340 Recht
Refine
Year of publication
- 2012 (167) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (114)
- Article (23)
- Review (9)
- Working Paper (9)
- Book (5)
- Part of Periodical (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
Language
- English (110)
- German (54)
- Portuguese (2)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (167)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (167)
Keywords
- Democracy (9)
- Law (7)
- human rights (6)
- law (6)
- Recht (5)
- democracy (5)
- Internet (4)
- Human Rights (3)
- Moral (3)
- Verfassung (3)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (141)
- Institute for Law and Finance (ILF) (11)
- Exzellenzcluster Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen (5)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (3)
- LOEWE-Schwerpunkt Außergerichtliche und gerichtliche Konfliktlösung (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Philosophie (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- Extern (1)
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (1)
O artigo investiga a formação, a carreira e os trabalhos de Max Weber como jurista, assim como delineia as linhas gerais do impacto e das influências de sua formação jurídica na sua obra em geral. Especial atenção merece sua tese de doutorado sobre as sociedades comerciais na Idade Média, que é apresentada em sua problematização geral e em suas principais ideias. Com isso, procura-se indicar como os problemas tratados por Weber em sua tese de doutorado - sua principal obra jurídica - antecipam temas e problemas que serão desenvolvidos na obra posterior de modo ampliado e aprofundado.
Law making becomes an increasingly important function of the higher courts in civil law matters. This observation leads to the question of whether the law making function is nevertheless carried out in a “classical” legal-principled way or whether the courts increasingly employ a political-formative style. To answer this question, one should not only focus on the content of the courts’ reasoning but also on their procedural-institutional framework. From that perspective, the processing of so-called legislative facts is a key issue in determining the role of courts between legal reasoning and social engineering. The paper shows that Germany, England and the United States pursue different lines in processing legislative facts. Notwithstanding these differences, it seems to be the case that the increasing importance of law making will also change the institutional framework of appellate courts towards a quasi-legislative forum.
Power and law in enlightened absolutism : Carl Gottlieb Svarez' theoretical and practical approach
(2012)
The term Enlightened Absolutism reflects a certain tension between its two components. This tension is in a way a continuation of the dichotomy between power on one hand and law on the other. The present paper shall provide an analysis of these two concepts from the perspective of Carl Gottlieb Svarez, who, in his position as a high-ranking Prussian civil servant and legal reformist, has had unparalleled influence on the legislative history of the
Prussian states towards the end of the 18th century. Working side-by-side with Johann Heinrich Casimir von Carmer, who held the post of Prussian minister of justice from 1779 to 1798, Svarez was able to make use of his talent for reforming and legislating. From 1780 to 1794 he was primarily responsible for the elaboration of the codification of the Prussian private law – the “Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preußischen Staaten” in 1794. In the present paper, Svarez’ approach to the relation between law and power shall be analysed on two different levels. Firstly, on a theoretical level, the reformist’s thoughts and reflections as laid down in his numerous works, papers and memorandums, shall be discussed. Secondly, on a practical level, the question of the extent to which he implemented his ideas in Prussian legal reality shall be explored.
Mit der Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte verfügt die Rechtsgeschichte seit vielen Jahrzehnten über eine Tradition transnationaler rechtshistorischer Forschung. Sie wurde von deutschsprachigen Wissenschaftlern der Vor- und Nachkriegszeit geprägt – Emil Seckel, Paul Koschaker, Franz Wieacker, Helmut Coing – und stand im Kontext des westeuropäischen Nachkriegsprojekts. Noch heute bauen wir auf ihren großen Leistungen auf. Sie war, wie alle Geschichtswissenschaft, Teil eines Prozesses der gesellschaftlichen Selbstverständigung über die eigene Identität und zeichnete das Bild einer distinkten europäischen Rechtskultur.
