político-culturais muito distintos entre si, a evidenciar o necessário trabalho teórico no sentido de se produzir premissas para a construção de uma verdadeira e efetiva teoria brasileira dos pronunciamentos judiciais vinculantes, evitando-se a artificialidade própria da mera importação desinteressada e irresponsável de conceitos nada úteis para a nossa sociedade atual. As fórmulas enunciativas típicas do sistema do civil law, sobretudo os enunciados das súmulas dos tribunais brasileiros, sejam eles vinculantes ou não, pretendem transformar a ratio decidendi em enunciados genéricos que servirão de modelo para as futuras decisões. Entretanto, a mínima falha nesse processo de abstrativização (questionando-se, desde já, se ele em si pode ser considerado útil para o atual sistema) pode gerar consequências nefastas ao sistema decisório como um todo, pseudolegitimando tutelas jurisdicionais subvertidas. Exemplo claro disso é a interpretação e a aplicação equivocada dos enunciados nº 84 e 308 da Súmula do Superior Tribunal de Justiça que, destacados dos casos concretos que lhes embasaram, vinculam decisões judiciais de forma totalmente desvirtuada, surpreendendo o jurisdicionado e ferindo os princípios da legalidade, isonomia e segurança, tão caros ao nosso sistema jurídico. Estudar seriamente as formas de controle e os limites dessas vinculações, tendo o Código de Processo Civil de 2015 como novo marco normativo e tentando estabelecer critérios para a boa representação da ratio decidendi por meio de enunciados genéricos (se é que isso é realmente possível e interessante para o nosso sistema), é medida que se impõe a fim de lançar luzes sobre o incremento da formulação de uma teoria brasileira dos pronunciamentos judiciais vinculantes

In the case of LaGrand (Germany v United States), the International Court of Justice held that the United States (US) had violated its international obligation to Germany under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations when it executed two German nationals without first informing them of their consular rights. The case came before the court after the United States had disregarded a preliminary ruling passed by the IC], which directed the US not to execute the German nationals pending the outcome of the ICJ case. The decision raised the issue of the effect of ICJ decisions in domestic proceedings and the effectiveness of ICJ enforcement mechanisms. This thesis considers the possibility of a role for national courts as active enforcers of ICJ decisions. It is argued that whilst evidence shows that there is no legal obligation on courts to enforce ICJ decisions, there is certainly room in international law to facilitate this development. In support of this argument, the thesis demonstrates how basic presuppositions about international law have shifted over the last few decades. This shift has been both the impetus and the result of globalisation. The case of LaGrand alongside similar cases is used to show how national courts may play an increased role in the enforcement of ICJ decisions.

Esta dissertação apresenta uma análise da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal consubstanciada na súmula vinculante n. 4 sob uma perspectiva jurídico-econômica das relações de trabalho. A súmula vinculante n. 4 do Supremo Tribunal Federal declarou que, salvo casos previstos na Constituição, o salário mínimo não pode ser usado como indexador de base de cálculo de vantagem de servidor público ou de empregado, nem ser substituído por decisão judicial. Sob tal perspectiva, foi proibida a utilização do salário mínimo como base de cálculo do adicional de insalubridade, em confronto com a legislação trabalhista e com a jurisprudência até então sedimentada. Este estudo pretende refazer o processo de construção da jurisprudência constitucional vinculante em matéria trabalhista trazendo para o centro da discussão jurídica elementos de conjuntura econômica. Para tanto, fez-se a evolução do custo real do valor do salário mínimo brasileiro, a fim de possibilitar a identificação da sua influência nas decisões de investimento num cenário econômico neoliberal e globalizado. A partir deste dado, buscou-se apreender em que grau a jurisprudência tem sido utilizada como instrumento de segurança às relações econômicas e a eventual consequência frente à necessidade de garantir-se a melhoria da condição social dos trabalhadores

