Thesis (M.S.)--Auburn University, 2007. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (ℓ. 62-64)

Universität Erlangen, 1749, Thesis (doctoral) / Goldsmiths'-Kress no. 08459.1. - Includes bibliographical references. - OCLC, 23434538. - Reproduction of original from Harvard Law Library

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen, 1749. / Reproduction of original from Harvard Law Library. Goldsmiths'-Kress no. 08459.1. Includes bibliographical references.

To supervise the executive authorities to strengthen their public services and to deal with pleading cases effectively, The Executive Yuan promulgated ¡§the executive authorities dealing with pleading cases major points¡¨ in 1973 which was following amended in 1984, 1995. Nevertheless, while the ¡§Administrative Procedure Act¡¨ (APA) announced in 1999, this essentials was found its inconsistent with Article 150 ¡¨ the content of regulations and orders should stipulate the basis of its legal authority, and shall not exceed the scope authorized by law and the spirit of the legislation¡¨ and Article 15, Section 1, Paragraph 2 ¡§any regulation and order without authorized by law and deprive or limit people¡¦s freedoms and rights is void". In APA Article 174-1 "before implementation of this Law, the executive authorities according to the Central Regulation Standard Act: those have to be regulated by law or stipulate its legal authority shall be modified or specified by mandated regulations or stipulate its legal authority within two years after the implementation of this Act; overdue failure¡¨ and Article 175 ¡§the implementation of this Act (APA) starts from 1 Jan, 2001¡¨. Thus, according to the APA Article 170, Section 1, the Executive Yuan re-amended the 1973¡¦s ¡§the executive authorities dealing with pleading cases major points¡¨ to ¡§the Executive Yuan and its organs dealing with people¡¦s pleading cases major points¡¨, subtitle with ¡§All level authorities affiliated to Executive Yuan provide services for the people major points¡¨ in May 25, 2000. The APA has been implemented since 1 Jan, 2001. There is chapter 7 ¡§Pleading¡¨ is related with people¡¦s petition and its legalization. The appropriateness of pleading law making process is examined herein by the basic methods of administrative law, namely, the five major frameworks, including administrative principles, administrative organization, limitation of administrative power, administrative relief, and administrative supervision from every respect and viewpoint. Furthermore, practical implementation and suggestions for regulations and actions concerning executive authorities to deal with pleading cases are provided to achieve the goals of protecting people¡¦s right and maintaining social orders as well.

The thesis topic is Duty of pleading and duty of proof in the contentious civil proceedings. The hereby stated obligations belong to the basic concepts of procedural law. If the interested party fulfils both obligations together with bearing the corresponding burdens, it increases its chance of success in a dispute. Supposing it was inactive, its inactivity might be reflected in the dispute result. My thesis aim was to deal with essential obligations in civil proceedings within eight chapters. In chapter one I mention historical excurcus where I introduce how the above stated obligations were adjusted in the previous civil procedural law regulations. It is only an outline of the historical development. Chapter two I briefly devote to the current concept - de lege lata. In the subsequent chapter three I deal with the burden of pleading and burden of proof in both types of declaratory proceedings namely in contentious and non-contentious proceedings. Where the contentious proceedings require higher activity of the interested parties in comparison with the interested parties in the non- contentious proceedings. Chapter four is focused on detailed description of both procedural obligations and to them corresponding burdens. Besides other various theories of burden of proof are stated here. And also...

