L'autonomie procédurale est la dénomination erronée du phénomène réel qu'est la subsidiarité juridictionnelle. La I agi que veut que I' on parie a, termes de compétences, puisque I a subsidiarité régule leur exercice entre les États membres et l'Union. En matière de subsidiarité juridictionnelle relative aux modalités procédurales de mire en œuvre du droit de l'Union, il s’agit ainsi de compétence procédurale. La conséquence majeure de ce glissement notionnel est une relecture de l'ensemble de la jurisprudence de la Cour dans ce domaine. Cette relecture donne à voir plusieurs éléments qui, mis bout à bout donnait une nouvelle logique d'ensemble à la jurisprudence de la Cour. Tout d'abord, équivalence et effectivité, qui sont traditionnellement considérées comme régulant cette compétence procédurale du juge national , ne sont pas des principes mais des critères. Il ne sont par ailleurs pas les seuls à exercer cette fonction de régulation de l'exercice de la compétence et sont concurrencés par le droit à un protection juridictionnelle effective. Cette relecture montre alors que l'effectivité est un frein à la primauté du droit d l'Union en droit interne. Par ailleurs, le juge de Luxembourg prend a, compte depuis les premières années des exigence des États membres désireux de s’affranchir ponctuellement du critère d'effectivité. Ce mouvement est en fait une intégration de leur identité nationale, érigée en justification corrigeant le contenu même de cette effectivité. En d'autres termes, les États membres peuvent de plus en plus avancer des motifs d' intérêt général pour justifier le non-respect de l'effectivité du droit de l'Union. / Procedural autonomy is a term often misused when talking about the very real phenomenon “judicial subsidiarity”. It is more accurate to talk in terms of competence considering the principle of subsidiarity regulates the role they play between Member States and the Union. As such, when discussing judicial subsidiarity in relation to the procedural aspects of implementing EU law, one should talk about procedural competence. This change in meaning ultimately leads to a revision of all relevant case law. Such a review brings to light a number of elements that, when juxtaposed, reveal an overarching rationale behind the Court's rare law. First, both equivalence and effectivity, long perceived as regulators of procedural competence national judges, are not in fact principles but criteria. Furthermore, they are not the only regulating criteria as the right to an effective judicial protection also comes into play. It then becomes apparent that effectivity is an obstacle to EU law having primacy over national law. Moreover, for a long time the ECJ has taken into account requests made by Member States to, on occasion, bypass the criteria of effectivity. As such, the ECJ accepts that national identity can serve as corrective justification of the very content of effectivity. In other words, Member States can put forward more and more arguments in the name of “public interest” to justify non-compliance with EU law effectivity .

Recent discussions on corporate citizenship (CC) highlight the new political role of corporations in society by arguing that corporations increasingly act as quasi-governmental actors and take on what hitherto had originally been governmental tasks. By examining political and sociological citizenship theories, the authors show that such a corporate engagement can be explained by a changing (self-)conception of corporate citizens from corporate bourgeois to corporate citoyen. As an intermediate actor in society, the corporate citoyen assumes co-responsibilities for social and civic affairs and actively collaborates with fellow citizens beyond governmental regulation. This change raises the question of how such corporate civic engagement can be aligned with public policy regulations and how corporate activities can be integrated into the democratic regime. To clarify the mode of CC contributions to society, the authors will apply the tenet of subsidiarity as a governing principle which allows for specifying corporations’ tasks as intermediate actors in society. By referring to the renewed European Union strategy for Corporate Social Responsibility, the authors show how such a subsidiary corporate-governmental task-sharing can be organized.

El presente artículo pretende demostrar, partiendo del estudio del neoliberalismo, que el modelo económico de economía social de mercado contenido en la Constitución Política del Perú debe ser interpretado desde su esencia y principios fundamentales; por lo que, la necesidad de un cambio de modelo económico es innecesaria. Por ello, se plantea la necesidad de retomar sus fundamentos iniciales, así como interpretarlo desde el principio de subsidiariedad para establecer las adaptaciones necesarias al entorno social y económico actual, de manera que otras ramas del derecho como el mercantil y el de competencia puedan adaptarse desde la esencia del modelo. / This article aims to demonstrate, starting from the study of neoliberalism, that the economic model of the social market economy contained in the Political Constitution of Peru must be interpreted from its essence and fundamental principles, therefore, the need for a change in the economic model it is unnecessary. Therefore, the need arises to return to its initial foundations, as well as to interpret it from the principle of subsidiarity to establish the necessary adaptations to the current social and economic environment, so that other areas of law such as both, commercial and competition law, can adapt from the essence of the model.

