Com publicação de O Conceito de Direito, de Herbert Hart, introduziuse na teoria do direito toda uma gama de novos problemas que, a partir da segunda metade do século XX, tornaram-se o centro dos debates da filosofia jurídica, marcadamente para o positivismo jurídico. A questão do método aparece como particularmente especial nesse conjunto de problemas. As teses centrais de O Conceito de Direito dependem diretamente de teses correlatas sobre a possibilidade de uma teoria descritiva do direito que leve em consideração a perspectiva interna dos participantes de um sistema jurídico. A forma como Hart estrutura essa teoria apresenta certa peculiaridade. Diferentemente dos autores da tradição positivista, Hart não se vale de uma concepção de ciência ou métodos científicos para o desenvolvimento da teoria. Não se trata de importar métodos para obter avanços. Pelo contrário, Hart vai defender a ideia de que para se obter uma melhor compreensão teórica do direito precisamos, ao desenvolver a teoria, atender às características do objeto. Significa dizer que, para sabermos o tipo de método que vamos utilizar na teoria do direito, precisamos saber antes exatamente quais características o objeto tem, para então moldarmos um método adequado a estas características. / With the publication of Herbert Hart’s “The Concept of Law”, a whole new range of problems were introduced in legal theory and they became the core of debates in legal philosophy from the second half of the 20th century, especially for legal positivism. The issue of method is relevant within this set of problems. The central theses of “The concept of Law” rely directly on corresponding theses about the possibility of a descriptive legal theory that takes into account the internal perspective of the participants of a legal system. The way Hart structures this theory is unique because, differently from other authors within a positivist tradition, he does not use a concept of science or scientific methods in order to develop the theory. The question is not about importing methods so as to obtain advances. In contrast, Hart advocates that, to obtain a better theoretical comprehension of the law, we need to meet the specifications of the object while developing the theory. In other words, in order to know which type of method will be used in law theory, it is necessary to know in advance the exact features of the object, so as to format a method that is adequate for those characteristics.

Submitted by Ana Guimarães Pereira (agpereir@ucs.br) on 2016-06-22T12:17:20Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Nelson Gularte Ramos Neto.pdf: 1875450 bytes, checksum: aefa85140e6c8f1d72866563bad627c2 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-22T12:17:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Nelson Gularte Ramos Neto.pdf: 1875450 bytes, checksum: aefa85140e6c8f1d72866563bad627c2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-22

Com publicação de O Conceito de Direito, de Herbert Hart, introduziuse na teoria do direito toda uma gama de novos problemas que, a partir da segunda metade do século XX, tornaram-se o centro dos debates da filosofia jurídica, marcadamente para o positivismo jurídico. A questão do método aparece como particularmente especial nesse conjunto de problemas. As teses centrais de O Conceito de Direito dependem diretamente de teses correlatas sobre a possibilidade de uma teoria descritiva do direito que leve em consideração a perspectiva interna dos participantes de um sistema jurídico. A forma como Hart estrutura essa teoria apresenta certa peculiaridade. Diferentemente dos autores da tradição positivista, Hart não se vale de uma concepção de ciência ou métodos científicos para o desenvolvimento da teoria. Não se trata de importar métodos para obter avanços. Pelo contrário, Hart vai defender a ideia de que para se obter uma melhor compreensão teórica do direito precisamos, ao desenvolver a teoria, atender às características do objeto. Significa dizer que, para sabermos o tipo de método que vamos utilizar na teoria do direito, precisamos saber antes exatamente quais características o objeto tem, para então moldarmos um método adequado a estas características. / With the publication of Herbert Hart’s “The Concept of Law”, a whole new range of problems were introduced in legal theory and they became the core of debates in legal philosophy from the second half of the 20th century, especially for legal positivism. The issue of method is relevant within this set of problems. The central theses of “The concept of Law” rely directly on corresponding theses about the possibility of a descriptive legal theory that takes into account the internal perspective of the participants of a legal system. The way Hart structures this theory is unique because, differently from other authors within a positivist tradition, he does not use a concept of science or scientific methods in order to develop the theory. The question is not about importing methods so as to obtain advances. In contrast, Hart advocates that, to obtain a better theoretical comprehension of the law, we need to meet the specifications of the object while developing the theory. In other words, in order to know which type of method will be used in law theory, it is necessary to know in advance the exact features of the object, so as to format a method that is adequate for those characteristics.

