Ações regressivas acidentárias sob a perspectiva da previdênca social e da responsabilidade civil

Pós-graduação em Direito - FCHS

Review of Laws and Societies in the Canadian Prairie West, 1670-1940 Edited by Louis A. Knafla and Jonathan Swainger

For all intents and purposes, the settlement of the Canadian prairie was the founding of a new society using materials brought to the new land along with those close at hand. Of course, preexisting aboriginal society had to be supplanted in the course of this founding. In both the supplanting and the founding, the rule of law as we currently know it was a principal means and end of the settlement process.

Termination of Desegregation Decrees and the Elusive Meaning of Unitary Status

Discusses the termination of desegregation decrees and the elusive meaning of unitary status, first introducing the topic and then covering Jenkins III and providing an overview of desegregation scholarship including discretion, capacity, and legitima. Also discusses the evolution of equity, including English equity, American equity, and equity and desegregation. Explores the concepts of relevant rights and interests, focusing on Hohfeld, the interest theory of rights, and the application of the rights theory. The conclusion posits that what remains is a complicated and confused desegregation jurisprudence, and that the lines that separate desegregation from integration from diversity, if there ever were such lines, are blurring. A discussion of the theoretical premises underlying desegregation appears to continue to be necessary.

Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September l1th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Much has been written about the Fund, both pro and con, in both popular media and scholarly literature. Perhaps the most widely used term in referring to the Fund is "unprecedented." The Fund is intriguing for many reasons, particularly for its public policy implications and its impact on the claimants themselves. The federal government has never before provided compensation to victims of terrorism through a special master who had virtually unlimited discretion in determining awards. Consequently, this formal allocation of money by a representative of the federal government to its citizens has provided an opportunity to test theories of procedural and distributive justice in a novel context. This article tests these theories by analyzing the results of a study of the Fund's claimants. Part I provides general background, summarizes existing commentary on the Fund, and discusses prior research on social justice that is relevant to the 9/11 claimants' experiences with the Fund. Part II of this article describes the methodology behind the study, in which seventy-one individuals who filed claims with the Fund completed surveys about their experiences with and perceptions of the Fund. Part III discusses the survey results. We found that participants were reasonably satisfied with the procedural aspects of the Fund, such as representatives' impartiality and respectful treatment. Participants were less satisfied, however, with the distributive aspects of the Fund, such as the unequal distribution of compensation and the reduction in compensation if claimants received compensation from other sources (e.g., life insurance). Part IV of this article addresses the implications of the study results for public policy and for theories of social justice.

United States v. Steinmetz: The Legal Legacy of the Civil War, Revisited

One of the enduring and yet unresolved issues concerning the Civil War is its legal nature: Was it an insurrection or an international war? During the war and since, the United States courts have repeatedly been called upon to determine the status of property which was under the control of the Confederacy and its agents during the Civil War. In the process of making such determinations, the courts have reopened questions about the war's legal status. United States v. Steinmetz is such a case.

The Ethics of Implementation: Institutional Remedies and the Lawyer's Role

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to pursue implementation of the remedy in institutional reform litigation. Institutional reform litigation refers to cases in which an individual or class of individuals sues a large organization in order to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights. The types of cases with which this article is concerned are the "public law" type, such as school desegregation, prisoners' rights and patients' rights cases, although included under the rubric of institutional reform can be, inter alia, antitrust, reapportionment and bankruptcy cases. The implementation stage of institutional reform litigation arises after an individual or class of individuals prevails at the liability stage, or pursuant to a settlement, and a court orders the defendant organization to change in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights. At that point, the defendant organization, whether it be a prison, mental hospital or school district, usually has the burden of implementing the order. One conclusion drawn is that the ethical duty of the lawyer must always be consistent with the lawyer's "special responsibility for the quality of justice."

ANCIENT LAW – UM CLÁSSICO REVISITADO 150 ANOS DEPOIS

Este artigo pretende realçar a importância desempenhada pela obra de Henry James Sumner Maine na formação da antropologia jurídica e da sociologia do direito. Mediante a recuperação da tese central de sua obra Ancient Law, procura ressaltar o papel por ela desempenhado no delineamento de uma nova forma de abordagem da relação entre direito e sociedade. Para tanto, recupera traços gerais das análises de Norbert Rouland e de Niklas Luhmann acerca da importância das ideias do autor.