<p style="text-align: justify;">Објективна је чињеница да је Европски суд за људска права најстарији међународни форум за заштиту људских права. Вредносна оцена, да је овај Суд уз то и најзначајнији и најуспешнији суд такве врсте, последњих деценија постала је практично опште место у правној теорији. Као разлози успеха, уобичајено се наводе две чињенице: висок степен поверења које Суд ужива од стране држава чланица и лица која му се обраћају те велики утицај који је пракса тог Суда имала на укупан развој људских права на европском континенту али и шире.<br />Највећи утицај Европски суд за људска права, остварио је у домену успостављања стандарда заштите слобода и права гарантованих Конвенцијом, а који стандарди су доцније имплементирани на националном нивоу држава чланица. У том смислу, значај праксе Суда превазилази збир појединачно пружене заштите сваком од лица чија је представка у досадашњој историји Суда усвојена. Корпус судске праксе из које произилазе бројни стандарди заштите данас је у многоме полазна тачка у аргументацији и националних законодаваца и националних судова.<br />Из наведеног произилази и осетљива позиција коју Суд заузима у контролном механизму Конвенције. Са једне стране, да би био ефикасан, од њега се очекује да кроз своју праксу и даље утиче на заштиту људских права и слобода и да том праксом (некада непосредно, а некада посредно) интервенише на пољу остварења и заштите права и слобода на националном нивоу. Са друге стране, Суд мора оправдати висок степен поверења држава чланица, чијом је вољом постао и чијем вољом опстаје на међународној сцени. Државе чланице, осетљиве су у погледу очувања сопственог суверенитета, па тако, када Суд прекорачи границе интервенције на које су државе &bdquo;навикле― оне Суду упућују позиве да свој &bdquo;интервенционизам― ограничи.<br />На описани начин ствара се једна врста вертикалне тензије између Суда и држава чланица, услед чега је Суд приморан да у свом одлучивању балансира између захтева да пружи ефикасну и ефективну заштиту људских права, и захтева да своју интервенцију у националне правне поретке сведе на прихватљиву границу.<br />Алат који Суд корити у поступку таквог балансирања управо јесте начело супсидијарности. Ово начело, у својој досадашњој пракси, Суд је означио као једно од основних и најважнијих начела свог функционисања, наводећи да је оно инхерентно механизму заштите који Конвенција успоставља. Услед специфичне позиције коју заузима, Суд начело супсидијарности користи и као штит, да би ограничио поље и начин свог деловања и тиме се заштитио од критика држава чланица; али и као мач, као средство које му даје основа да нападне неправду коју је уочио и интервенише у циљу пружања ефективне заштите права.<br />Циљ овог рада управо јесте да испита сва релевантна питања која се постављају у вези са овим важним начелом функционисања Суда.<br />У раду ће бити испитано најпре шта је то супсидијарност али и како се она развијала ван контролног механизма Конвенције да би се могла упоредити са супсидијарношћу у оквиру контролног механизма Конвенције. Биће испитано када се супсидијарност први пут јавља у пракси Суда, колико често се јавља у пракси и са којим последицама. Испитаће се посебно које правне инструменте из Конвенције и сопствене праксе Суд користи као израз начела супсидијарности, те како и из којих разлога ти инструменти делују као штит или као мач.</p> / <p style="text-align: justify;">Objektivna je činjenica da je Evropski sud za ljudska prava najstariji međunarodni forum za zaštitu ljudskih prava. Vrednosna ocena, da je ovaj Sud uz to i najznačajniji i najuspešniji sud takve vrste, poslednjih decenija postala je praktično opšte mesto u pravnoj teoriji. Kao razlozi uspeha, uobičajeno se navode dve činjenice: visok stepen poverenja koje Sud uživa od strane država članica i lica koja mu se obraćaju te veliki uticaj koji je praksa tog Suda imala na ukupan razvoj ljudskih prava na evropskom kontinentu ali i šire.<br />Najveći uticaj Evropski sud za ljudska prava, ostvario je u domenu uspostavljanja standarda zaštite sloboda i prava garantovanih Konvencijom, a koji standardi su docnije implementirani na nacionalnom nivou država članica. U tom smislu, značaj prakse Suda prevazilazi zbir pojedinačno pružene zaštite svakom od lica čija je predstavka u dosadašnjoj istoriji Suda usvojena. Korpus sudske prakse iz koje proizilaze brojni standardi zaštite danas je u mnogome polazna tačka u argumentaciji i nacionalnih zakonodavaca i nacionalnih sudova.