A relação entre razão e direito faz parte da tradição do pensamento ocidental. No período moderno, essa relação serviu de base para o surgimento de uma cultura jurídica autônoma, dentro da qual foram elaboradas as idéias de sujeito de direito e sistema jurídico. No entanto, a modernidade também criou condições para o nascimento das chamadas teorias jurídicas, que se constituem como uma nova forma de discurso jurídico, distinta das teorias filosóficas e das dogmáticas jurídicas, por não manifestarem o modelo de racionalidade tradicional, associado à concepção de lei natural. Para compreender a racionalidade nesse novo âmbito do discurso dos juristas, é proposto, nesta tese de doutoramento, um caminho peculiar: por um lado, tomam-se por objeto teorias jurídicas que se tornaram referência no contexto anglo-saxônico, ou seja, fora dos marcos habituais da racionalização na Europa continental moderna; por outro lado, são considerados como fio condutor para esta investigação os enfoques interpretativos construídos como legítimos por essas teorias, em vez de configurar sua racionalidade a partir de divisões escolares ou matrizes epistemológicas. Essa delimitação permite revelar três modelos novos e distintos de racionalidade jurídica, que resultam do desenvolvimento de diferentes concepções de pontos de vista no contexto do debate entre as teorias jurídicas de John Austin, Oliver W. Holmes Jr., Hans Kelsen, Herbert L. A. Hart, Robert Alexy e Ronald Dworkin. Esses três modelos, por sua vez, contribuem para ressaltar os limites heurísticos da contraposição positivismo vs. antipositivismo para tratar da racionalidade no direito contemporâneo. / The relation between reason and law is part of the Western thought tradition. In the modern period, this relation served as basis for the emergence of an autonomous legal culture, within which the ideas of \"subjects of law\" and \"legal system\" were elaborated. However, modernity has also created conditions for the birth of the so-called legal theories, which were constituted as a new form of legal discourse (distinct from the legal dogmatics and philosophical theories of law), for they do not present the traditional model of rationality associated with the conception of natural law. A peculiar method is proposed in this doctoral thesis, in order to understand the rationality in this new sphere of legal discourse: on the one hand, legal theories which have become reference within the Anglo-Saxon world i.e., theories outside the usual landmarks of rationalization in modern continental Europe are taken as object; on the other hand, the interpretive approaches (focuses) formulated as legitimate by these theories are considered as expressions of rationality, instead of rationality as originated from divisions by schools of thought or epistemological matrices. By means of this method, three new distinct models of legal reasoning are revealed. These models are the outcome of different concepts of \"point of view\" which were defended throughout the dialogue which took place between the theories of John Austin, Oliver W. Holmes Jr., Hans Kelsen, Herbert L. A. Hart, Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy. These three models, in turn, contribute to highlighting the heuristic limits of the opposition legal positivism vs. non-positivism in the debate over rationality in contemporary law.

