- About
-
The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers
to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is
provided by the
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
Search results
Showing 1 to 3 of 3 (0.063 seconds)| 1 |
Ativismo judicial: uma análise fenomenológica da historicidade da interpretação do texto jurídicoServa Neto, Raul Diegues 18 August 2017 (has links)
Submitted by Biblioteca Central (biblioteca@unicap.br) on 2018-01-08T17:39:02Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
Raul_Diegues_Serva_Neto.pdf: 1093625 bytes, checksum: 60b2dba33a3e0f4aaa9b2d6c194c5957 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-01-08T17:39:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
Raul_Diegues_Serva_Neto.pdf: 1093625 bytes, checksum: 60b2dba33a3e0f4aaa9b2d6c194c5957 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2017-08-18 / The purpose of this study was to identify, throughout the historicity of the interpretative practices, evaluation criteria for a legal decision analysis, using ADPF 187 (marijuana gait) as the application criterion for the elaborated construction. The starting question was: what makes it possible to make relevant statements about the Law? It was observed as the dissertation hypothesis, if the judicial decision presents transgressions of validity allowing for an interpretative discretion, then it may reveal a greater propensity to be an activist. In order to answer the initial question, the study was based on the following methodology: from the contribution of the hermeneutical turn in the approach to the analysis of the ADPF 187 decision, which makes it an activist legal decision; from the Heideggerian phenomenological method, by developing a three-step approach: (1) the phenomenological reduction, which promotes the shift from the perspective of the being towards the being; 2) the deconstruction of traditional concepts, which promotes masks in phenomena; 3) and construction, which shows itself as an appropriation of what has been forgotten, in which the access to the being is sequenced and the definition of its modes of being from the being. After the development of the methodology, the development of the Dworkin aesthetic hypothesis was elaborated from the Schools of Legal Hermeneutics, in which, throughout the historicity of this discussion, the first criterion resided in the will of the legislator, although this is a body disempowered; the will of the law is also not enough, because the law has no will, and it can be attributed to it; the legally protected interest can be considered a criterion of validity, which depends more on the conflicting reading of Law than on Law itself; normativism assigns either a policy decision or a recognition rule the interpretation validity, which, in a way, seeks outside the Law a criterion of validity for interpretations, or because it resides within a metaphysically conceived frame based on a hypothetical norm, or based on the recognition of all; finally, the dependence on the recognition of a legal proposal by the courts was added. None of these validity criteria is conceived from the Law itself, they generally attribute the validity of interpretations to facts. Next, the view is taken that the contributions on the Law validity unfold in the debate on the interpretative positions of the constitutional courts. Such an appeal is made for the purpose of avoiding moral or political correctness of the law. It discusses the multiple concepts of judicial activism, considering it as a contested and highly controversial concept, and then analyzes the assumptions of such concepts. Therefore, a study of the validity of the reading assumptions that support the comprehension of the validity of the reading of freedom of expression in its instrumental or constitutive bias was sought, based on the study of ADPF 187 (marijuana march) decision. This theoretical research constituted a critique of uncritical legal interpretation. He presented as a means of showing the forgetfulness of being-thus, the means of knowing the foundation and meaning of this being-thus. / Este trabalho teve como objetivo identificar, ao longo da historicidade das práticas interpretativas, critérios de avaliação para análise de uma decisão jurídica, utilizando como critério de aplicação da construção elaborada a ADPF 187 (marcha da maconha). A pergunta de partida foi: o que torna possível realizar afirmações