A (des)naturalização da pessoa jurídica: subjetividade, titularidade e atividade

O presente trabalho, a partir da revisão do conceito de personificação, pretende investigar como se desenvolve o processo de naturalização da pessoa jurídica e os eventuais prejuízos decorrentes para a tutela do ser humano nas organizações sociais e para a descrição do fenômeno empresarial. Sob o prisma da filosofia da linguagem, realiza-se uma revisão bibliográfica sobre a utilização do termo pessoa jurídica no discurso do Direito, destacando, principalmente, a desconstrução promovida pelo chamado nominalismo. São, ainda, propostos critérios para a identificação da naturalização, a partir de uma gradação que procura segregar os diversos grupos de casos que lhe são correlatos. A tese foi estruturada em três etapas: subjetividade, titularidade e atividade. Ao cotejar a pessoa natural com a pessoa jurídica, em cada um desses planos, espera-se revelar a assimetria de razões que separam a personificação do ser humano daquela presente nas sociedades, associações e fundações. Do questionamento do individualismo metodológico presente na noção de pessoa jurídica resulta a reconstrução do próprio sistema analítico de conceitos do discurso jurídico, com a revisão das ideias de imputação, relação jurídica, titularidade e autonomia patrimonial.

Responsabilidade tributária de grupos econômicos

A presente pesquisa tem por objetivo investigar a responsabilidade tributária de grupos econômicos. Para tanto, analisa inicialmente o que é grupo econômico a partir da evolução da organização da empresa, verificando as formas de regulação no direito societário, bem como nos demais ramos do direito, especialmente o tributário. Em seguida, se debruça sobre a limitação da responsabilidade, a desconsideração da personalidade jurídica e a responsabilidade tributária. Verifica, então, em quais hipóteses poderia haver a responsabilidade tributária de grupos econômicos, sendo analisadas as possibilidades com fundamento legal no art. 30, IX, da Lei nº 8.212/91; art. 124 da Lei nº 5.172/66; art. 50 da Lei nº 10.406/2002; art. 990 da Lei nº 10.406/02 combinado com o art. 126, III, da Lei nº 5.172/66; e art. 116, §1º, da Lei nº 5.172/66. Por fim, aborda aspectos processuais da responsabilidade de grupos econômicos, com enfoque no incidente de desconsideração da personalidade jurídica previsto no Código de Processo Civil de 2015.

Desconsideração da personalidade jurídica: limitações e aplicação no direito da família e sucessões

O objetivo desta dissertação foi o estudo do instituto da desconsideração da personalidade jurídica, em sua modalidade inversa, e sua aplicabilidade no direito de família e sucessões, principalmente na partilha de bens - efetivada no divórcio ou dissolução de união estável -, na execução de alimentos e na sucessão legítima. A escolha do tema decorreu da necessidade do estabelecimento de pressupostos e requisitos objetivos para a aplicação da disregard na seara do direito de família e sucessões. A utilidade e adequação da abordagem da matéria se justifica pela instabilidade jurídica provocada pela acriteriosa aplicação da desconsideração da personalidade jurídica nas relações familiares. Por outro lado, o enfoque crítico desenvolvido no presente trabalho se justifica pela existência de corrente doutrinária que defende a aplicação da desconsideração em inúmeras situações familiares nas quais outros remédios, já seculares, de direito material ou processual seriam igualmente eficazes, sem que fosse necessária a drástica declaração de ineficácia da separação patrimonial entre a pessoa jurídica e seu sócio. Buscou-se apontar, desta forma, os meios existentes para se alcançar o mesmo resultado prático apresentado pela disregard, mas com a utilização de outras figuras, tais como a simulação, a fraude contra credores e a fraude à execução, ficando, por via de consequência, a aplicação da desconsideração da personalidade jurídica, restrita às hipóteses em que não há quaisquer outros meios para se evitar ou buscar a reparação dos prejuízos advindos da utilização das pessoas jurídicas com abuso da personalidade jurídica, desvio de finalidade ou confusão patrimonial.

The doctrine of double effect

• The doctrine of double effect is an exception to the general rule that taking active steps that end life is unlawful. • The essence of the doctrine at common law is intention. • Hastening a patient’s death through palliative care will be lawful provided the primary intention is to relieve pain, and not cause death, even if that death is foreseen. • Some States have enacted legislative excuses that deal with the provision of palliative care. • These statutory excuses tend to be stricter than the common law as they impose other requirements in addition to having an appropriate intent, such as adherence to some level of recognised medical practice.