Com publicação de O Conceito de Direito, de Herbert Hart, introduziuse na teoria do direito toda uma gama de novos problemas que, a partir da segunda metade do século XX, tornaram-se o centro dos debates da filosofia jurídica, marcadamente para o positivismo jurídico. A questão do método aparece como particularmente especial nesse conjunto de problemas. As teses centrais de O Conceito de Direito dependem diretamente de teses correlatas sobre a possibilidade de uma teoria descritiva do direito que leve em consideração a perspectiva interna dos participantes de um sistema jurídico. A forma como Hart estrutura essa teoria apresenta certa peculiaridade. Diferentemente dos autores da tradição positivista, Hart não se vale de uma concepção de ciência ou métodos científicos para o desenvolvimento da teoria. Não se trata de importar métodos para obter avanços. Pelo contrário, Hart vai defender a ideia de que para se obter uma melhor compreensão teórica do direito precisamos, ao desenvolver a teoria, atender às características do objeto. Significa dizer que, para sabermos o tipo de método que vamos utilizar na teoria do direito, precisamos saber antes exatamente quais características o objeto tem, para então moldarmos um método adequado a estas características. / With the publication of Herbert Hart’s “The Concept of Law”, a whole new range of problems were introduced in legal theory and they became the core of debates in legal philosophy from the second half of the 20th century, especially for legal positivism. The issue of method is relevant within this set of problems. The central theses of “The concept of Law” rely directly on corresponding theses about the possibility of a descriptive legal theory that takes into account the internal perspective of the participants of a legal system. The way Hart structures this theory is unique because, differently from other authors within a positivist tradition, he does not use a concept of science or scientific methods in order to develop the theory. The question is not about importing methods so as to obtain advances. In contrast, Hart advocates that, to obtain a better theoretical comprehension of the law, we need to meet the specifications of the object while developing the theory. In other words, in order to know which type of method will be used in law theory, it is necessary to know in advance the exact features of the object, so as to format a method that is adequate for those characteristics.

A discussão acerca da judicialização de políticas públicas ganhou um espaço cada vez maior no cenário jurídico nacional. À medida que as demandas judiciais se multiplicam, vai se firmando um entendimento que se identifica como doutrina brasileira do controle judicial de políticas públicas. Os autores que formam esse posicionamento majoritário concordam com a legitimidade do Judiciário para exercer a referida função de controle e apresentam os fundamentos que devem embasar a decisão judicial nos casos concretos. Para esses casos difíceis, a doutrina brasileira propõe uma decisão com base no princípio da proporcionalidade na forma pela qual foi idealizado por Robert Alexy, tendo em vista que as controvérsias devem ser resolvidas pela ponderação de princípios. Incentiva-se, com apoio na teoria neoconstitucionalista, o protagonismo do juiz na tarefa de controle. As políticas públicas ambientais, quando judicializadas, encontram decisões bastante diversificadas, muitas delas antagônicas, resultantes da aplicação do princípio da proporcionalidade ou de raciocínios silogísticos como a subsunção. A análise das decisões permite verificar uma inconsistência na sua fundamentação. Por sua vez, o estudo mais acurado das propostas da doutrina brasileira do controle judicial de políticas públicas demonstra a maneira pela qual a teoria é dependente da discricionariedade judicial, a mais marcante característica do positivismo jurídico. O mesmo problema está presente na teoria de Robert Alexy. Pretende-se comprovar que os vícios de justificação encontrados nos precedentes jurisprudenciais são resultados de problemas paradigmáticos, tal qual o poder discricionário do juiz para o positivismo normativista, bem como o método e a filosofia da consciência para a metafísica moderna. A teoria da decisão judicial necessita de uma ruptura paradigmática tanto no campo do Direito como no da filosofia, de modo que possa absorver a invasão da filosofia pela linguagem operada pelo giro ontológico-linguístico e a busca pela legitimidade que é marca do paradigma pós-positivista, diante das inegáveis vinculações existentes entre a filosofia e o Direito. A fim de construir uma teoria da decisão adequada a esses propósitos, busca-se no Direito como conceito interpretativo de Ronald Dworkin, à luz das contribuições proporcionadas pela hermenêutica filosófica e a crítica hermenêutica do Direito, a possibilidade de edificar uma decisão antidiscricionária. O controle judicial de políticas públicas ambientais deve ser pautado pela existência de um argumento de princípio, além de uma justificação decisória que consagre a integridade e coerência na aplicação do Direito. / The discussion about public policies judicialization won an increasingly larger space in the national legal setting. As the lawsuits multiply, there is an agreement that is identified as Brazilian doctrine of judicial review of public policies. Authors who make up this majority position agree with the legitimacy of the judiciary to exercise this control function and feature the arguments that must base the court decision in a particular case. For those hard cases, the Brazilian doctrine proposes a decision based on the principle of proportionality in the way it was designed by Robert Alexy, given that disputes should be resolved by weighting principles. Is encouraged, supported in new constitutionalism theory, the role of the judge in the control task. Environmental policies, when judicialized, are quite diverse decisions, many of them antagonistic, resulting from the application of the principle of proportionality or syllogistic reasoning as subsumption. The analysis of decisions allows you to check an inconsistency in its reasoning. In turn, the closer study of the proposals of the Brazilian doctrine of the judicial review of public policies demonstrates the way in which the theory is dependent on judicial discretion, the most striking feature of normative positivism. The same problem is present in the theory of Robert Alexy. It is intended to prove the vices of justification found in the precedents are the result of paradigmatic problems, like the discretionary power of the judge to the normative positivism, as well as the method and philosophy of consciousness for modern metaphysics. The theory of judicial decision requires a paradigmatic rupture both in the field of law and in philosophy, so that it can absorb the invasion of philosophy by language operated by the ontological-linguistic turn and the search for legitimacy that marks the post-positivist paradigm in the face of undeniable existing links between philosophy and law. In order to construct a theory of proper decision for these purposes, looking at the Law as an interpretative concept like Ronald Dworkin, in the light of the contributions provided by the philosophical hermeneutics and the hermeneutical criticism of the law, the possibility of building a non-discretionary decision. The judicial review of environmental policies must be guided by the existence of an argument of principle, as well as a decision-making justification to devote integrity and consistency in the application of law.