La diagnosi genetica preimpianto: argomenti favorevoli e contrari alla sua legittimità

Questa tesi ricostruisce la storia della giurisprudenza italiana che ha riguardato la legittimità o meno dell’impiego della diagnosi genetica preimpianto nell’ambito della procreazione medicalmente assistita, dall’emanazione della legge 40 del 2004 a tutt’oggi. Ed in particolare questa tesi si prefigge due obiettivi: uno, individuare ed illustrare le tipologie di argomenti utilizzati dal giurista-interprete per giudicare della legittimità o meno della pratica della diagnosi preimpianto degli embrioni prodotti, mediante le tecniche relative alla procreazione assistita; l’altro obiettivo, mostrare sia lo scontro fra i differenti argomenti, sia le ragioni per le quali prevalgono gli argomenti usati per legittimare la pratica della diagnosi preimpianto. Per raggiungere questi obiettivi, e per mostrare in maniera fenomenologica come avviene l’interpretazione giuridica in materia di diagnosi preimpianto, si è fatto principalmente riferimento alla visione che ha della detta interpretazione la prospettiva ermeneutica (concepita originariamente sul piano teoretico, quale ermeneutica filosofica, da H.G. Gadamer; divulgata ed approfondita sul piano giusfilosofico e della teoria dell’interpretazione giudica in Italia, fra gli altri, da F. Viola e G. Zaccaria). Così, in considerazione dei vari argomenti utilizzati per valutare la legittimità o meno della pratica della diagnosi preimpianto, i motivi per i quali in ultimo il giurista-interprete per giudicare ragionevolmente, deve ritenere legittima la pratica della diagnosi preimpianto sono i seguenti. I principi superiori dell’ordinamento e talune direttive giuridiche fondamentali dell’ordinamento, elaborate della giurisprudenza, le quali costituiscono la concretizzazione di detti principi e di una serie di disposizioni normative fondamentali per disciplinare il fenomeno procreativo, depongono per la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto. Le tipologie degli argomenti impiegati per avallare la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto attengono al tradizionale repertorio argomentativo a cui attinge il giurista, mentre la stessa cosa non si può dire per gli argomenti usati per negare la legittimità della diagnosi. Talune tipologie di argomenti utilizzate per negare la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto costituiscono delle fallacie logiche, per esempio l’argomento del pendio scivoloso, e soprattutto le tipologie degli argomenti utilizzati per sostenere la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto sono per lo più caratterizzate dalla ragionevolezza ed applicate per lo più opportunamente. Poi, si può osservare che: determinati argomenti, associati dal giurista-interprete ai principi i quali depongono per l’illegittimità della diagnosi preimpianto, facendo leva sulla categoria della possibilità, ed equiparando attualità e possibilità, privilegiano l’immaginazione alla realtà e portano a risultati interpretativi non razionalmente fondati; mentre gli argomenti associati dal giurista-interprete ai principi i quali depongono per la legittimità della diagnosi preimpianto, facendo leva sulla categoria della attualità, e tenendo ben distinte attualità e possibilità, privilegiano l’osservazione della realtà e portano a risultati razionalmente fondati.

