Submitted by admin tede (tede@pucgoias.edu.br) on 2018-09-26T19:27:28Z No. of bitstreams: 1 MARCIA SUMIRE KUROGI DINIZ.pdf: 807236 bytes, checksum: 62151cd5f39ecdcd21ace6c2f5f49fab (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-26T19:27:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MARCIA SUMIRE KUROGI DINIZ.pdf: 807236 bytes, checksum: 62151cd5f39ecdcd21ace6c2f5f49fab (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-04-11 / This doctoral thesis presents the emotions and their practices of former spouses in litigious divorce as a central theme and as a general objective based on the Family Justice Project, to understand the emotions and practices of these subjects in the situation of litigious divorce during the meetings held at CEPSI through the interaction between researchers and other participants of the group.The research field was an educational work of families in litigation, developed in the PUC-Go (CEPSI) clinic, called Family Educational Justice, conducted in partnership with the Goiás State Court of Justice, Goiânia, and under the systematic guidance of its coordinator. Through this setback, ex-spouses in litigious divorce are referred by the Family Courts and invited to participate in subprojects, which are developed from the dialogue and reflection of the ex-spouses on their experiences during the litigious divorce. The educational work with families revealing this situation requires the people involved decisions and actions that are related to their way of thinking and feeling towards the other, which subsidized the development of this subproject. We sought to understand the constitution of the family, marriage and its termination through litigious divorce. After this understanding, a theoretical review was made of authors who carried out studies on emotions, especially from the point of view of the theory of subjectivity, the foundation of the educational process of families. As a way of highlighting this theory it became necessary to construct a theoretical chapter on this subject. The chapter on the explicit method as the qualitative research in this perspective has a different view: the field, the participants and the information analysis, as well as the interaction of the researcher and the participants. The results point to the fact that with diverse motives and emotions, participants generate subjective needs and senses in divorce and develop strategies in relation to their practices. At this moment, the questions arise: what caused this situation, for example, the issues related to the role of husband and wife, the economic context, legal power, life history, as well as the standards demanded by society in marriage. In brief, it is evident, the importance of the emotions in the situation of litigious divorce, perceived through the looks, gestures, speeches and practices of the ex-spouses in the group studied, as a form of presentation of sadness, anger, joy and many others emotions / Esta tese de doutorado apresenta as emoções e suas práticas de ex-cônjuges no divórcio litigioso, como tema central e como objetivo geral a partir do Projeto Justiça Educativa de Famílias, compreender as emoções e práticas destes sujeitos na situação de divórcio litigioso durante dos encontros realizados no CEPSI através da interação entre pesquisadores e demais participantes do grupo. O campo da pesquisa foi um trabalho educativo de famílias em litígio, desenvolvido na clínica-escola da PUC-Go (CEPSI), denominado Justiça Educativa de Famílias, realizado em parceria com o Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Goiás, Comarca de Goiânia, e sob orientação sistemática de sua coordenadora. Mediante essa paraceria, ex-cônjuges em divórcio litigioso são encaminhados pelas Varas de Família e convidados a participar de subprojetos, que como este, são desenvolvidos a partir do diálogo e reflexão dos ex-cônjuges sobre suas vivências durante o divórcio litigioso. O trabalho educativo com as famílias revela que esta situação requer das pessoas envolvidas, decisões e ações que estão relacionadas a sua forma de pensar e sentir em relação ao outro, o que subsidiou o desenvolvimento deste subprojeto. No decorrer da pesquisa, como levantamento teórico inicial, buscou-se entender a constituição da família, do casamento e seu término por meio do divórcio litigioso. Após esta compreensão, fez-se uma revisão teórica de autores que realizaram estudos sobre as emoções, especialmente do ponto de vista da teoria da subjetividade, fundamento do processo educativo das famílias. Como forma de dar destaque a essa teoria fez-se necessário construir um capítulo teórico sobre este assunto. O capítulo sobre o método explicita como a pesquisa qualitativa nessa perspectiva, tem uma visão diferenciada: do campo dos participantes e da análise das informações, como também da interação do pesquisador e dos sujeitos participantes. Os resultados apontam para o fato de que com motivos e emoções diversas, os participantes geram necessidades e sentidos subjetivos no divórcio e desenvolvem estratégias em relação à suas práticas. Neste momento, surgem as questões: que motivos os levaram a esta situação, como por exemplo, as questões relacionadas ao papel de marido e de esposa, ao contexto econômico, ao poder jurídico, a história de vida, assim como os padrões exigidos pela sociedade na união matrimonial. Por fim, fica evidente, a importância das emoções na situação de divórcio litigioso, percebidos através dos olhares, dos gestos, das falas e das práticas dos ex-cônjuges no grupo estudado, como forma de apresentação de tristeza, raiva, alegria e muitas outras emoções