Parmi les activités génériques, historiques et significatives du métier d’avocat pénaliste, la plaidoirie aux Assises représente le cœur du métier et une source puissante de son identité. Il s’agit, dans cette activité, d’agir par le discours dans une dialogie complexe impliquant les différentes parties. Ce discours s’adresse à la Cour, à la société, aux jurés, et vise à agir sur l’intime conviction de ceux qui seront amenés à rendre un verdict. En quoi consiste, et quels sont les ressorts discursifs de l’art de la plaidoirie ? C’est à cette question que cherche à répondre la présente recherche.Cette recherche s’inscrit dans un programme de recherche sur l’analyse des activités symboliques (Kostulski, 2011), activités professionnelles qui visent d’une manière ou d’une autre à agir dans la vie psychologique d'autrui. Elle puise ses sources théoriques dans les champs de la psychologie sociale et de la clinique de l'activité, mais aussi en psychologie de l'art. Nous y soutenons la thèse selon laquelle la plaidoirie de la défense aux assises est un art au sens de Vygotski, c'est-à-dire une technique sociale du sentiment, dont les éléments constitutifs sont la contradiction et la catharsis.Parmi les affaires récentes ayant eu un fort retentissement médiatique de par sa nature et ses conclusions, l’affaire Courjault, affaire dite "des bébés congelés" a marqué le métier d’avocat par l’exemplarité, la justesse et l’efficacité de la plaidoirie réalisée par Me Henri Leclerc.Le texte de cette plaidoirie, intégralement retranscrit, est analysé de manière à mettre en évidence les ressorts argumentatifs et dialogiques qui président à cet art. Une analyse réflexive de la plaidoirie a par ailleurs été organisée avec son auteur, Me Leclerc, dans un entretien de confrontation au texte visant à comprendre les buts, les destinataires et les moyens de cette activité réalisée.Nous y analysons d’une part les conflictualités dialogiques portées par les différentes voix en présence dans l’affaire et que l’avocat convoque dans son discours ; et d'autre part les procédés de leurs résolutions proposés par l'avocat. La question théorique de la conflictualité dialogique a eté envisagée en référence à Bakhtine (1979) et à Markova (2007) et la question de la régulation par l’art du discours en référence au travail en Psychologie de l’Art de Vygotski (1925), en particulier son travail d’analyse de la construction littéraire d’une nouvelle : Le Souffle léger.Le choix des unités d'analyse de la plaidoirie s'est mis en place à partir de la conception vygotskienne de l’art. Nous retenons comme unités opérantes pour nos analyses les voix du tiers dans le discours (Grossen, 2011) pour l'identification des conflictualités dialogiques, mais également le "witcraft" (Billig, 1996) et la sémiotisation des émotions (Micheli, 2016) pour le mouvement rhétorique de résolution de ces conflictualités.Nos analyses nous mènent à conclure que la dynamique de la plaidoirie est celle d'un art du délibéré, où conflictualité et résolution de cette conflictualité s'organisent pour agir sur la conviction du juré. Cet art permettrait la construction d’un espace de délibération mettant en mouvement la dialogie complexe du dossier, dans le but d'agir sur l'intime conviction Cet art ephemere ne serait alors qu'un moyen, un passage, permettant aux voix en présence de se répondre, et peut être de se rejoindre dans un processus cathartique. / The pleading for the crime court lawyers is the heart of their work activity. The purpose is to act through complex dialogical ways on the intimate conviction of the jurors. How ? This is the whole goal of that reserach : understand how the lawyer uses language to act and convince.This research takes place in a program studying symbolic activities (Kostulski, 2011). The theorical background are the social psychology, the work psychology, but also the psychology of art. We defend the thesis that the pleading of the defendant lawyer is an art as Vygotski defines it, that is to say a social technique of the feeling, built from contradiction and catharsis.To analyse this process we chose the case Courjault, also known as the case of the « frozen babies », that occured in France in 2008, and that was defended by Henri Leclerc. The efficiency of this lawyer was highly recognized during the trial, and especially for the pleading he performed.The whole pleading retranscribed is analysed in this research, in order to emphacize the ways art appears, by dialogical and argumentative dimensions. We also had the possibility to meet Henri Leclerc twice so that we could show him the pleading text and ask him to comment on it, telling us what he was trying to do while pleading on that particular case.Conflictuality was studied through Bakhtin (1979) and Markova’s (2007) works, and the catharsis process through Vygotski’s psychology of art (1925). We chose as analysis unities the third parties voices (Grossen, 2011), Billig‘s witcraft concept (1996), and Micheli’s (2016) emotions semiotics.Our analysis led us to conclude that the pleading dynamic is the one of a deliberation art, where conflictualities and the resolution of it are organised to act on the juror conviction. This art would make a deliberation area appear, moving the complex dialogy of the case, in order to act on the intimate conviction.This ephemeral art would only fulfill itself to allow voices to hear and respond each other, and maybe come together in a cathartic process.