L'interpretazione autentica nei suoi profili teorici ed applicativi

La trattazione cerca di delineare i confini teorici ed applicativi dell’istituto dell’interpretazione autentica, nella chiara consapevolezza che dietro tale tematica si celi il più complesso problema di una corretta delimitazione tra attività di legis-latio e attività di legis-executio. Il fenomeno delle leggi interpretative costituisce infatti nodo nevralgico e punto di intersezione di tre ambiti materiali distinti, ossia la teoria dell’interpretazione, la teoria delle fonti del diritto e la dottrina di matrice liberale della separazione dei poteri. All’interno del nostro ordinamento, nell’epoca più recente, si è assistito ad un aumento esponenziale di interventi legislativi interpretativi che, allo stato attuale, sono utilizzati per lo più come strumenti di legislazione ordinaria. Sotto questo profilo, il sempre più frequente ricorso alla fonte interpretativa può essere inquadrato nel più complesso fenomeno della “crisi della legge” i cui tradizionali requisiti di generalità, astrattezza ed irretroattività sono stati progressivamente abbandonati dal legislatore parallelamente con l’affermarsi dello Stato costituzionale. L’abuso dello strumento interpretativo da parte del legislatore, gravemente lesivo delle posizioni giuridiche soggettive, non è stato finora efficacemente contrastato all’interno dell’ordinamento nonostante l’elaborazione da parte della Corte costituzionale di una serie di limiti e requisiti di legittimità dell’esegesi legislativa. In tale prospettiva, diventano quindi di rilevanza fondamentale la ricerca e l’esame di strategie e rimedi, giurisdizionali ed istituzionali, tali da arginare l’“onnipotenza” del legislatore interprete. A seguito dell’analisi svolta, è maturata la consapevolezza delle potenzialità insite nella valorizzazione della giurisprudenza della Corte Edu, maggiormente incline a sanzionare l’abuso delle leggi interpretative.

Bewertungsportale im Internet – Meinungsfreiheit versus Datenschutz und Haftungsfragen der Portalbetreiber