Le travail ici présenté offre une approche originelle des notions juridiques développées par Hans Kelsen dans ses efforts vers l'élaboration d'une théorie "pure" du droit. Cette étude est basée sur une analyse philosophique des principaux concepts juridiques qui ont, à leur tour, des caractéristiques philosophiques pertinentes, principalement les notions qui sont apparemment "partagées" entre les domaines juridique et philosophique, sans pour autant garder les mêmes significations sémantiques. La notion la plus pertinente à avoir ces caractéristiques est peut-être celle de "validité", étant donné qu'il s'agit d'une notion présente tant dans le domaine de la logique quant dans le domaine juridique; Dans ce sens, nous prétendons approcher aussi les notions de fiction normative, de science du droit, de conflits entre normes (qui sont aussi erronément appelés "contradictions entre normes"), et la règle d'inférence comme elle est appliquée dans le contexte de la création normative, donnant lieu à des notions trompeuses comme celle de raisonnement pratique. La notion de raisonnement pratique est d'ailleurs très riche concernant ce contexte de comparaison, et elle sera particulièrement traitée en fonction des autres notions problématiques qu'elle génère dans le champ normatif, telles que le Dilemme de Jørgensen; Cette notion, étant employée dans différents cas problématiques du droit, nous offre une opportunité de présenter une approche alternative pour le traitement logique du processus de justification dans la création d'une norme. Nous avons pour objectif aussi d'analyser les notions de condition logique et juridique, qui représentent un changement dans la perspective de Kelsen concernant l'utilité et la légitimité de l'application de la logique dans le champ normatif du droit. Une telle étude comparative, même si elle semble être fondamentale pour éclaircir les notions en question dans ces domaines respectifs, reste une tâche jamais réalisée dans une telle manière systématique. L'objectif de cette étude est de fournit un panorama clair concernant les limites entre les champs de la philosophie (spécialement la logique) et les normes juridiques. La compréhension des relations entre les notions "homonymes" doit aussi expliquer pourquoi elles sont utilisées de forme erronée aussi fréquemment quand les philosophes discutent du droit, mais aussi quand les juristes cherchent des justifications pour les concepts dans leurs théories. Ainsi, le contexte de cette étude est le positivisme juridique tel qu'il est présenté par le philosophe du droit Hans Kelsen. Notre choix est justifié par le fait que lathéorie de Kelsen s'avère l plus conforme à notre approche philosophique d'orientation logique et analytique. L’œuvre qui servira de base à notre investigation est la "Théorie Générale des Normes" (1979), surtout dû au fait de représenter l'intensité des efforts de son auteur pour traiter les problèmes juridiques liés à des aspect philosophiques ou logiques. Cela est particulièrement remarquable dans le cas de la possibilité d'application de la logique aux normes, mais aussi concernant les notions problématiques comme celle de norme fondamentale comme fiction ou encore la notion de substrat indifférent au mode. / The present work offers an original approach on the legal notions developed by Hans Kelsen in his attempts towards a “pure” theory of Law, based on a philosophical analysis of the main legal concepts that have a strong philosophical feature, namely those notions which are somehow “shared” between the two fields in their name, but not always in their meaning. While the most striking notion to be approached via a philosophical perspective would probably be that of legal validity (since validity is a central term also in Logic), we aim, in the same way, to approach the notions of legal fictions, the notion of science in Law, normative conflicts or “contradictions” as they are commonly – and wrongly – named, and the rule of inference as it is applied in the context of normative creation, giving place to the wrong notion of practical reasoning. The notion of practical reasoning is very rich in this context of comparison, and will be a special one, as it serves for us to analyze traditional problems of legal theory, such as Jørgensen’s dilemma, as well as it offers us the opportunity of providing our own alternative of a logical treatment of the process of legal justification of the creation of a norm. We aim to analyze the notion of legal and logical conditions as well, which represent a changing in Kelsen’s perspective on the utility and legitimacy of the application of logic to the legal domain. Such a comparative study, even if it appears to be fundamental for clarifying those notions in their respective fields, is a task never before developed in this systematic manner. The objective of such a study is to provide a clear overview of the boundaries between the fields of philosophy (especially logic) and the legal norms. A clear understanding of the relations between those “homonym” notions may explain why they are most of the time misused when philosophers talk about law, as well as when lawyers try to justify the concepts composing the legal theory.The context of this study is the legal positivism as it is explained by the legal-philosopher Hans Kelsen. This choice is justified by the fact that Kelsen’s legal theory appears to be the most suitable frame for an analytical, logic-oriented investigation. The work emphasized will be the General Theory of Norms (1979), mainly because of the fact that this book represents how intensively Kelsen dedicated himself to the legal problems mostly related to philosophy or logic, namely the question of the application of logic to norms and the clarification of problematic notions such as the basic norm as a fiction or, still, the notion of modally indifferent substrate.