In den letzten Jahren sind im Zuge der Diskussion um postkoloniale Perspektiven auf die Geschichte, um Transnationale und Globalgeschichte, viele Grundlagen der traditionellen Europahistoriographie kritisiert und massiv erschüttert worden. Das wirft Fragen auch an die Europäische Rechtsgeschichte auf: Welches Europabild liegt ihr zu Grunde? Auf welchen intellektuellen und konzeptionellen Grundlagen beruht sie? Wie antwortet sie auf die Vorwürfe des Eurozentrismus, des epistemischen Kolonialismus, wie auf die Forderung, Europa zu ‘provinzialisieren’? Wie definiert sie das Verhältnis der Europäischen zur Transnationalen und Globalen Rechtsgeschichte? - Diesen und ähnlichen Fragen wenden sich die folgenden Überlegungen zu. Der Schwerpunkt liegt auf einer Auseinandersetzung mit der Tradition, ihren konzeptionellen Grundlagen und deren wissenschaftshistorischem Kontext (1. Teil, 1.-6.). Aus dieser kritischen Bestandsaufnahme und den Ergebnissen der Debatte um Globalgeschichte ergeben sich Ausgangspunkte und Aufgaben einer in vielem auf den Leistungen der Disziplin aufbauenden, doch notwendigerweise auf einer anderen Konzeption beruhenden Rechtsgeschichte Europas in globalhistorischer Perspektive (2. Teil, 7.-11.).
Das Gesetz zur Änderung des Vormundschafts- und Betreuungsrechts ist am 14. April 2011 vom Deutschen Bundestag beschlossen worden; der Bundesrat hat am 25.05.2011 zugestimmt. Dieses Gesetz trat – mit einigen Ausnahmen, die erst ein Jahr nach der Verkündung des Gesetzes in Kraft treten – am 6.7.2011 in Kraft. Der Schwerpunkt dieses Beitrags soll nicht bei den durch diese Reform bereits erfolgten bzw. demnächst in Kraft tretenden Änderungen und den sich bereits abzeichnenden Schwierigkeiten seiner Umsetzung liegen, vielmehr soll es um die Ziele und Grundsätze einer noch weitergehenden Reform (zweite Stufe) gehen, die die Rechtspolitik im Rahmen der Verabschiedung dieses Gesetzes für erforderlich gehalten und bereits in Aussicht gestellt hat (zweite Stufe). Dennoch sollen zunächst die Essentials dieses ersten wichtigen und richtigen Reformschritts nochmals in Stichworten am Anfang dieses Beitrags stehen. Dieses Gesetz wurde auch schon als "Amtsvormundschaftsverbesserungsgesetz" und als Minimalkompromiss apostrophiert, was angesichts der Fokussierung dieses ersten Reformschrittes nicht überrascht.
Der vorliegende Band enthält die Referate des 2. Familienrechtlichen Forums
Göttingen vom 2. Juli 2011, welches aktuelle Problemstellungen des Kindschaftsrechts
zum Gegenstand hatte. Vor dem Hintergrund jüngst abgeschlossener
und bevorstehender Gesetzesnovellen erörterten ausgewählte Experten
aus Wissenschaft, Politik und Praxis verschiedene Problemschwerpunkte: Zum
einen wurde die anstehende Novellierung des Sorgerechts nicht miteinander
verheirateter Eltern thematisiert und nach Lösungen für den Umgang mit dem
Umgangsboykott gesucht. Dabei eröffnete die interdisziplinäre und rechtsvergleichende
Annährung an die aufgeworfenen Probleme neue Perspektiven. Zum
anderen wurden die nur wenige Tage nach der Veranstaltung abgeschlossene
Vormundschaftsrechtsreform sowie das inzwischen ebenfalls in Kraft getretene
Bundeskinderschutzgesetz einer kritischen Würdigung unterzogen. Die Veranstaltung
endete mit einer kritischen Zwischenbilanz zum kindschaftsrechtlichen
Verfahren nach dem FamFG, das die Praxis vor zahlreiche Probleme stellt.
Although their applications have not yet extended widely due to their incipient state, nano-technologies and nano-medicines may be presumed to be at the origin of the next great technological revolution, foreseeably contributing to a new stage with respect to evolutions in mankind’s progress. Their possibilities are truly immense in enormously varied spheres, but the risks and uncertainties they engender are enormous too. Because access and use of the unceasingly increasing mega-quantity of information they generate will place further strain on the protection of personal life, privacy, the exercise of freedom, as well as the safeguarding of other fundamental principles and rights.
The requalification of Habermas’ discussions on political philosophy and legal theory after the publication of Zwischen Naturalismus und Religion (2005), and his most recent texts and debates on religion and the public sphere, suggest a revision of the Habermasian theory of rationalization as it was firstly presented in Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns (1982), especially on what concerns the processes of dessacralization and the linguistification of religious authority. In search of contributing to this revision, this paper intends to focus on the problem of a supposedly “lost” aesthetic-expressive understanding of religious authority in Habermas’s theory of rationalization, which may have contributed to a theory of law in Faktizität und Geltung (1992) that does not give satisfactory account to the aesthetical-expressive character of the modern understanding of legal authority. A better understanding of this special character, however, may contribute not only to the avoidance of fundamentalisms and new attempts of “aesthetization of politics”, but also to a rational strengthening of the solidarity of the citizens of democratic constitutional states.