Die vorliegende Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit rechtlichen Fragestellungen rund um Bewertungs-portale im Internet. Zentrale Themen der Arbeit sind dabei die Zulässigkeit der Veröffentlichung der von den Nutzern abgegebenen Bewertungen vor dem Hintergrund möglicherweise entgegenstehender datenschutzrechtlicher Bestimmungen und der Persönlichkeitsrechte der Betroffenen. Des weiteren wird der Rechtsschutz der Betroffenen erörtert und in diesem Zusammenhang die haftungsrechtlichen Risiken der Forenbetreiber untersucht. Gegenstand der Arbeit sind dabei sowohl Online-Marktplätze wie eBay, auf denen sowohl der Bewertende als auch der Bewertete registriert und mit dem Bewertungsverfahren grundsätz-lich einverstanden sind (geschlossene Portale), als auch Portale, auf denen – oftmals unter einem Pseudonym und ohne vorherige Anmeldung – eine freie Bewertungsabgabe, zu Pro-dukteigenschaften, Dienstleistungen bis hinzu Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen des Bewerteten möglich ist (offene Portale). Einleitung und Erster Teil Nach einer Einleitung und Einführung in die Problematik werden im ersten Teil die verschie-denen Arten der Bewertungsportale kurz vorgestellt. Die Arbeit unterscheidet dabei zwischen so genannten geschlossenen Portalen (transaktionsbegleitende Portale wie eBay oder Ama-zon) auf der einen Seite und offenen Portalen (Produktbewertungsportale, Hotelbewertungs-portale und Dienstleistungsbewertungsportale) auf der anderen Seite. Zweiter Teil Im zweiten Teil geht die Arbeit der Frage nach, ob die Veröffentlichung der durch die Nutzer abgegebenen Bewertungen auf den offenen Portalen überhaupt erlaubt ist oder ob hier mögli-cherweise das Persönlichkeitsrecht der Betroffenen und hier insbesondere das Recht auf in-formationelle Selbstbestimmung in Form der datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen die freie Bewertungsabgabe unzulässig werden lässt. Untersucht werden in diesem Zusammenhang im einzelnen Löschungs- bzw. Beseitigungsan-sprüche der Betroffenen aus § 35 Abs. 2 Satz 2 Nr. 1 BDSG bzw. §§ 1004 i. V. m. 823 Abs. 1 BGB (allgemeines Persönlichkeitsrecht). Die Arbeit kommt in datenschutzrechtlicher Hinsicht zu dem Schluss, dass die Bewertungen personenbezogene Daten darstellen, die den datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen unterlie-gen und eine Veröffentlichung der Bewertungen nach dem im deutschen Recht geltenden da-tenschutzrechtlichen Erlaubnisvorbehalt grundsätzlich nicht in Betracht kommt. Vor dem Hintergrund dieser den tatsächlichen Gegebenheiten und Interessenlagen im Internet nicht mehr gerecht werdenden Gesetzeslage diskutiert der Autor sodann die Frage, ob die datenschutzrechtlichen Bestimmungen in diesen Fällen eine Einschränkung durch die grund-gesetzlich garantierten Informationsfreiheiten erfahren müssen. Nach einer ausführlichen Diskussion der Rechtslage, in der auf die Besonderheiten der ein-zelnen Portale eingegangen wird, kommt die Arbeit zu dem Schluss, dass die Frage der Zuläs-sigkeit der Veröffentlichung der Bewertungen von einer Interessenabwägung im Einzelfall abhängt. Als Grundsatz kann jedoch gelten: Ist die bewertete Tätigkeit oder Person in Bezug auf die bewertete Eigenschaft ohnehin einer breiten Öffentlichkeit zugänglich, erscheint eine Veröffentlichung der Daten nicht bedenklich. Dagegen wird man einen Löschungs- bzw. Be-seitigungsanspruch bejahen müssen für die Bewertungen, die Tätigkeiten oder Eigenschaften des Bewerteten, die in keinem Zusammenhang mit ihm als öffentlicher Person stehen, betref-fen. Anschließend geht die Arbeit auf die Persönlichkeitsrechte der Betroffenen und der sich hier-aus ergebenden Beseitigungs- und Unterlassungsansprüchen gemäß der §§ 1004 Abs. 1, 823 Abs. 1 BGB ein, verneint jedoch wegen dem Vorrang der spezialgesetzlichen Bestimmungen aus dem Bundesdatenschutzgesetz letztlich eine Anwendbarkeit der Anspruchsgrundlagen. Schließlich wird in diesem Teil noch kurz auf die Zulässigkeit der Bewertung juristischer Per-sonen eingegangen, die im Grundsatz bejaht wird. Dritter Teil Sofern der zweite Teil der Arbeit zu dem Schluss kommt, dass die Veröffentlichung der Be-wertungen zulässig ist, stellt sich im dritten Teil die Frage, welche Möglichkeiten das Recht dem Bewerteten bietet, gegen negative Bewertungen vorzugehen. Untersucht werden, dabei datenschutzrechtliche, deliktsrechtliche, vertragliche und wettbe-werbsrechtliche Ansprüche. Ein Schwerpunkt dieses Teils liegt in der Darstellung der aktuellen Rechtsprechung zu der Frage wann eine Bewertung eine Tatsachenbehauptung bzw. ein Werturteil darstellt und den sich hieraus ergebenden unterschiedlichen Konsequenzen für den Unterlassungsanspruch des Betroffenen. Diejenigen Bewertungen, die eine Meinungsäußerung darstellen, unterstehen dem starken Schutz der Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit. Grenze der Zulässigkeit sind hier im wesentlichen nur die Schmähkritik und Beleidigung. An Tatsachenbehautpungen dagegen sind schärfere Maßstäbe anzulegen. In diesem Zusammenhang wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob vertragliche Beziehungen zwischen den Beteiligten (Bewertenden, Bewertete und Portalbetreiber) die Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit einschränkt, was jedenfalls für die geschlossenen Portale bejaht wird. Vierter Teil Der vierte Teil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den „Zu-gut-Bewertungen“. Es geht dabei um wettbewerbsrechtliche Ansprüche im Falle verdeckter Eigenbewertungen. Solche Eigenbewertungen, die unter dem Deckmantel der Pseudonymität als Werbemittel zur Imageverbesserung in entsprechenden Bewertungsportale verbreitet werden ohne den wahren Autor erkennen zu lassen, sind in wettbewerbsrechtlicher Hinsicht grundsätzlich unzulässig. Fünfter Teil Im letzten Teil der Arbeit wird schließlich der Frage nach der Verantwortlichkeit der Portal-betreiber für rechtswidrige Bewertungen nachgegangen. Zunächst wird die Feststellung getroffen, dass es sich bei den von den Nutzern abgegebenen Bewertungen um fremde Inhalte handelt und somit die Haftungsprivilegierungen der § 11 Abs. 1 TDG, § 9 Abs. 1 MDStV eingreifen, wonach die Forenbetreiber für die rechtswidrigen Bewertungen jedenfalls so lange nicht verantwortlich sind, solange sie hiervon keine Kenntnis haben. Da von dieser Haftungsprivilegierung nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesgerichtshofs die Störerhaftung nicht umfasst ist, wird die Reichweite die Forenbetreiber aus der Störerhaftung treffenden Überwachungspflichten diskutiert. Die Arbeit kommt hier zu dem Ergebnis, dass in den Fällen, in denen dem Adressaten der Bewertung die Identität des Verfassers bekannt ist, sich die Verpflichtungen der Forenbetrei-ber auf die Beseitigung bzw. Sperrung der rechtswidrigen Bewertung beschränken. Sofern die Identität des Bewertenden unbekannt ist, haften die Forenbetreiber als Mitstörer und dem Be-troffenen stehen Unterlassungsansprüche auch gegen die Forenbetreiber zu.