<br />Iz navedenog proizilazi i osetljiva pozicija koju Sud zauzima u kontrolnom mehanizmu Konvencije. Sa jedne strane, da bi bio efikasan, od njega se očekuje da kroz svoju praksu i dalje utiče na zaštitu ljudskih prava i sloboda i da tom praksom (nekada neposredno, a nekada posredno) interveniše na polju ostvarenja i zaštite prava i sloboda na nacionalnom nivou. Sa druge strane, Sud mora opravdati visok stepen poverenja država članica, čijom je voljom postao i čijem voljom opstaje na međunarodnoj sceni. Države članice, osetljive su u pogledu očuvanja sopstvenog suvereniteta, pa tako, kada Sud prekorači granice intervencije na koje su države &bdquo;navikle― one Sudu upućuju pozive da svoj &bdquo;intervencionizam― ograniči.<br />Na opisani način stvara se jedna vrsta vertikalne tenzije između Suda i država članica, usled čega je Sud primoran da u svom odlučivanju balansira između zahteva da pruži efikasnu i efektivnu zaštitu ljudskih prava, i zahteva da svoju intervenciju u nacionalne pravne poretke svede na prihvatljivu granicu.<br />Alat koji Sud koriti u postupku takvog balansiranja upravo jeste načelo supsidijarnosti. Ovo načelo, u svojoj dosadašnjoj praksi, Sud je označio kao jedno od osnovnih i najvažnijih načela svog funkcionisanja, navodeći da je ono inherentno mehanizmu zaštite koji Konvencija uspostavlja. Usled specifične pozicije koju zauzima, Sud načelo supsidijarnosti koristi i kao štit, da bi ograničio polje i način svog delovanja i time se zaštitio od kritika država članica; ali i kao mač, kao sredstvo koje mu daje osnova da napadne nepravdu koju je uočio i interveniše u cilju pružanja efektivne zaštite prava.<br />Cilj ovog rada upravo jeste da ispita sva relevantna pitanja koja se postavljaju u vezi sa ovim važnim načelom funkcionisanja Suda.<br />U radu će biti ispitano najpre šta je to supsidijarnost ali i kako se ona razvijala van kontrolnog mehanizma Konvencije da bi se mogla uporediti sa supsidijarnošću u okviru kontrolnog mehanizma Konvencije. Biće ispitano kada se supsidijarnost prvi put javlja u praksi Suda, koliko često se javlja u praksi i sa kojim posledicama. Ispitaće se posebno koje pravne instrumente iz Konvencije i sopstvene prakse Sud koristi kao izraz načela supsidijarnosti, te kako i iz kojih razloga ti instrumenti deluju kao štit ili kao mač.</p> / <p style="text-align: justify;">European Court of Human Rights (EctHR) is the oldest international forum for the protection of human rights. The opinion that the European Court of Human Rights is the most important and most successful court of its kind has become, in recent decades, a matter of uncontested consensus in legal theory. There are two main commonly cited reasons for such success: the high level of confidence that the Court enjoys from the Member States and the persons who turn to it, and the great influence that the jurisprudence of that Court has on the overall development of human rights on the European continent, and beyond.</p><p>The greatest impact of the EctHR can be found in the domain of the establishment of standards for the protection of freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Convention, which were subsequently implemented at the national level of the Member States. In this respect, the importance of the Court&#39;s practice goes beyond the sum of individual protection provided to each of the persons whose application in the previous history of the Court has been upheld. The current case law, which gave rise to development of human rights standards, necessarily plays a vital role in human rights argumentation of both national legislators and national courts.</p><p>Bearing in mind the reasons for the Court&lsquo;s success mentioned above, it seems that there is a delicate position that the Court holds within the control mechanism of the Convention. On the one hand, the Court needs to intervene into national legal orders of the Member States (directly or indirectly) when those States fail to secure guaranties provided in the Convention. On the other hand, the Court must justify a high degree of confidence among the Member States, who constituted the Court and whose consent made the Court a prominent actor on international stage. Member States are sensitive in terms of preserving their own sovereignty. When the Court exceeds the limits of intervention to which States are &quot;accustomed&quot; they call upon the Court to limit its &quot;interventionism&quot;.