This paper aims to discuss in which sense public hearings in supreme courts of democratic rules of law can be seen as proceduralization of popular sovereignty policies. These policies constitute expressions of a normative claim for a wider “publicization of law” by democratic states’ institutional powers and organs; a claim that becomes evident when one undertakes an intersubjective interpretation of law. This theoretical argument will be presented in the first section of the paper through a new articulation of Jürgen Habermas’ discursive theory of law and his most recent studies on the concept of political public sphere. The theoretical section gives normative and procedural criteria for the second section of the paper, which consists on a critical analysis of the procedures and practical cases of public hearings held at the Brazilian Supreme Court, constituting the first scientific study to date on the Court’s use of this legal instrument.
Since the XIX century, a pleiad of philosophers and historians support the idea that Greek philosophy, usually reported to have started with the presocratics, lays its basis in a previous moment: the Greek myths – systematized by Homer and Hesiod – and the Greek arts, in particular the lyric and tragedy literature. According to this, it is important to retrieve philosophical elements even before the pre-Socratics to understand the genesis of specific concepts in Philosophy of Law. Besides, assuming that the Western’s core values are inherited from Ancient Greece, it is essential to recuperate the basis of our own justice idea, through the Greek myths and tragedy literature. As a case study, this paper aims on the comparison of two key-works, each one representing a phase of the Greek tragedy: The Orestea, by Aeschylus, and Orestes, by Euripides. Both contain the same story, telling how the Greeks understood the necessity of solving their conflicts not by blood revenge, but through a political way, and also the political drama. Although, in Aeschylus’s one, men still leashed by their fate, while the gods play a major role, in order to punish human pride (hybris). In a different way, on Euripides’s work men face their own loneliness, in a world fulfilled with gods, each one demanding divergent actions. That represents a necessary moment to the flourishing freedom and human subjectivity, and, once the exterior divinity is unable to resolve human problems, men will need to discover their interior divinity: that is how the Philosophy emerges.
Dworkin`s political theory is characterized by the interpretative integrity of morality, law, and politics, the so-called “hedgehog’s approach”. The interpretative integrity approach functions on multiple levels. Firstly, philosophical foundations of his theory of justice are linked to his conception of just liberal society and state. Secondly, from the perspective of political morality, interpretative concepts of law and morality are internally connected, in addition to interpretative concepts of equality, liberty, and democracy. Thirdly, from the perspective of philosophical foundations, individual ethics, personal morality and political morality are mutually connected. The aforementioned ethical and moral foundations are also related – in a wider sense of philosophical foundations - with his gnoseological conception regarding value concepts in law, politics and morality, and with his episthemological conception regarding an objective truth in the field of values, in a sense that the value concepts are interpretative and can be objectively true when articulated in accordance with methodological rules and standards of a »reflexive equilibrium« and an interpretative integrity, and in accordance with the so-called internal scepticism in the context of value pluralism.
The term “ethics” in a “narrower” sense refers to individual ethics, the study of how to live well, while the “ethics” in a “broader” sense refers to personal morality, the study of how we must treat other people. The term “morality” however, is used primarily to denote a political morality, the issue of how a sovereign power should treat its citizens.
Philosophical foundations of Dworkin`s political theory of justice, his conception of two cardinal values of humanity, his concievement of individual ethics, personal morality and political morality will be in the focus of consideration.
Agamben has claimed to work inside the tradition inaugurated by the archaeological method of Michel Foucault but not to fully coincide with it. “My method is archaeological and paradigmatic in a sense which is very close to that of Foucault, but not completely coincident with it. The question is, facing the dichotomies that structuralize our culture, to go beyond the exceptions that have been producing the former, however, not to find a chronologically originary state, but to be able to understand the situation in which we are. Archaeology is, in this sense, the only way to access present” (interview to Flavia Costa, trad. Susana Scramim, in Revista do Departamento de Psicologia – Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, v. 18 - n. 1, 131-136, Jan./Jun. 2006, 132, translated by the author). However, the aspects in which Agamben follows Foucault's method and the ones he does not were never very clear. This situation seems to change with the edition of Agamben's most extensive and explicit texts on method, Signatura Rerum. Sul Metodo (2008, italian edition). The goal of this article is to identify the points of intersection between their methods and some points in which they differ.