Interpreting Judgements using Knowledge Representation Methods and Computational Models of Argument

The goal of the present research is to define a Semantic Web framework for precedent modelling, by using knowledge extracted from text, metadata, and rules, while maintaining a strong text-to-knowledge morphism between legal text and legal concepts, in order to fill the gap between legal document and its semantics. The framework is composed of four different models that make use of standard languages from the Semantic Web stack of technologies: a document metadata structure, modelling the main parts of a judgement, and creating a bridge between a text and its semantic annotations of legal concepts; a legal core ontology, modelling abstract legal concepts and institutions contained in a rule of law; a legal domain ontology, modelling the main legal concepts in a specific domain concerned by case-law; an argumentation system, modelling the structure of argumentation. The input to the framework includes metadata associated with judicial concepts, and an ontology library representing the structure of case-law. The research relies on the previous efforts of the community in the field of legal knowledge representation and rule interchange for applications in the legal domain, in order to apply the theory to a set of real legal documents, stressing the OWL axioms definitions as much as possible in order to enable them to provide a semantically powerful representation of the legal document and a solid ground for an argumentation system using a defeasible subset of predicate logics. It appears that some new features of OWL2 unlock useful reasoning features for legal knowledge, especially if combined with defeasible rules and argumentation schemes. The main task is thus to formalize legal concepts and argumentation patterns contained in a judgement, with the following requirement: to check, validate and reuse the discourse of a judge - and the argumentation he produces - as expressed by the judicial text.

Sanctions and public enforcement of insider trading laws in Europe

The recent financial crisis triggered an increasing demand for financial regulation to counteract the potential negative economic effects of the evermore complex operations and instruments available on financial markets. As a result, insider trading regulation counts amongst the relatively recent but particularly active regulation battles in Europe and overseas. Claims for more transparency and equitable securities markets proliferate, ranging from concerns about investor protection to global market stability. The internationalization of the world’s securities market has challenged traditional notions of regulation and enforcement. Considering that insider trading is currently forbidden all over Europe, this study follows a law and economics approach in identifying how this prohibition should be enforced. More precisely, the study investigates first whether criminal law is necessary under all circumstances to enforce insider trading; second, if it should be introduced at EU level. This study provides evidence of law and economics theoretical logic underlying the legal mechanisms that guide sanctioning and public enforcement of the insider trading prohibition by identifying optimal forms, natures and types of sanctions that effectively induce insider trading deterrence. The analysis further aims to reveal the economic rationality that drives the potential need for harmonization of criminal enforcement of insider trading laws within the European environment by proceeding to a comparative analysis of the current legislations of height selected Member States. This work also assesses the European Union’s most recent initiative through a critical analysis of the proposal for a Directive on criminal sanctions for Market Abuse. Based on the conclusions drawn from its close analysis, the study takes on the challenge of analyzing whether or not the actual European public enforcement of the laws prohibiting insider trading is coherent with the theoretical law and economics recommendations, and how these enforcement practices could be improved.