Beware the doctrine of election!

The operation of the doctrine of election, as it applies in a conveyancing context, was recently considered by the Queensland Court of Appeal (McMurdo P and White and Fryberg JJ) in Barooga Projects (Investments) Pty Ltd v Duncan [2004] QCA 149.

Israel's airstrike on Syria's Al-Kibar facility : a test case for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence?

This article analyses the legality of Israel’s 2007 airstrike on an alleged Syrian nuclear facility at Al-Kibar—an incident that has been largely overlooked by international lawyers to date. The absence of a threat of imminent attack from Syria means Israel’s military action was not a lawful exercise of anticipatory self-defence. Yet, despite Israel’s clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force there was remarkably little condemnation from other states, suggesting the possibility of growing international support for the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. This article argues that the muted international reaction to Israel’s pre-emptive action was the result of political factors, and should not be seen as endorsement of the legality of the airstrike. As such, a lack of opinio juris means the Al-Kibar episode cannot be viewed as extending the scope of the customary international law right of self-defence so as to permit the use of force against non-imminent threats. However, two features of this incident—namely, Israel’s failure to offer any legal justification for its airstrike, and the international community’s apparent lack of concern over legality—are also evident in other recent uses of force in the ‘war on terror’ context. These developments may indicate a shift in state practice involving a downgrading of the role of international law in discussions of the use of force. This may signal a declining perception of the legitimacy of the jus ad bellum, at least in cases involving minor uses of force.

The doctrine of command responsibility in the midst of war : legal fallacy or reflection of reality

The history of war is blighted with astonishing reminders of man’s ability to cast his sense of humanity aside and inflict unspeakable harm upon one another. The ruthless bombing of Dresden, the callousness of the Nazi concentration camps and the massacre of the Tutsis are but a few of the atrocities that have haunted our past. In response to these atrocities, society has imposed an ever-increasing number of laws and rules to regulate warfare. Amongst these is the doctrine of command responsibility. The doctrine of command responsibility states that a commander is criminally liable for the crimes of his subordinates if he knew or should have known of their crimes. This paper will examine whether the doctrine is an appropriate and realistic legal standard to hold commanders accountable to or whether the doctrine is more a reflection of social sentiment and legal rhetoric. If the doctrine, and indeed the law of war in general, is unrealistic then the law cannot fulfil its purpose - that is, the prevention of atrocities. Instead of being solely a reflection of moral authority and social sentiments the law must also be a tool that guides and shapes the decisions and actions of the military through the chaotic and brutal nature of war...

The need for legislative reform of the privity doctrine in commercial contracts in Malaysia : a comparative analysis

This thesis commences with the proposition that the first limb of the doctrine of privity causes injustice to third party beneficiaries in Malaysia, particularly in commercial contracts. The doctrine of privity has been the subject of criticism by the judiciary and academic commentators in common law jurisdictions, mainly directed at the first limb of the doctrine, whereby only parties to a contract can sue and be sued. The first limb prevents a third party from enforcing benefits conferred on them by those contracts thereby resulting in third parties suffering loss and injustice to those parties. In several common law countries, such as England, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore, legislative reform of the doctrine has occurred. The legislative reform has abrogated to a significant extent the doctrine of privity in commercial contracts. Malaysia is a common law country, where the doctrine of privity is still applied to contracts. An analysis of Malaysian case law demonstrates that the most affected third party beneficiaries are those seeking to enforce insurance and construction contracts. While a small number of other third parties to commercial contracts, such as agreements to pay for work done, sale and purchase agreements and tenancy agreements are also affected, the detriment is not as significant. As a consequence, this thesis focuses primarily on the impact of the doctrine of privity on commercial contracts in the areas of insurance and construction in Malaysia The thesis aims to recommend appropriate reforms to address the injustices arising from the privity doctrine for third parties seeking to obtain the benefit of insurance and construction contracts, which may also benefit third parties to other types of commercial contracts. While the Malaysian insurance, consumer protection, negotiable instruments and agency laws allow third party beneficiaries to enforce benefits in contracts, the rights are found to be inadequate. As not all third parties seeking to enforce an insurance or construction contract can rely upon the legislation, the injustice arising from the doctrine of privity remains and needs to be addressed. To achieve this aim, a comparative analysis of the rights of third party beneficiaries under insurance and construction contracts in Malaysia, Australia and England is undertaken. The results of the analysis are used to identify appropriate elements for a legislative framework guided by the three essential criteria for effective law reform developed in the thesis. The three criteria are certainty, public interest and justice. The thesis recommends first the enactment of general legislation applicable to all commercial contracts including insurance contracts. Secondly, the thesis recommends specific targeted legislation to address the injustice faced by third party beneficiaries in construction contracts.