No description available.

<p>This dissertation explores the way in which different conceptions of human agency have helped to shape the course of jurisprudential thought. The overarching aim is to bring to the surface the deeper commitments of Hartian positivism in its various engagements with rival accounts of the nature of law. In particular, I argue that although contemporary positivists take their account of law to be metaphysically noncommittal, views of what it is to be a human agent continue to motivate, if implicitly, their positions on such enduring jurisprudential questions as the nature and source of law’s normativity, the relationship between law and morality, and so on. In order to better understand these debates, we must therefore understand better the relationship between a theory of law and the conception of human nature that drives it.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

This article considers the nature of interpretation as important question in constitutional interpretation from a theonomic epistemological perspective. Theonomic epistemology is summarily described. The modem language philosophy's view of the nature of interpretation is then investigated, after which a theonomic definition of interpretation and hermeneutics is suggested. Different approaches to interpretation commonly found in legal practice are evaluated on the basis of the suggested definition. The theonomic approach is then applied to another issue in constitutional interpretation, the nature of the judicial function, and broad guidelines are given for the practical application of theonomic epistemological considerations. / Hierdie artikel ondersoek die wese van interpretasie as belangrike vraagstuk by grondwetuitleg vanuit die perspektief van die teonome epistemologie. Die teonome epistemologie word oorsigtelik beskryf. Die modeme taalfilosofie se beskouing van interpretasie word dan behandel, waama 'n teonome definisie van interpretasie en hermeneutiek voorgestel word. Die verskillende uitlegbenaderings wat algemeen in die praktyk voorkom, word aan die hand van die voorgestelde definisie geevalueer. Vervolgens word die teonome benadering op 'n ander vraagstuk van grondwetuitleg - die aard van die regterlike funksie - toegepas, en word bree riglyne vir toepassing van teonome epistemologiese oorwegings in die praktyk van regspraak gegee. / Department of Constitutional International & Indigenous Law / LL.M.