Un justiciable mécontent lève un rideau, sans doute usé. Une robe noire apparaît alors et énonce: « Donne moi le fait, je te donnerai le droit ! ». Ce juge s’écarte ensuite afin d’écouter les échanges des parties. Il reprend la parole, reformule le cas échéant certaines répliques et démêle l’intrigue en retenant, voire aménageant, une des fins proposées par les parties. Voici la trame, désormais classique, de l’instance dressée par les principes directeurs du procès civil. Les plaideurs auraient ainsi pour rôle de délimiter la matière litigieuse et, partant, la saisine du juge. Ce dernier devrait, dans les limites ainsi tracées, lui appliquer le droit afin de satisfaire à sa fonction juridictionnelle. La question des rôles respectifs du juge et des parties sur les éléments de l’instance ne saurait toutefois être appréhendée dans sa complexité et son dynamisme par ces seules règles. La distinction du fait et du droit, parce qu’elle ne correspond qu’imparfaitement aux éléments de l’instance réellement opérant, la prétention et le moyen, offre une assise peu opportune à la détermination des activités judiciaires et leur exercice. Par ailleurs, lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à la réforme permanente de la matière, la stabilité de ces principes interpelle, et étonne même.En considérant les éléments de l’instance et leur traitement au-delà des dispositions préliminaires du code, et au-delà du code lui-même, il pourra être énoncé que ces principes directeurs tendent à devenir davantage aveuglants qu’éclairants. En effet à la lecture de l’article 12 du Code de procédure civile, fondement des pouvoirs et devoirs du juge sur le droit, il est par exemple établi que le juge tranche le litige conformément aux règles de droit qui lui sont applicables. On ignore ainsi que, depuis 2008, le juge n’a pas l’obligation de rectifier le fondement juridique erroné de la demande, comme on ne se doute pas plus que son obligation de statuer se limitera, depuis 2017, aux seules prétentions contenues dans le dispositif des dernières conclusions, certes rédigées par avocat. On n’anticipe encore moins que, en dépit de tous ces phénomènes de réduction de ce qui devra être tranché, l’autorité de chose jugée va, quant à elle, au contraire, s’étendre pour couvrir le litige entendu comme tout ce qui aurait dû être tranché. Les parties recueillent ainsi la charge du droit initialement dévolue au juge. La procédure civile offre dès lors un nouveau visage au principe dispositif : la responsabilisation des parties et la déresponsabilisation de la justice dans la réalisation des droits.L’accélération du traitement des affaires rapproche l’instance civile du théâtre par l’exigence de l’unité de temps. Elle s’en éloigne en revanche s’agissant de la règle de l’unité de lieu, les politiques judiciaires affichant clairement leur volonté de promouvoir le règlement amiable des litiges. Il n’y a plus qu’à espérer que la distribution soit à la hauteur du programme. / A displeased person answerable to the law raises a curtain, most likely worn out. A black robe appears and announces: ‘Give me the facts, I will give you the law!” This judge then steps aside in order to listen to the exchanges between various parties. He speaks again, change when required some turn of sentences, untangle the plot by retaining, even rearranging one of the ending proposed by the parties. Here is the context, now classic, of the instance established by the guidelines of civil trial. The role of the litigant is thus to delimit the litigious matter and hence, the referral to the judge. The latter should, within the limits, apply to him the law in order to satisfy his jurisdictional function. The question of the respective roles of the judge and the parties over the elements of the case cannot, however, be apprehended in its complexity and dynamism by these rules alone. The distinction between fact and law, because it corresponds only imperfectly to the elements of the actual operative instance, the claim and the plea, provides an unfavourable basis for the determination of judicial activities and their exercise. On the other hand, when confronted with the permanent reform of matter, the stability of these principles challenges, and even astonishes.By considering the elements of the case and their treatment beyond the preliminary provision of the Code, and beyond the Code itself it may be stated that these guiding principles tend to become more blinding than enlightening. Indeed, in reading Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the basis of the powers and duties of the judge on the law, it is for example established that the judge settle the dispute in accordance with the rules of law that apply to it. It is thus not known that since 2008 the judge has no obligation to rectify the erroneous legal basis of the claim, the same way we do not conceive that his obligation to rule will, since 2017, be limited to