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

From Francovich to Köbler and beyond : The evolution of a State liability regime for the EC

The aim of this paper is to present the evolution of the Francovich doctrine within the European legal order. The first part deals with the gradual development of the ECJ's case law on State liability in damages for breach of EC law. Starting from the seminal Francovich and Brasserie du Pêcheur, the clarification of the criteria set by the Court is attempted with reference to subsequent case law, whereas issues concerning the extent and form of the compensation owned are also mentioned. The second part concerns one of the more recent developments in the field, namely State liability for breaches of Community law attributed to national judiciary. The Court's ruling in Köbler is examined in connection with two other recent judgments, namely Commission v. Italy of 2003 and Kühne & Heitz, as an attempt of the ECJ to reframe its relationships with national supreme courts and appropriate for itself the position of the Supreme Court in the European legal order. The implications on State liability claims by the ruling in Commission v. France of 1997 constitute the theme of the third part, where it is submitted that Member States can also be held liable for disregard of Community law by private individuals within their respected territories. To this extent, Schmidberger is viewed as a manifestation of this opinion, with fundamental rights acquiring a new dimension, being invoked by the States, contra the individuals as a shield to liability claims. Finally, the third part examines the relationship between the Francovich doctrine and the principle of legal certainty and concludes that the solutions employed by the ECJ have been both predictable and acceptable by the national legal orders. Keywords: State liability, damages, Francovich, Köbler, Schmidberger

Confronting Confucian Understandings of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation : A systematic theological analysis of the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue

The aim of the present study is to analyze Confucian understandings of the Christian doctrine of salvation in order to find the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue. I will approach the task via a systematic theological analysis of four issues in order to limit the thesis to an appropriate size. They are analyzed in three chapters as follows: 1. The Confucian concept concerning the existence of God. Here I discuss mainly the issue of assimilation of the Christian concept of God to the concepts of Sovereign on High (Shangdi) and Heaven (Tian) in Confucianism. 2. The Confucian understanding of the object of salvation and its status in Christianity. 3. The Confucian understanding of the means of salvation in Christianity. Before beginning this analysis it is necessary to clarify the vast variety of controversies, arguments, ideas, opinions and comments expressed in the name of Confucianism; thus, clear distinctions among different schools of Confucianism are given in chapter 2. In the last chapter I will discuss the results of my research in this study by pointing out the basic problems that will appear in the analysis. The results of the present study provide conclusions in three related areas: the tacit differences in the ways of thinking between Confucians and Christians, the basic problems of the Confucian-Christian dialogue, and the affirmative elements in the dialogue. In addition to a summary, a bibliography and an index, there are also eight appendices, where I have introduced important background information for readers to understand the present study.

Diálogo institucional e direito à saúde

O trabalho busca analisar os problemas envolvendo a efetivação do direito à saúde no Brasil, os conflitos alocativos subjacentes à temática e o papel das instituições representativas, do Judiciário e da sociedade civil neste processo. Pretende-se reafirmar a importância da proteção do direito à saúde e, ao mesmo tempo, criticar uma certa euforia doutrinária e jurisprudencial que se instalou nos últimos anos e passou a compreender o Judiciário como o último guardião das promessas constitucionais não cumpridas pelos ramos representativos. O trabalho analisa as experiências constitucionais de países que não apostam no dogma da supremacia judicial e tentam conciliar a revisão judicial com mecanismos mais democráticos. A partir daí propõe o marco teórico das teorias do diálogo institucional como uma alternativa menos unilateral para enfrentar os desafios desencadeados no campo sanitário. No trabalho enfatiza-se a importância pelas preocupações com a efetividade da constituição, mas propõe-se uma reflexão sobre qual seria a melhor alternativa para tanto, chegando-se à conclusão contra-intuitiva de que talvez o caminho mais eficaz passe por um controle judicial fraco, que não despreze as potencialidades do Direito, mas que aposte mais na democracia e na interação sinérgica entre os ramos representativos e a sociedade civil.