Quelles sont les techniques argumentatives utilisées par les avocats plaideurs pour convaincre lesjuges ? Telle est la question à laquelle nous essayons de répondre dans cette thèse portant sur une étude linguistique du discours juridique dans les grands procès politiques de la Seconde Guerre Mondiale. Le travail se compose d’une partie théorique où sont exposées les catégories d’analyse du rhétoricien de l’Antiquité Aristote et du rhétoricien contemporain Chaïm Perelman qui exposent tous les deux les principales stratégies de persuasion. La deuxième partie de ce travail est consacrée à l’analyse de textes authentiques : après une analyse des plaidoiries des avocats dans les procès du régime de Vichy, nous arrivons aux conclusions suivantes : les avocats de la défense ne plaident pas de la même manière que ceux de l’accusation d’une part, et, d’autre part, la plaidoirie traditionnelle n’a pas la même forme que la plaidoirie moderne. Comment est composée une plaidoirie traditionnelle ? Comment est composée une plaidoirie moderne ? Quelles sont les techniques spécifiques à l’accusation ou à la défense ? Y a-t-il des techniques communes ? A travers cette étude, nous vous invitons à découvrir la réponse à ces questions et bien d’autres encore. / What are argumentatives techniques used by lawyers litigants to convince the judges? Such is thequestion that we try to answer in this thesis concerning a linguistic study of the legal speech in the bigpolitical trials of the Second World War. The work consists of a theoretical part where are expose thecategories of analysis of the rhetorician of the Antiquity Aristote and of the contemporary rhetoricianChaïm Perelman who explain the main strategies of persuasion. The second part of this work isdedicated to the analysis of authentic texts: after an analysis of the pleas of lawyers in the trials of theregime of Vichy, our conclusion is: The defense counsels do not plead in the same way as those of thecharge on one hand, and, on the other hand, the traditional plea has no same shape as the modern plea. How consists a traditional plea? How consists a modern plea? What are the specific techniques in the charge or in the defense? Are there common techniques? Through this study, we invite you todiscover the answer to these questions and many others else.

O presente trabalho tem por escopo analisar a possibilidade de aplicação, nos processos coletivos, dos atuais institutos do Direito de Processual Civil, criados para solucionar os problemas decorrentes da relação entre demandas intersubjetivas, i.e., conexão, continência, litispendência e coisa julgada. Devido às características intrínsecas dos interesses metaindividuais, a propositura de mais de uma demanda coletiva, por diferentes legitimados ativos, todas com efeitos erga omnes e objeto indivisível, pode levar à prolação de comandos contraditórios, com desdobramentos no plano prático, podendo gerar situações insustentáveis - especificamente nos conflitos ambientais, dado o caráter difuso do bem tutelado. Diante das peculiaridades dos processos coletivos, o legislador e os operadores do direito podem optar por um de dois caminhos: adotar o sistema tradicional ou inovar. O presente trabalho propõe a inovação, a modernização, a adequação, a adaptação, enfim, a flexibilização dos institutos processuais clássicos - sem a pretensão de formular qualquer resposta definitiva. As inovações aqui propostas iniciam-se pelo próprio conceito de identidade de ações, perpassando por uma releitura dos elementos objetivos da demanda (pedido e causa de pedir), com foco no bem jurídico tutelado e no resultado prático visado pelos processos. Na seqüência, os institutos conexão, continência, litispendência e coisa julgada são revisitados, adaptando-se às necessidades da jurisdição coletiva. Em suma, o trabalho conclui que a transposição, sic et simpliciter, dos institutos processuais clássicos voltados à relação entre demandas individuais para o plano da jurisdição coletiva não é cabível, sendo necessário flexibilizar e modernizar algumas figuras, com vistas a impedir que a mesma situação de fato receba tratamentos diferenciados em duas ou mais demandas. Tudo em prol da efetividade do processo coletivo e dos princípios da economia processual, da isonomia e da certeza das relações jurídicas. / The scope of this study is to analyze the possibility of applying, in collective lawsuits, the current tools of the Civil Procedural Law, created to solve problems arising out of the relation between inter-subjective claims (i.e. same cause of action, encompassing lawsuit, collateral estoppel and res judicata). Due to the intrinsic characteristics of the meta-individual interests, the proposal of another collective claim, by different parties, all with erga omnes effect and indivisible object, may lead to the issuance of contradictory orders, affecting its practical aspect, and possibly generating unsustainable situations ? specifically in environmental conflicts, due to the public nature of the matter. Given the peculiarities of collective claims, legislators and Law operators may decide to adopt either the traditional system, or innovate. This paper proposes innovating, updating, adequating and adapting the classical procedural tools ? with no intention of reaching a definitive answer. The innovations proposed herein start by the identity of action concept itself, revisiting the objective elements of the claim (pleading and cause of action), focusing on the core of the matter and on the practical result sought by the lawsuits. Subsequently, tools such as same cause of action, encompassing lawsuit, collateral estoppel and res judicata are also revisited, adapting to the needs of collective jurisdiction. In short, this study concludes that transferring, sic et simpliciter, the classic procedural tools regarding the relations between individual claims to the collective jurisdiction is not possible, being necessary to adapt/update some concepts, so that the expected result is reached, preventing the same situation in fact is treated differently in two or more claims (on behalf of the effectiveness of the collective lawsuit and of the principles of the procedural economy, the isonomy and the certainty of the legal relations).