Telle qu’elle est conçue à l’origine par les jurisconsultes romains, la distinction entre fait etdroit a une fonction méthodologique. Elle oppose, pour l’essentiel, deux types d’enquêtes dont peutdépendre la résolution d’un conflit en justice. L’une a une portée générale, la quaestio iuris ; l’autrene regarde que la seule espèce en cause, la quaestio facti. Les juristes apprécient, suivant chaquesituation envisagée, celle des deux approches qui résoudra le litige de la manière la plusconvaincante.Leurs réflexions sont conditionnées, à cet égard, par les difficultés que suscite l’interpretatiofacti. Le risque de dissoudre l’expression du ius dans l’extraordinaire disparité des faits inciteparfois à privilégier des raisonnements de portée générale. La démarche se caractérise alors par soncaractère artificiel : le fait envisagé est, dans cette hypothèse, le fruit d’une construction. Par uneffort de définition, chaque circonstance est réduite en une notion générique, avant d’êtreconfrontée à la règle de droit. La qualification est alors proprement juridique : elle permet derésoudre le conflit dans le cadre d’une quaestio iuris.Cependant, certaines situations concrètes, par leur singularité, rendent de tels raisonnementsinadaptés. Aussi une autre approche est-elle parfois privilégiée. Elle suppose d’étendre les pouvoirsde l’interprète, en lui permettant d’apprécier chaque circonstance en cause dans le cadre d’unexamen d’espèce. La qualification procède alors d’une quaestio facti. Cette démarche caractérise laprotection prétorienne de la possession ; elle inspire surtout, en substance, la concession des actionsin factum. / As originally conceived by Roman jurists, the distinction between fact and law has amethodological purpose. It confronts, essentially, two types of inquiries used to resolve a dispute incourt. One is general in scope, the quaestio iuris ; the other pertains only to a single case, thequaestio facti. According to each situation, jurists assess the approach that will resolve the disputein the most convincing way.Their thoughts are conditioned, in this respect, by the complexity of interpretatio facti. Therisk of dissolving the ius in the extraordinary disparity of facts may at times lead to a reasoning thatis general in scope. The approach is then artificial : the fact is considered, in this case, as a result ofa construction. A definition allows each circumstance to be reduced to a generic concept, beforebeing confronted to the legal rule. In this case, the evaluation is precisely legal : it resolves theconflict in the frame of a quaestio iuris.However, such appreciation may be inadequate for certain singular situations. Thereforeanother approach is sometimes favored. It involves extending the powers of the interpreter in orderto assess a circumstance through the examination of each concrete case. The evaluation is thencarried out within the quaestio facti framework. This characterizes the Praetorian protection ofpossession, and inspires above all, in essence, the concession of actiones in factum.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-01T18:18:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 dissertacao_saulo_medeiros.pdf: 8392995 bytes, checksum: 7ebb27c6fb8c324a022b70e074f30cc3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-10-26 / This dissertation presents an analysis of the jurisprudence of the Brazilian s Supreme Court inserted in the binding precedent number four as a legal and economic perspective of the labor relations. That binding precedent declared that, except in cases provided for in the Constitution, the minimum salary couldn't be used as the index base for calculating benefit of a public servant or employee, or be replaced by judicial decision. From this perspective, is forbidden to use the minimum salary as a basis for calculating the additional by unhealthy labor against the labor law and the labor jurisprudence hitherto existing. This study aims to remake the building process of constitutional jurisprudence binding about labor questions and brought to the center of legal debate elements of the economic situation. For this purpose, it was made the historical evolution of the minimum salary in Brazil for the employers to enable to identify its influence on investment decisions in a neoliberal and globalized economic environment. With the result obtained this study pretend to verify how much the jurisprudence can be utilized as collateral instrument in the businesses and find out the negative effects over the social rights of the workmen / Esta dissertação apresenta uma análise da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal consubstanciada na súmula vinculante n.º 4 sob uma perspectiva jurídico-econômica das relações de trabalho. A súmula vinculante n.º 4 do Supremo Tribunal Federal declarou que, salvo casos previstos na Constituição, o salário mínimo não pode ser usado como indexador de base de cálculo de vantagem de servidor público ou de empregado, nem ser substituído por decisão judicial. Sob tal perspectiva, foi proibida a utilização do salário mínimo como base de cálculo do adicional de insalubridade, em confronto com a legislação trabalhista e com a jurisprudência até então sedimentada. Este estudo pretende refazer o processo de construção da jurisprudência constitucional vinculante em matéria trabalhista trazendo para o centro da discussão jurídica elementos de conjuntura econômica. Para tanto, fez-se a evolução do custo real do valor do salário mínimo brasileiro, a fim de possibilitar a identificação da sua influência nas decisões de investimento num cenário econômico neoliberal e globalizado. A partir deste dado, buscou-se apreender em que grau a jurisprudência tem sido utilizada como instrumento de segurança às relações econômicas e a eventual consequência frente à necessidade de garantir-se a melhoria da condição social dos trabalhadores