</p><p>In this way, a sort of a vertical tension is created between the Court and the Member States, which is why the Court is compelled to balance its decisions between the requirement to provide efficient and effective protection of human rights, on one hand, and demands that its intervention into national legal orders should be reduced to an acceptable margin, on the other.</p><p>The mechanism used by the Court in the process of such balancing is, in fact, the principle of subsidiarity. This principle has been designated by the Court as one of the fundamental and supreme principles of its functioning, and as a principle that is inherent to the protection mechanism established by the Convention. Due to its specific position the Court has used the principle of subsidiarity both as a shield and as a sword. As a shield when required to limit the scope and method of its functioning thereby protecting itself from the criticism of the Member States. As a sword, when grappling with the manifest injustice on national level in order to intervene and provide effective protection of human rights.</p><p>The aim of this dissertation is to examine all the relevant issues raised in relation to this important principle of the functioning of the Court.This dissertation will firstly examine subsidiarity and how it evolved outside the control mechanism of the Convention, in order to be able to compare it with subsidiarity within the Convention&#39;s control mechanism. Furthermore, the research covers issues of frequency and consequences of the principle of subsidiarity in the Court&lsquo;s jurisprudence. The goal of the research is also to detect legal arguments and legal concepts used by the Court to express the principle of subsidiarity. The task is to examine whether and when these concepts and arguments are used as a shield or as a sword.</p>

In this thesis, the legal theory of Robert Cover is employed to analyse the procedural turn of the ECtHR. The text studies how Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom (ADI) and subsequent case law relate to the margin of appreciation doctrine and how this can be understood from a Coverian point of view. The margin of appreciation is thus seen as a product of an interplay between paideic and imperial forces where the imperial, or world-maintaining, influences on the doctrine are the strongest. ADI and later cases are read as further accentuating the focus on the nomos of the state relative to competing nomoi already at work in the case law of the procedural turn. The thesis is closed with an amalgamation of Cover’s ideas with the democratic theory of Jacques Derrida which results in a discussion on what a Coverian re-evaluation of the approach outlined in ADI could look like.

By conducting a case study of two diaconal institutions, Samariterhemmet in Uppsala/Sweden and the Evangelisches Diakoniewerk Schwäbisch Hall e.V. in Germany, the thesis compares the roles of church diaconal work within the Swedish and the German welfare system. These two systems are characterised by the different roles given to independent welfare organisations. The overarching research question is if and in which way the two diaconal institutions are effected by current changes within the field of welfare and how these changes challenge them to redefine their roles. The material analysed contains written documents, interviews with selected representatives and the results of participant observation in both institutions. As changes in the roles of independent welfare organisations were expected the results are unexpected. The two diaconal institutions show considerable persistence. Neither the orientation of their fields of work nor their own definitions of their roles within the welfare system have changed during the 1990s. In addition, the study reveals that both institutions regard themselves as a critical voice within the welfare system although their welfare engagement differs considerably. The German institution is a huge welfare provider while the Swedish institution conducts targeted initiatives. The analysis of four decisions within hospital work reveals that security of planning and freedom of action motivate the institutions to undertake responsibility for social services. The study points especially to the fields of education and research helping the institutions to maintain and to develop the diaconal profile. Altogether the results underline the need for more research on the meso-level of the third sector. This would contribute to a more nuanced discussion on the future role of independent welfare organisations within the Swedish and the German welfare system.

