This article releases of Constitutional Interpretation No.613 of Grand Justices, Judicial Yuan.Discussion jurisdiction and legislative power of separation of power boundary.Judicial review since U.S.A.'s Marbury v.s Madison case is developed in 1803 .Safeguards the people's basic right not the illegal violation.The most countries introduces for the world. Grand Justices enjoy the good name of ¡§the constitution protector¡¨.Is only short of the public opinion to be authorized and counter-majoritarian diffculty, Causes the democratic validity to be subject to the question, between ¡§the judicature is positive¡¨ and ¡§the judicature is negative¡¨,it is become Judicial review development mechanism the important topic. Administration, legislation and judicial is also known as trias politica, Performing its own functions, doctrine of separation of powers for most important constitutional government principle, The Congress direct gathering people meaning indicated that.Is on behalf of the Popular Sovereignty for State agency, three read through the law, suffers unexpectedly declares invalid, and has the abstract standard potency, sends the Judicial review from ¡§the constitutional interpreter¡¨ to become ¡§the legislator¡¨ or ¡§framers of constitution¡¨ the negative appraisal. This article advocated that the Judicial review should distinguish the people's basic right or the pure institution in advance disputes and so on, is safeguarding the people's basic right case, should involve positively, being suitable of the non-judicial self-restraint principle. The Judicial review should not take the doctrine of political question the separation of power the only boundary, should accumulate the case type, develops standard of the difference, avoids fording into the pure institution jurisdiction dispute. Constitutional Interpretation article should not ¡§the legalization¡¨, be supposed to establish the mechanism of ¡§retires after meritorious service¡¨.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-15 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The goal of this study is to question the consolidation of judicial activism in Brasil verifying if the decisions made by the courts are in accordance to the constitution and modern social values. For that, we need to verify the limits of the judiciary power based on constitutional principles, the separation of powers and democratic ideals. This dissertation points out that the activism is pertinent and consolidated, once the Judiciary Power is accountable for ceasing omission, evaluating and correcting the mistakes made by the Legislative and Executive powers when they occur. The research shows that despite the legality of the activism, it must be applied with responsibility and moderation protecting social rights and equally protecting the Democratic State / O estudo tem por objetivo investigar a consolidação do ativismo judicial no Brasil, verificando se as decisões proferidas pelos Tribunais têm observado a vontade do constituinte originário e se estão adequadas com os valores sociais hodiernos. Para tanto, busca-se verificar os limites do Poder Judiciário à luz dos princípios constitucionais da Separação dos Poderes e do ideal Democrático. A dissertação aponta que o ativismo se mostra pertinente e está consolidado, uma vez que incumbe ao Poder Judiciário sanar omissões, avaliar e corrigir atos proferidos pelo Poder Executivo e pelo Poder Legislativo, porventura eivados de vícios. A pesquisa demonstra também que o ativismo, embora legítimo, deve ser praticado com responsabilidade e ponderação, fazendo prevalecer os direitos sociais em consonância com a preservação do Estado Democrático de Direito