relevantes sobre o Direito? Observou-se como hipótese da dissertação, se a decisão judicial apresenta transgressões de validade possibilitadoras de uma discricionariedade interpretativa, então ela pode revelar uma maior propensão de ser ativista. Para responder a pergunta de partida, o estudo valeu-se da seguinte metodologia: a partir do contributo do giro hermenêutico na abordagem da análise da decisão da ADPF 187, o que faz ser uma decisão jurídica ativista; a partir do método fenomenológico Heideggeriano, desenvolvendo-se uma abordagem em três passos, sendo: 1) a redução fenomenológica, que promove o deslocamento da perspectiva do ente em direção ao ser; 2) a desconstrução dos conceitos tradicionais, que promove encobrimentos nos fenômenos; 3) e a construção, que se mostra como uma apropriação do que ficou esquecido, em que se sequencia o acesso ao ser e a definição dos seus modos de ser a partir do ente. Após o desenvolvimento da metodologia, elaborou-se, a partir das Escolas de Hermenêutica Jurídica, o desenvolvimento da hipótese estética de Dworkin, na qual, ao longo da historicidade desta discussão, o primeiro critério residiu na vontade do legislador, embora seja este um ente despersonificado; a vontade da lei também não é suficiente, pois a lei não tem vontade, podendo-se atribuir vontades a ela; o interesse juridicamente protegido pode ser considerado um critério de validade, que mais depende da leitura conflitiva do Direito do que propriamente no Direito; o normativismo atribui ora a uma decisão de política ou a uma regra de reconhecimento a validade de uma interpretação, o que, de certa forma, busca fora do Direito um critério de validade para interpretações, ora porque reside dentro de uma moldura metafisicamente concebida baseada em uma norma hipotética, ora com base no reconhecimento de todos; acrescentou-se por último a dependência do reconhecimento de uma proposição jurídica pelos tribunais. Nenhum desses critérios de validade é concebido a partir do próprio Direito, geralmente atribuem a fatos a validade das interpretações. Em seguida, defende-se o ponto de vista de que os contributos sobre a validade do direito desdobram-se no debate sobre as posturas interpretativas das cortes constitucionais. Tal apelo é feito com a finalidade de evitar a correção moral ou política do direito. Discutem-se os múltiplos conceitos sobre ativismo judicial, considerando-o como um conceito contestado e altamente controverso, e logo se analisam os pressupostos de tais conceitos. Para tanto, se buscou, a partir do estudo da decisão da ADPF 187 (marcha da maconha), realizar um estudo da validade dos pressupostos de leitura que sustentam a compreensão da validade da leitura da liberdade de expressão em seu viés instrumental ou constitutivo. Esta pesquisa de base teórica constituiu uma crítica à interpretação jurídica acrítica. Apresentou como meio de mostrar o esquecimento do ser-assim, o meio de conhecer o fundamento e o sentido deste ser-assim.
|
| 2 |
由哈伯瑪斯之法律有效性觀點論首長特別費事件陳韻華, Chen,Yun-Hwa Unknown Date (has links)
首長特別費事件演變至今，焦點都被導向高度抽象的政治議題，民間失去發言或制衡的空間，讓許多深刻值得探問的價值問題，陷入無法討論的困境，但本文要追問的根本問題是：法律，對現今台灣的民眾來說，所代表的意義是什麼？是把法律看成一種限制他們行動領域的規範，對法律採取一種戰戰兢兢算計犯法後果的策略性態度？還是把法律視為一種具正當性與有效性的行為規範，發自內心對法律採取尊重的態度？算計自己最大的利益，真的就是我們人類追求理性的最終結果嗎？如何縮小這些鴻溝，或許就是我們該戮力的地方。
哈伯瑪斯認為法律取得其正當性，與溝通行動之間具有相似的結構性，所以力主引進「溝通理性」，作為法規範產生及運用的構成基礎。但從法律理論的角度來看，哈氏認為現代法律秩序要從「自決」這個概念獲得其正當性，而且公民應從論述或審議的模式切入，同時把自己理解為所要服從的法律的承受者及創制者。對於裁判理性，哈氏曾針對四種具代表性的不同法律理論見解提出批判，主要為法律詮釋學、法律實在論、法律實證論，以及Dworkin的融貫理論，最後他提出自己所主張的程序法典範的法律觀。哈氏認為現代法制史中，運用得最成功的法律典範，是今日依然相互競爭的兩種法律典範，一是形式法的典範，另一種是實質法的典範，但哈氏認為這兩種典範都有所不足，所以主張要採取言說理論視角的第三種法律典範—程序法典範，來理解與解決二十世紀末出現的社會困境。
在現今充斥「語言暴力」、「策略性語言」、「意識型態扭曲」的社會中，言說的有效檢驗，對現況的釐清確有助益，但問題是如何進行？所以，本文嘗試從理解哈伯瑪斯的言說理論為核心，來討論法律與其同屬之社會文化間的關係。同時，藉由哈氏所提之「生活界與系統界」的概念，探求法律在社會整合中所扮演的媒介角色，探討法律的生成與溝通行動何以密不可分？最後，論證法律的正當性，主要是來自以溝通言說為基礎，所達致的同意與共識。 / Since the broke out of the special funds affair of Taipei mayor, the focus has been on highly abstract political issues; the value questions, which were profound and worth inquiring, fell into difficult position and were unable to discuss. This paper closely examines the basic question: what the meaning of the law ought to be? What significant value the law should represent? Should it be an instrument or an institution; should it be developed in a strategic or communicative way; and should it be rules and regulation laid down by the authority or the normative commitment of the citizens.
