Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2014 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Ximenes, Rachel Leticia Curcio
 |
Orientador(a): |
Santos, Marcelo de Oliveira Fausto Figueiredo |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
País: |
BR
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/6528
|
Resumo: |
This dissertation in inserted in a controversy around rationality in frames developed to deal with the application of legal principals proportionality. As a first approach, proportionality is a possible manner by which the applicant interpreter in legal rights solves conflicts among legal principals by deciding which one of them will have precedence upon one another regarding phatic circumstances e legal ones in a concrete case. Proportionality is not unanimity as it has its own thought, being either controversy. Differences involves since its ideal thinking in legal principals all the way to duty rules up to the form of solving conflicts among them. In these analyses, it is necessary to take into account the need of a relationship between proportionality and fundamental Law. In the development of this research it has been used compared Law aiming in demonstrating proportionality not assumed in the same examination in all nations, either when it comes to its origin and structure. It has been also used the analysis in the Supreme Court in Brazil aiming in identifying differences and the act of questioning the use of proportionality by its ministers. Thus, it has been analyzed proportionality on Legislative Parliament. Finally, such study aims in showing authors who sustain proportionality, how do they bring its contents and how it can be brought up on legal decisioning. In other words, its argumentation consists of demonstrating what the critics are all about in a subjective way and not being controlled upon fails in Law as it is possible to deconstruct legal decisions and doctrinaire opinions in a way to identify reasons why differences may enable rational control in making use of proportionality |