Le principe de subsidiarité, en droit de la Convention européenne, est un principe empreint d’ambiguïtés. D’origine prétorienne, il ne fait l’objet d’aucune définition formelle dans les textes ou la jurisprudence afférente et se voit ainsi marqué d’une indétermination sémantique et juridique certaine. Doté d’une double dimension à la fois procédurale et matérielle, il n’en reste pas moins un principe fondamental du droit européen, un principe qui structure, d’une part, l’organisation et le fonctionnement même du système et guide, d’autre part, l’interprétation et le contrôle du juge de Strasbourg. Parce que naturellement ambigu mais néanmoins directeur du droit européen, le principe de subsidiarité se présente donc comme un principe souple et malléable, par conséquent, adaptable. L’analyse de sa mise en oeuvre dans la jurisprudence européenne met ainsi en exergue l’inconstance et la variabilité d’application du principe, à la libre disposition du juge strasbourgeois. Mais analysée à la lumière du contexte actuel d’un engorgement sans précédent du système et donc d’une réaffirmation urgente de son caractère subsidiaire, l’utilisation fluctuante du principe s’apprécie sous un jour nouveau, visant à faire de la subsidiarité un principe non plus garant des libertés nationales mais désormais source d’un encadrement de celles-ci. Parce que moteur d’une responsabilisation accrue des Etats membres, le principe de subsidiarité apparaît donc comme une pièce maîtresse de la politique jurisprudentielle du juge européen. / As part of the European Convention, the principle of subsidiarity is marked by ambiguity. Originating from judges, it has not been formally defined in legal texts nor in any related jurisprudence and is therefore characterized by a semantic and legal indeterminacy. Featuring both a procedural and a tangible dimension, it remains a fundamental principle of European law. On the one hand, it structures, the system’s organization and operations. On the other hand, it guides the court of Strasbourg’s interpretation and review. Naturally ambiguous but still guiding European law, the principle of subsidiarity is presented as a flexible and malleable principle, and therefore adaptable. The analysis of its implementation in the European jurisprudence highlights its inconsistency and variability at the free disposal of the court of Strasbourg. However, in the light of the current context of an unprecedented saturation of the system and therefore of an urgent reassertion of its subsidiary nature, a fluctuating use of the principle is assessed differently to make it not a guarantee of national liberties, but a guide for them. As a driving force for increased accountability of member states, the principle of subsidiarity appears to be essential to the judicial policy of the European court.

O presente trabalho examina o chamado problema da indeterminação jurídica, de maneira a procurar explicitar o tipo de questões teóricas que suscita e apreciar o alcance ou fecundidade das respostas que tais questões possibilitam, sobretudo sob o ângulo da discussão dos pressupostos institucionais subjacentes à organização das atividades de aplicação do direito. Nesse contexto, a tese central do trabalho é a de que a ideia de indeterminação do direito, restrita ao contexto jurisdicional e entendida como um fenômeno linguístico, esgotou seu potencial teórico, e que a percepção desse esgotamento deveria conduzir à exploração de formas pelas quais questões de indeterminação do direito podem ser mais produtivamente tratadas como questões sobre configuração institucional do que como questões sobre a natureza, ou defeitos, da linguagem. São analisadas abordagens paradigmáticas do problema - no pensamento de Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart e Ronald Dworkin - e os pressupostos institucionais que as informam, assim como identificados pontos de partida, nos estudos de Lon L. Fuller voltados à avaliação de formas alternativas de organização social, para exercícios de inovação institucional. A possibilidade de tais exercícios é exemplificada, ao final do trabalho, com propostas específicas de inovação, elaboradas por autores contemporâneos, concentradas na função jurisdicional, dirigidas a enfrentar o reconhecido impasse entre propostas de expansão e contenção da atuação judicial no contexto de efetivação de direitos sociais de caráter distributivo. / This work analyses the so-called legal indeterminacy problem, in order to make explicit the kind of theoretical issues it engenders and to assess the scope or fecundity of the answers such issues make possible, especially in terms of the discussion of institutional assumptions underlying the organization of the adjudicative function. In this setting, the central claim of this work is that the theoretical potential of the idea of legal indeterminacy, limited to the adjudicative realm and understood mainly as a linguistic phenomenon, has been worn out, and that the acknowledgment of this result should lead to the investigation of ways in which ?legal indeterminacy? issues might be more productively treated as issues about institutional innovation than issues about the nature, or defects, of language. The exemplary works of Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart, and Ronald Dworkin and the institutional assumptions underlying their thought, in connection with the indeterminacy problem, are reviewed, along with the writings of Lon L. Fuller dedicated to the assessment of alternative processes of social ordering, which are taken as a point of departure for exercises in institutional innovation. The possibility of such exercises is illustrated, at the end of this work, with specific innovation proposals by contemporary authors focused on the adjudicative job, dedicated to facing the theoretical deadlock between proposals for expanding and restricting the judicial role in the context of making welfare rights, of a distributive character, concrete