the claims contained in the device of the conclusions, admittedly written by lawyers. It is even less anticipated that, in spite of all these phenomena of reduction of what will have to be settled, res judicata will, on the contrary, extend to cover the dispute understood as all that should have been decided. The parties thus collect the burden of the right initially devolved on the judge. Civil procedure therefore offers a new face to the operative principle: the responsibility of the parties and the disempowerment of justice in the realization of rights.The acceleration of the treatment of the cases brings the civil authority closer to the theatre by the requirement of the unit of time. On the other hand, it departs from the rule of unity of place, as judicial policies clearly reflect their desire to promote the amicable settlement of disputes. There is more to hope that the distribution is up to the programme

Cooperative Construction in Schools in California John M. Donley The construction industry has lost efficiency since 1964, while becoming increasingly more litigious. Schools in California can ill afford the time to allow the construction industry time to fully evolve. It may take years or decades to fully improve the efficiency of, and reduce the conflict within the construction industry. At the same time, the construction industry has developed new processes to improve efficiency and reduce conflict. These processes are beginning to be broadly embraced by the industry. They all contain cooperative elements. Taken together they represent a new organizing principle for the construction industry, cooperative construction. Also concurrently, a previously little-used provision of the California Education Code allows schools freedom to contract for school construction in nearly any reasonable contractual arrangement they see fit for their project and district needs. As a result, school districts in California have developed a new system of project delivery. They are borrowing from here and there and inventing new tools to make projects work for them. Again, cooperative elements at the hearts of the processes.

La question litigieuse en matière contractuelle correspond aux sanctions du contrat que les parties, à la suite d'un différend, décident d'introduire dans le procès civil. Le concept se présente comme un trait d'union entre le droit des contrats et la procédure civile : il offre ainsi une vision processualiste des sanctions du contrat, qu'il replace dans le contexte du procès civil, doublée d'une perspective contractualiste de la procédure civile, celle-ci étant chargée de la réalisation des droits substantiels des parties. La question litigieuse s'avère un instrument utile pour préciser la nature des sanctions du contrat que les parties peuvent solliciter ensemble et celles pour lesquelles il est nécessaire d'opérer un choix (en les hiérarchisant éventuellement par le mécanisme du subsidiaire). L'intérêt est également de spécifier le régime de l'évolution de la question litigieuse tout au long de l'instance. L'analyse révèle ainsi dans quelle mesure les parties peuvent la modifier en première instance, en appel, ou encore devant la Cour de cassation. De surcroît, lorsqu'un nouveau procès est entamé par un contractant, il faut s'assurer que la question nouvellement posée n'est pas identique à la précédente. Le concept encadre enfin les pouvoirs du juge appelé à trancher un litige relatif au contrat : il permet de savoir de quelle manière le juge peut ajouter ou substituer une sanction à celle choisie par les parties, et s'il dispose, à cet égard, d'un pouvoir ou d'un devoir d'y procéder. De la sorte, l'étude de la question litigieuse concourt à améliorer le traitement procédural du droit des contrats. / The litigious question in contractual matters corresponds to the contractual sanctions that the parties enter into in a civil trial. It is the link between contract law and a civil proceeding: it offers a procedural vision of the contractual sanctions because they are analyzed in terms of their implementation by the civil trial, it also allows to have a contractualist's perspective about the procedural civil law inasmuch as the comprehension of the litigious question is based on a study of contract sanctions.On the one hand, the litigious question concept is used to specify which are the contractual sanctions that the parties have the right to solicit together and the sanctions between which it is necessary to choose (potentially by using a subsidiary claim). On the other hand, it also allows to define the rules of its evolution on the parties' or the judge's initiative. The study of the litigious question reveals to what extent the parties can change the question in the first instance, in appeal or before the Supreme Court. One of them can call a new trial as well; it should be checked that the new litigious question is not the same as the precedent one. Likewise, the concept frames the authority of the judge before which the sanction is requested. It clarifies especially how to proceed to add or substitute another penalty for that chosen by the parties, and if it is a faculty or an obligation. The study of the litigious question thus contributes to improve the procedural treatment of contractual law.