Habermas thought the law obtains its legitimacy through real communication and therefore the “communicative rationality” is the foundation of the law. From the perspective of legal theory, Habermas thinks modern legal order must “be self determined” to obtain its legitimacy; moreover, the citizen should elaborate and judge the making of the law through participation and communication. Habermas thus criticizes four well-known theories of law, i.e., legal realism, legal empiricism, legal positivism and Dworkin’s coherence theory. He then asserts his own proceduralist paradigm of law. Habermas believes that in the history of modern law, the most successful legal paradigms are still in competition today – one is the paradigm of the positive law, the other is the paradigm of substantive law. However, he believes both paradigms are inadequate, so he asserts the necessity of a third legal paradigm, which emphasizes the discourse theory perspective – the proceduralist paradigm of law to understand and resolve the social difficulties.
Reacting to the flooding “language violence,” “strategic language,” “ideological twisting” in the society of nowadays, effective evaluation of discourse can certainly help in clarifying the present situation, but the question is how to carry on? This article attempts to answer the question by studying the discourse theory of Habermas as the core, and discuss the relationship between law and the social culture to which it belongs. At the same time, with Habermasian concept of “the lifeworld and the system”, this paper seeks to evaluate the medium role of law in social integration to assess the reason for the intimacy between legal formation and communicative action. Finally, this paper argues that the legitimacy of law primarily comes from communicative discourse that serves as a basis to reach agreement and consensus.
Keywords: mayoral special funds, Habermas, legal validity, legitimacy, communicative reason, the lifeworld and the system , legal validity theory of discourse, Proceduralist paradigm of law
|
| 3 |
A Pragmatic Standard of Legal ValidityTyler, John 2012 May 1900 (has links)
American jurisprudence currently applies two incompatible validity standards to determine which laws are enforceable. The natural law tradition evaluates validity by an uncertain standard of divine law, and its methodology relies on contradictory views of human reason. Legal positivism, on the other hand, relies on a methodology that commits the analytic fallacy, separates law from its application, and produces an incomplete model of law.
These incompatible standards have created a schism in American jurisprudence that impairs the delivery of justice. This dissertation therefore formulates a new standard for legal validity. This new standard rejects the uncertainties and inconsistencies inherent in natural law theory. It also rejects the narrow linguistic methodology of legal positivism.
In their stead, this dissertation adopts a pragmatic methodology that develops a standard for legal validity based on actual legal experience. This approach focuses on the operations of law and its effects upon ongoing human activities, and it evaluates legal principles by applying the experimental method to the social consequences they produce. Because legal history provides a long record of past experimentation with legal principles, legal history is an essential feature of this method.
This new validity standard contains three principles. The principle of reason requires legal systems to respect every subject as a rational creature with a free will. The principle of reason also requires procedural due process to protect against the punishment of the innocent and the tyranny of the majority. Legal systems that respect their subjects' status as rational creatures with free wills permit their subjects to orient their own behavior. The principle of reason therefore requires substantive due process to ensure that laws provide dependable guideposts to individuals in orienting their behavior.
The principle of consent recognizes that the legitimacy of law derives from the consent of those subject to its power. Common law custom, the doctrine of stare decisis, and legislation sanctioned by the subjects' legitimate representatives all evidence consent.
The principle of autonomy establishes the authority of law. Laws must wield supremacy over political rulers, and political rulers must be subject to the same laws as other citizens. Political rulers may not arbitrarily alter the law to accord to their will.
Legal history demonstrates that, in the absence of a validity standard based on these principles, legal systems will not treat their subjects as ends in themselves. They will inevitably treat their subjects as mere means to other ends. Once laws do this, men have no rest from evil.
|
Page generated in 0.0742 seconds