Chi decide sulle norme tecniche? Un'analisi del dialogo tra istanze tecniche e istanze politiche nella formazione e applicazione delle norme tecniche

La tesi si propone l’obiettivo di indagare le modalità di interazione tra conoscenze tecnico-scientifiche e dato normativo, a partire dallo studio delle c.d. norme tecniche, ossia le norme, dotate di forza giuridica o meno, elaborate sulla base di conoscenze tecnico-scientifiche. La ricerca analizza diversi settori dell’ordinamento, accomunati da un’elevata influenza di saperi tecnici e al tempo stesso da un’indubbia rilevanza dal punto di vista costituzionale (la disciplina delle sperimentazioni cliniche dei farmaci, quella delle emissioni inquinanti di origine industriale e quella relativa agli standard di sicurezza dei prodotti), individuando quelle che al loro interno si possono considerare norme tecniche e mettendone in luce sia i profili formali (in quali atti-fonte sono contenute, quale natura giuridica presentano) che il procedimento di formazione, con particolare attenzione ai soggetti che vi prendono parte. Si propone quindi una sistematizzazione degli elementi emersi dall’indagine a partire da due diverse prospettive: in primo luogo tali dati vengono analizzati dal punto di vista dogmatico, individuando i diversi meccanismi di ingresso del dato tecnico-scientifico nel tessuto normativo (incorporazione nella norma giuridica, impiego di clausole generali, rinvio a norme extra-giuridiche), al fine di mettere in luce eventuali profili problematici per quanto riguarda il sistema delle fonti. La seconda prospettiva prende invece quale punto di riferimento il “centro di elaborazione sostanziale” delle norme considerate, al fine di evidenziarne i diversi fattori di legittimazione: a partire da esigenze di armonizzazione della disciplina e dall’assunto della neutralità delle conoscenze tecnico-scientifiche rispetto agli interessi coinvolti, l’elaborazione delle norme tecniche vede infatti un significativo ripensamento degli equilibri non solo fra attori pubblici e privati, ma anche tra legittimazione politica e legittimazione “tecnica” della scelta normativa. A tali aspetti è dedicata la parte conclusiva del lavoro, in particolare per quanto riguarda la conformità rispetto al disegno costituzionale.

'Listen, Rama’s Wife!’: Maithil Women’s Perspectives and Practices in the Festival of Sāmā-Cakevā

As a female-only festival in a significantly gender-segregated society, sāmā cakevā provides a window into Maithil women’s understandings of their society and the sacred, cultural subjectivities, moral frameworks, and projects of self-construction. The festival reminds us that to read male-female relations under patriarchal social formations as a dichotomy between the empowered and the disempowered ignores the porous boundaries between the two in which negotiations and tradeoffs create a symbiotic reliance. Specifically, the festival names two oppositional camps—the male world of law and the female world of relationships—and then creates a male character, the brother, who moves between the two, loyal to each, betraying, in a sense, each, but demonstrating, by his movements, the currents and avenues of power. This article makes available to other scholars of South Asian culture and society an extended description and analysis of this distinctive festival, while also contributing to the scholarly discussion of women’s expressive traditions.

Investigating the Role of System Justification in Mental Illness Stigma

The current study integrates system justification theory with research on mental illness stigma. Stereotypes of both low- and high-status groups in society can be a means of satisfying the system justification motive, or the motive to view societal inequalities as justified (as reviewed in Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Corrigan, Watson, and Ottati (2003) proposed that system justification theory may be able to explain the origins of particular stereotypes of people with mental illness, such as dangerousness and incompetence. The primary goal of the present study was to investigate whether the stigmatization of people with mental illness – a specific form of stigmatization of a lowstatus group – can be at least partially attributed to a broader motive to justify societal inequalities. To test this, the current study included both an experimental manipulation of the perceived legitimacy of the social system and a measure of system-justifying beliefs. Stigmatization of individuals with mental illness was measured with both explicit selfreport measures (semantic differentials and the Attribution Questionnaire) and an implicit measure (a computer-based Implicit Association Test). The relationships between participant characteristics, such as personal experience with mental illness, and stigma were also investigated. Consistent with past research demonstrating only modest correlations between explicit and implicit stigma, greater self-reported fear toward a person with a chronic mental illness was weakly associated with increased implicit bias against mental illness in favor of physical disability. There was little support for the involvement of system justification in explicit stigma. Participants with personal experience with mental illness were less likely to self-report fear and avoidance of a person with a chronic mental illness. These findings have implications for stigmareduction efforts.