John Gray is the thinker who has reconstructed the main tenets of ethical pluralism inherent in the work of its initiator - Isaiah Berlin - and pointed to its consequences for political philosophy. In particular he singled out three levels of conflict in ethics identifiable in Berlin’s writings: among the ultimate values belonging to the same morality or code of conduct, among whole ways or styles of life and within goods or values which are themselves internally complex and inherently pluralistic.
It is the third, internal kind of conflict that proves to be the richest in implications.Because it undermines a whole constellation of contemporary liberal doctrines informed by the Kantian-Lockean tradition that conform to the legal paradigm. From the pluralist perspective such monumental theories (e.g. those of Rawls or Dworkin) are no longer sustainable due to the recognition that no ultimate value is immune to the phenomenon of incommensurability. Thus, irresolvable conflicts may also break out within the given regulative value.
Confronting ethical pluralism with general reflection on law has mostly negative consequences. Nevertheless, the incommensurability thesis sheds considerable light on certain legal disputes. This claim will be illustrated by interpreting from the pluralist perspective the controversy over the verdict by the European Tribunal of Human Rights of 3 November 2010 concerning hanging crosses in classrooms.
Brazil has one of the worst distributions of income in the world. The wealth of the richest 1% of the population is equal to that of the poorest 50%. Brazil has a greater concentration of wealth than ninety-five percent of the countries on which data is available. In the legal field, tax justice is based on the constitutional principle of the “ability to pay”, according to which taxes should be paid based on the economic capacity of the taxpayer. This principle first appeared in the Brazilian legal order in the 1946 Constitution, was excluded from the texts of 1967/69, and reappeared in § 1 of article 145 of the 1988 Constitution. The aim of this paper is to examine two possible grounds for the ability to pay principle (equal sacrifices and proportional sacrifices) to show how, in Brazil, the interpretations that seek to assign a positive content to the principle are limited to the horizons of a particular form of State associated with the theory of equal sacrifice. This theory for its turn is consistent with a theory of justice, under which no expense or charge levied by the government can alter the distribution of welfare produced by the market. As the application of the ability to pay principle is done within the limits of that horizon, as a consequence, this principle does not play an important role in the issue of reduction of inequality in Brazil.
In their book Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Tom Beauchamp and James Childress offer an account of bioethics, called “Principlism”, by way of specifying and balancing four clusters of principles.2 These principles are found, as the author state, in a common morality, understood as a set of universally shared moral beliefs.
This paper seeks to introduce the following questions: Does this account of Beauchamp and Childress flow from common morality in a natural way? Can their proposals claim to be endorsed by the authority of common morality? If not, in what way does Principlism contribute to bioethics?
This paper is aimed to re-elaborate questions and discuss them rather than presenting answers. It starts with the dialog concerning specific contributions of philosophy of language to Law, followed by the re-elaboration of some yet unanswered problems, as well as the discussion of possible paths for this issue.
Since de advent of what is known as new constitucionalism, jurists have faced a difficult task in order to overcome some failures of normative positivism. In this context, the judiciary has played a renewed role, which can be justified on grounds of legal theory and on institutional reasons. However, this new role has led legal philosophers to several concerns, such as the relationship between law and ethics. On one hand, Critical Legal Studies points out that the judge always acts informed by his own convictions. On the other hand, according to R. Forst (within another context, but also relevant here), this is not really a problem, because a rule can be provided with ethics, but not ethically justified. This openness of law to moral makes it difficult for the interpretative judicial discourse to be taken as claimed by K. Günther: as a discourse of application only, and not of justification. All these controversies, however, lead to a common statement: the constitutional adjudication has been exercising a different activity. Some legal systems allows such activity legitimacy in some extent, like Brazilian’s, for example, which i) states a very broad adjudication, ii) provides an extensive catalog of basic rights, and iii) contains several procedural mechanisms for their protection. This empowers the adjudication to exercise what can be called a political activity. Therefore, a series of moral issues which were once exclusive to the political arena have been brought to the judiciary, such as: gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, religious freedom, federation, separation of powers, distribution of scarce resources. In a democracy, these moral questions ought to be mainly decided through deliberation outside the judiciary, but not always this is what happens. The paper discusses these issues, showing also how the Brazilian Supreme Court has dealt - technically, or not - with this relationship between law and justice in a complex and pluralist society.