O presente trabalho tem por escopo analisar a possibilidade de aplicação, nos processos coletivos, dos atuais institutos do Direito de Processual Civil, criados para solucionar os problemas decorrentes da relação entre demandas intersubjetivas, i.e., conexão, continência, litispendência e coisa julgada. Devido às características intrínsecas dos interesses metaindividuais, a propositura de mais de uma demanda coletiva, por diferentes legitimados ativos, todas com efeitos erga omnes e objeto indivisível, pode levar à prolação de comandos contraditórios, com desdobramentos no plano prático, podendo gerar situações insustentáveis - especificamente nos conflitos ambientais, dado o caráter difuso do bem tutelado. Diante das peculiaridades dos processos coletivos, o legislador e os operadores do direito podem optar por um de dois caminhos: adotar o sistema tradicional ou inovar. O presente trabalho propõe a inovação, a modernização, a adequação, a adaptação, enfim, a flexibilização dos institutos processuais clássicos - sem a pretensão de formular qualquer resposta definitiva. As inovações aqui propostas iniciam-se pelo próprio conceito de identidade de ações, perpassando por uma releitura dos elementos objetivos da demanda (pedido e causa de pedir), com foco no bem jurídico tutelado e no resultado prático visado pelos processos. Na seqüência, os institutos conexão, continência, litispendência e coisa julgada são revisitados, adaptando-se às necessidades da jurisdição coletiva. Em suma, o trabalho conclui que a transposição, sic et simpliciter, dos institutos processuais clássicos voltados à relação entre demandas individuais para o plano da jurisdição coletiva não é cabível, sendo necessário flexibilizar e modernizar algumas figuras, com vistas a impedir que a mesma situação de fato receba tratamentos diferenciados em duas ou mais demandas. Tudo em prol da efetividade do processo coletivo e dos princípios da economia processual, da isonomia e da certeza das relações jurídicas. / The scope of this study is to analyze the possibility of applying, in collective lawsuits, the current tools of the Civil Procedural Law, created to solve problems arising out of the relation between inter-subjective claims (i.e. same cause of action, encompassing lawsuit, collateral estoppel and res judicata). Due to the intrinsic characteristics of the meta-individual interests, the proposal of another collective claim, by different parties, all with erga omnes effect and indivisible object, may lead to the issuance of contradictory orders, affecting its practical aspect, and possibly generating unsustainable situations ? specifically in environmental conflicts, due to the public nature of the matter. Given the peculiarities of collective claims, legislators and Law operators may decide to adopt either the traditional system, or innovate. This paper proposes innovating, updating, adequating and adapting the classical procedural tools ? with no intention of reaching a definitive answer. The innovations proposed herein start by the identity of action concept itself, revisiting the objective elements of the claim (pleading and cause of action), focusing on the core of the matter and on the practical result sought by the lawsuits. Subsequently, tools such as same cause of action, encompassing lawsuit, collateral estoppel and res judicata are also revisited, adapting to the needs of collective jurisdiction. In short, this study concludes that transferring, sic et simpliciter, the classic procedural tools regarding the relations between individual claims to the collective jurisdiction is not possible, being necessary to adapt/update some concepts, so that the expected result is reached, preventing the same situation in fact is treated differently in two or more claims (on behalf of the effectiveness of the collective lawsuit and of the principles of the procedural economy, the isonomy and the certainty of the legal relations).