Ignorées à l’origine par le droit de l’Union européenne, les collectivités locales s’inscrivent pourtant dans les enjeux de l’intégration européenne et s’imposent en qualité de « quasi-sujet » du droit de l’Union européenne.A l’échelle de l’Union européenne, les collectivités locales sont associées de plus en plus à l’élaboration et à la mise en oeuvre des politiques de l’UE. Cependant, leur action reste dépendante des cadres étatiques qui édifient des limites institutionnelles à une participation plus accrue. L’Etat demeure l’acteur institutionnel par excellence.En dépit de ces obstacles, les collectivités locales parviennent à élaborer des stratégies pour influer sur le processus décisionnel en utilisant une diversité de canaux formels et informels.Enfin, elles participent directement à la mise en évidence d’un territoire de l’Union européenne. L’ingénierie locale constitue alors un atout pour l’avenir de l’Union, qui consciente des différences et de la diversité de son territoire, adapte ses politiques et ancre de plus en plus sa démarche dans les préceptes de la Multi level governance (ou gouvernance multi-niveaux). L’émergence de ce modèle de gouvernance est censée pérenniser les acquis et la poursuite de la construction européenne, tout en respectant les traditions constitutionnelles nationales.Ainsi, l’objet de cette thèse est d’envisager les rapports complexes entre l’Union européenne et les collectivités locales. Cette étude ouvre alors sur des perspectives territoriales nouvelles intéressant directement l’Union européenne et inspire une réflexion sur le rôle de ces pouvoirs infra-étatiques dans une Union qui s’inscrit aussi dans un monde globalisé. / For a long time, the European Union has not known about the local and regional authorities.However, local and regional level is a real asset to the Union. They become some almost subject of the European Union.Indeed, local and regional authorities currently have significant powers in key sectors such as education, environment, economic development, land use planning, public services and social policies. They implement the European legislation. Therefore, they also help ensure the exercise of European democracy and citizenship.Despite some significant advances in terms of recognizing their role in the European process, their actions are controlled by their national’s institutional architecture. And as the Union respects the constitutional autonomy of the Member States, which order their relations with regional and local authorities in different ways, it is really complicated to organize relations between European level and local and regional level.In spite of these impediments, the local authorities succeed in establishing strategies in order to be closely involved in shaping and implementing European strategies.Finally, the local authorities also take part into the construction of a European territory.Indeed, the diversity of the local and regional situations shows that it could be a chance. European policies have to be set up to the disparities and the local level is involved into the European decision making process.By another way, the recognition of the key role played by local and regional authorities in the European Union is developing a multilevel vision in the relations between the European actors. If the member States stay the institutional speaker of the European process, their local authorities succeed in integrating the European level. The multi level governance (MLG) has attracted the European Union. The MLG should coordinate action by the European level, the member states and local and regional authorities.This thesis shows the complicated relations between the European Union and the local authorities. Territorial perspectives and new objectives and tools should drive the European Union towards a better democratic integration

Dans le cadre du renouvellement doctrinal sur les unions fédérales, nous proposons une définition du pacte fédératif qui se fonde sur l'étude des systèmes fédéraux allemand, américain, et suisse dans la perspective d'une qualification juridique des traités européens. Le pacte fédératif est un acte conclu volontairement entre des Etats fondant une institution, la Fédération, qui constitue une union politique. La stabilité de cette Fédération impose des mécanismes assurant sa cohérence et le respect du droit fédéral, ainsi que le développement d'un sentiment d'appartenance fédéral. Mais les autorités fédérales doivent à l'inverse respecter l'intégrité des Etats membres. Si l'un de ces éléments n'est pas respecté la Fédération risque d'imploser ou de se transformer en Etat fédéral. L'Union européenne répond globalement à ces critères de définition, ce qui permet sa qualification de Fédération. L'étude de son fonctionnement permet également de mettre en évidence un respect général de l'équilibre entre les niveaux fédéral et fédéré nécessaire à sa pérennisation en tant que Fédération. Au plan matériel, l'équilibre entre impératif de bon fonctionnement de la Fédération et le respect de l'intégrité des Etats membres ne fait pas l'objet de tensions avec les Etats membres, que ce soit au niveau de la répartition comme de l'exercice des compétences. Au plan institutionnel, le processus décisionnel a dû s'adapter au renforcement de l'intégration européenne. On constate notamment un renforcement de la légitimité démocratique, condition préalable au développement d'un sentiment d'appartenance européen, même si des améliorations restent nécessaires. Le reproche de déficit démocratique lié à l'absence d'alternative partisane paraît plus difficile à résoudre car le facteur partisan n'est pas aisé à