O presente trabalho examina o chamado problema da indeterminação jurídica, de maneira a procurar explicitar o tipo de questões teóricas que suscita e apreciar o alcance ou fecundidade das respostas que tais questões possibilitam, sobretudo sob o ângulo da discussão dos pressupostos institucionais subjacentes à organização das atividades de aplicação do direito. Nesse contexto, a tese central do trabalho é a de que a ideia de indeterminação do direito, restrita ao contexto jurisdicional e entendida como um fenômeno linguístico, esgotou seu potencial teórico, e que a percepção desse esgotamento deveria conduzir à exploração de formas pelas quais questões de indeterminação do direito podem ser mais produtivamente tratadas como questões sobre configuração institucional do que como questões sobre a natureza, ou defeitos, da linguagem. São analisadas abordagens paradigmáticas do problema - no pensamento de Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart e Ronald Dworkin - e os pressupostos institucionais que as informam, assim como identificados pontos de partida, nos estudos de Lon L. Fuller voltados à avaliação de formas alternativas de organização social, para exercícios de inovação institucional. A possibilidade de tais exercícios é exemplificada, ao final do trabalho, com propostas específicas de inovação, elaboradas por autores contemporâneos, concentradas na função jurisdicional, dirigidas a enfrentar o reconhecido impasse entre propostas de expansão e contenção da atuação judicial no contexto de efetivação de direitos sociais de caráter distributivo. / This work analyses the so-called legal indeterminacy problem, in order to make explicit the kind of theoretical issues it engenders and to assess the scope or fecundity of the answers such issues make possible, especially in terms of the discussion of institutional assumptions underlying the organization of the adjudicative function. In this setting, the central claim of this work is that the theoretical potential of the idea of legal indeterminacy, limited to the adjudicative realm and understood mainly as a linguistic phenomenon, has been worn out, and that the acknowledgment of this result should lead to the investigation of ways in which ?legal indeterminacy? issues might be more productively treated as issues about institutional innovation than issues about the nature, or defects, of language. The exemplary works of Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart, and Ronald Dworkin and the institutional assumptions underlying their thought, in connection with the indeterminacy problem, are reviewed, along with the writings of Lon L. Fuller dedicated to the assessment of alternative processes of social ordering, which are taken as a point of departure for exercises in institutional innovation. The possibility of such exercises is illustrated, at the end of this work, with specific innovation proposals by contemporary authors focused on the adjudicative job, dedicated to facing the theoretical deadlock between proposals for expanding and restricting the judicial role in the context of making welfare rights, of a distributive character, concrete

Depuis quelques décennies, nous assistons dans le champ littéraire caribéen francophone à la prolifération d’écrits dans lesquels les écrivains font le récit de leur propre vie. Ces récits que nous pourrions répertorier dans les « écritures du moi » semblent fortement marqués de l’empreinte autobiographique. Pourtant, au regard des travaux réalisés par Philippe Lejeune et Georges Gusdorf sur le genre, ces œuvres, pétries de traces autobiographiques, semblent en contourner les canons.Notre recherche consiste donc à nous interroger sur ce qui pourrait empêcher la classification de ces récits comme des autobiographies, au sens strict du terme. Nous émettons l’hypothèse d’un détournement des règles propres au genre inhérent au « moi empêché » de l’auteur, ou bien à l’affirmation d’un polymorphisme du genre (en contexte caribéen francophone).L’autobiographie serait-elle purement occidentale ? En nous appuyant sur un corpus d’une douzaine d’œuvres, dont les écrivains sont issus de la Caraïbe francophone (Patrick Chamoiseau et Raphaël Confiant pour la Martinique ; Maryse Condé, Henri Corbin, Daniel Maximin pour la Guadeloupe ; Jan-J. Dominique et Émile Ollivier pour Haïti), nous tenterons de répondre à cette problématique. / Since recent decades, we are seeing a proliferation of papers in the French Caribbean literature in which writers talk about themselves, the story of their own life. These narratives which could be list as “writings of myself” seem strongly marked with autobiographical imprint. Nevertheless, according to the works of Philippe Lejeune and Georges Gusdorf about the genre, these works molded by autobiographical tracks seem to stretch the rules. This present research deals with wondering about what could prevent the classification of these narratives as real autobiographies, in the strict sense of the word. We emit the hypothesis of a diversion of rules appropriate to the inherent genre in the “self-restraint” of the author, either in the assertion of a polymorphism of the genre (in the French-speaking Caribbean context)Is the autobiography a pure European genre?Basing on a corpus of a dozen of works, writers who arise from the French-Speaking Caribbean (Patrick Chamoiseau and Raphaël Confiant for Martinica; Maryse Condé, Henri Corbin and Daniel Maximin for Guadeloupe; J.-J. Dominique and Emile Ollivier for Haïti), we shall try to answer this problematic.

Legal and Extralegal Factors in Argumentation and Decision-making of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Abstract The thesis deals with the influence of legal and extralegal factors on the decision-making of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Particularly, it focuses on the questions of which preconditions for decision-making of the Constitutional Court are created by the external political and social environment, how this decision-making reflects the different attitudes and approaches of individual judges and how it is influenced by the composition of the judicial panels. The author first summarizes a wide range of factors whose influence on court decisions has been observed. These include not only the content of legislation, but also judicial philosophy, including activism and self-restraint, and various extralegal factors observed by the attitudinal and strategic model of judicial decision-making, but also by psychological and economic studies. Subsequently, the thesis focuses on the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. First, it deals with the preconditions for the influence of various factors on its decision-making and argues that the Constitutional Court can be considered a strong court due to its external conditions and its own decision-making activities. Then, with the...

Judicial self-restraint in the judicature of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Abstract The thesis deals with the role of the judicial self-restraint in the judicature of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Besides the theoretical definitions is the pivotal part of the thesis practical section that is focused on the analysis of pre-selected decisions of the Constitutional Court with respect to the judicial self-restraint. The first chapter contains definition of the theory of separation of powers as basis for the judicial self-restraint and its subcategories. Part of this chapter is oriented at the judicial power itself, which is crucial for the thesis. The second chapter provides definitions of key concepts - principal of judicial self-restraint, priority of the constitutionally conformal interpretation, political question doctrine and judicial activism, as it is called. These concepts are defined from the points of view of the angloamerican legal system as well as czech legal system. In the second chapter are also stated possible factors that may lead to the judicial activism and to the judiciary state, as it is called. The chapter afterwards describes the judicial interpretation and application of law in the context of the judicial self-restraint and provides relevant historical...

This study examines the phenomenon of abusive violence (AV) in the context of the American Post-9/11 Counter-terrorism and Counter-insurgency campaigns. Previous research into atrocities by states and their agents has largely come from examinations of totalitarian regimes with well-developed torture and assassination institutions. The mechanisms influencing willingness to do harm have been examined in experimental studies of obedience to authority and the influences of deindividuation, dehumanization, context and system. This study used Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to examine the lived experience of AV reported by fourteen American military and intelligence veterans. Participants were AV observers, objectors, or abusers. Subjects described why AV appeared sensible at the time, how methods of violence were selected, and what sense they made of their experiences after the fact. Accounts revealed the roles that frustration, fear, anger and mission pressure played to prompt acts of AV that ranged from the petty to heinous. Much of the AV was tied to a shift in mission view from macro strategic aims of CT and COIN to individual and small group survival. Routine hazing punishment soldiers received involving forced exercise and stress positions made similar acts inflicted on detainees unrecognizable as abusive. Overt and implied permissiveness from military superiors enabled AV extending to torture, and extra-judicial killings. Attempting to overcome feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and rage, subjects enacted communal punishment through indiscriminate beatings and shooting. Participants committed AV to amuse themselves and humiliate their enemies; some killed detainees to force confessions from others, conceal misdeeds, and avoid routine paperwork. Participants realized that AV practices were unnecessary, counter-productive, and self-damaging. Several reduced or halted their AV as a result. The lived experience of AV left most respondents feeling guilt, shame, and inadequacy, whether they committed abuse or failed to stop it.