concilier avec la logique de fonctionnement des institutions européennes qui impose une forme de compromis. / As part of the renewal of the doctrin regarding federal unions, I suggest a definition of the federal compact which is based on the study of the German, the American and the Swiss federal systems in order to find a legal classification for the European treaties. The federal compact is an act voluntarily concluded between states founding an "institution", the Federation, which is a political union. The stability of this Federation implies mechanisms which safeguard consistency and compliance with federal law ; besides it requires the development of a federal sense of belonging. But conversely, federal authorities have to respect the member states’ integrity. If one of those criteria is not met, the Federation may collapse or turn into a federal state. The European Union meets these criteria completely, which allows its characterization as Federation. The study of its functioning enables then to highlight a global compliance of the balance between federal and state level, which is necessary for the Federation’s stability. On the material level, the balance between the obligation of a good functioning Federation on the one hand and the respect of the member states on the other doesn't turn into a conflict with the member states, neither in regard of the allocation of power nor in regard of the exercise of power. On the institutional level, decisional process had to be adapted to a deeper European integration. There is in particular a strengthened democratic legitimacy, which is required for a European sense of belonging to develop, even though improvements are still necessary. It seems more difficult to solve the problem of the criticism related to the lack of democracy based on the absence of political challenge because political challenge is not easy to achieve given the compromise-based way the European institution function.

La subsidiarité qui constitue un principe directeur du droit européen a aussi sa place en droit privé. C’est une notion fonctionnelle qui ne peut être appréhendée que d’après ses applications ; la recherche de la place qu’elle occupe en droit privé passe par l’analyse des différentes fonctions qu’elle remplit. C’est une notion autonome qui doit être distinguée de situations voisines où il existe un concept qui s’élabore par rapport à un autre dit principal ou premier. Il faut donc la distinguer notamment des rapports qui régissent le principal et l’accessoire, de la supplétivité et de l’équivalence. Révélée et connue comme étant une caractéristique de l’action de l’enrichissement sans cause, elle s’étend à diverses matières du droit privé. La subsidiarité y remplit deux fonctions : la première, c’est celle de préserver la primauté du principal, la deuxième, c’est celle d’assurer la suppléance du principal. Sa première fonction est illustrée par l’obligation de la caution, l’obligation des associés au passif social dans les sociétés civiles et les groupements assimilés, ainsi que la subsidiarité des voies d’exécution, plus précisément, celle de la saisie-vente. A côté de ces illustrations relatives au droit substantiel, la subsidiarité est également illustrée dans le droit processuel ; c’est celle qui se concrétise dans la marche du procès. Sa deuxième fonction est illustrée par l’action en enrichissement sans cause, en tant que voie de droit subsidiaire, par les recours-nullité, en tant que voies de recours subsidiaires, ainsi que par la vocation subsidiaire du droit commun, illustrée par le droit commun de la responsabilité civile. La subsidiarité est employée pour éviter toute subversion de l’ordre juridique. Elle contribue à combler les lacunes du Droit et à garantir l’efficacité du système juridique. / Subsidiarity which constitutes a leading principle of European Union law has also its place in private law. It is a functional notion that can only be comprehended through its applications, the search of the place that it occupies in private law passes through analyzing the various functions which it has. It is an autonomous notion which has to be distinguished from close situations where there’s a concept that is elaborated according to another one said to be principal or primary. It has to be for instance distinguished from the links existing between the principal and the accessory, from suppletivity and from equivalence. Revealed and known as a characteristic of the legal action of enrichment without just cause, it has spread to various topics of private law. In private law subsidiarity performs two functions: the first one aims to preserve the primacy of the principal, and the second one, aims to assure the substitute of the principal. Its first function is illustrated by the obligation of the guarantor, by the obligation of the partners for the liability of debts in civil companies and other assimilated societies, and also by the subsidiarity of the enforcement proceedings, more precisely, the one related to the seizure of goods. In addition to these illustrations related to substantive law, subsidiarity is also illustrated in civil procedure; it is the one which is revealed to the course of the process. Its second function is illustrated by the legal action of enrichment without just cause, as of a subsidiary legal action, and by the nullity recourses, as of subsidiary remedies at law, and also by the subsidiary vocation of the common law, illustrated by the common rules of civil liability. Subsidiarity is employed to avoid any subversion of the legal order. It contributes to fill the gaps of Law and to make the legal system more efficient.

[pt] Com a engenhosa sobreposição constitucional de espaços políticos autônomos, de cidadãos comuns, num único território nacional, os Founding Fathers inauguraram o federalismo moderno. Tal revolução manifestou, em ato, a potência de uma multidão que desejou constituir novas realidades – mais comuns e plenas –, e novos modos de viver e decidir. Em sua fórmula original – de inspiração liberal, democrática, pluralista, igualitária e solidária –, o equilíbrio federativo confiou à União Federal apenas questões merecedoras de especial agilidade, unidade ou uniformidade – como, e.g., a declaração de guerra, a cunhagem de moedas, e padronização de pesos e medidas. Mantiveram-se descentralizadas todas as demais competências políticas das antigas colônias, recém-libertas. Desde então, uma tendência centralista e homogeneizadora, acentuada pelas exigências do Estado-social, desvia o federalismo da sua natureza limitadora do poder, protetora da liberdade, conciliadora de interesses gerais e específicos, e afirmativa de um locus privilegiado de cidadania. Nesta dissertação, o conflito irreconciliável entre a radicalidade inovadora do poder constituinte e as estruturas conservadoras que produz, a cada vez que altera a realidade, é o contexto em que se avalia eventual instrumentalidade da nossa jurisdição constitucional em relação a um federalismo centralizador, paternalista, quase nominal, no qual restariam aos entes subnacionais poucas e vigiadas liberdades. Nessa investigação, a recente fiscalização dos espaços políticos federativos pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, à luz dos pressupostos teóricos, indica a posição da Corte nas disputas federativas de poder, e sua releitura, especialmente sob a perspectiva do princípio da subsidiariedade – expressão federativa das ideias de diversidade e solidariedade – revela outras possibilidades interpretativas. / [en] With the ingenious constitutional superposition of autonomous political spaces of common citizens into a single national territory, the Founding Fathers have inaugurated the modern federalism. This revolution has expressed, in act, the power of a multitude that wished to establish new realities – more common and full – and new ways of living and making decisions. In its original formula – from a liberal, democratic, pluralistic, egalitarian and caring inspiration – the federal balance entrusted to the Federal Government only issues deserving special promptitude, unity or uniformity – e.g., the declaration of war, coinage, and the standardization of weights and measures. All other political powers of the former colonies, recently freed, remained decentralized. Since then, a centralist and homogenizing trend, accentuated by the demands of the Welfare State, diverts the federalism from its power-limiting, protector of freedom, conciliator of general and specific interests, and guarantor of a privileged locus of citizenship nature. In this dissertation, the irreconcilable conflict between the groundbreaking radical nature of the constituent power and the conservative structures it produces every time it changes the reality is the context in which it is evaluated any possible instrumentality of our constitutional jurisdiction in relation to a centralized and paternalistic, almost nominal, federalism in which only a few and monitored freedoms would remain for the subnational entities. In this investigation, the recent surveillance of federal political spaces by the Brazilian Supreme Court, in light of theoretical assumptions, indicates the position of the Court in federative disputes for power, and their rereading, especially from the perspective of the principle of subsidiarity – federative expression of the ideas of diversity and solidarity – reveals other interpretational possibilities.