CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO?
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Publication Date: | 2015 |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | por |
| Source: | Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) |
| Download full: | https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/42346 |
Summary: | The political crises of the contemporary democracies find their explanation in the past arguments composed by detractors of the parliamentarian democratic theory and practice. The debate between Schmitt and Kelsen on the protector of the Constitution and the (il)limitation, which must characterize the exercise of its power, contains one of the juridical and political reasons that exceeds its own time. We suggest that reason still beats and fulfills one of the many grooves of the contemporary democracy’s crisis, i.e., the unfinished debate on the supremacy of law over politics or politics over law, or still, the supremacy of the technique over the world of life (Lebenswelt) or, instead, the world of life over any type of regulation turned to assure the liberties. Starting from that premise this article looks to recognize – aside the self-perception of each author about his theories – who really support a theory composed by a defender, and who by a seignior of the Constitution. |
| id |
UFPR-3_fe6acac2c67f18ef274fe2d56f50a614 |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/42346 |
| network_acronym_str |
UFPR-3 |
| network_name_str |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO?CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENDER OR SEIGNIOR OF THE CONSTITUTION?Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Judicial Review. Weimar Republic. Dictatorship.Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Controle de constitucionalidade. República de Weimar. Ditadura.The political crises of the contemporary democracies find their explanation in the past arguments composed by detractors of the parliamentarian democratic theory and practice. The debate between Schmitt and Kelsen on the protector of the Constitution and the (il)limitation, which must characterize the exercise of its power, contains one of the juridical and political reasons that exceeds its own time. We suggest that reason still beats and fulfills one of the many grooves of the contemporary democracy’s crisis, i.e., the unfinished debate on the supremacy of law over politics or politics over law, or still, the supremacy of the technique over the world of life (Lebenswelt) or, instead, the world of life over any type of regulation turned to assure the liberties. Starting from that premise this article looks to recognize – aside the self-perception of each author about his theories – who really support a theory composed by a defender, and who by a seignior of the Constitution.A crise política das democracias contemporâneas encontra suas razões em antigos argumentos elaborados pelos detratores da teoria e prática democrático-parlamentar. O debate entre Schmitt e Kelsen sobre o guardião da Constituição e a (i)limitação que deveria marcar o exercício de seu poder contém uma destas razões jurídico-políticas que transcende o seu tempo. Sugerimos que ela se encontra todavia pulsante e preenche uma das tantas ranhuras da crise das democracias contemporâneas; a saber, o inconcluso debate sobre a supremacia do direito sobre a política ou da política sobre o direito ou, ainda, sobre a preeminência da técnica sobre o mundo da vida (Lebenswelt) ou, ângulo inverso, do mundo da vida sobre qualquer tipo de regulamentação voltada ao asseguramento das liberdades. Partindo desta premissa, este texto procura reconhecer quem – à parte a autopercepção de ambos os autores sobre suas teorias – realmente sustenta teoria composta por um defensor e quem por um senhor da Constituição.Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR2015-10-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/4234610.5380/rfdufpr.v60i3.42346Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR; v. 60 n. 3 (2015); 103-1362236-72840104-331510.5380/rfdufpr.v60i3reponame:Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online)instname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)instacron:UFPRporhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/42346/26942Pinto, Roberto Buenoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2015-12-18T20:59:56Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/42346Revistahttp://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs2/index.php/direitoPUBhttp://ojs.c3sl.ufpr.br/ojs/index.php/direito/oai||revistadireito@ufpr.br2236-72840104-3315opendoar:2015-12-18T20:59:56Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)false |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENDER OR SEIGNIOR OF THE CONSTITUTION? |
| title |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| spellingShingle |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? Pinto, Roberto Bueno Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Judicial Review. Weimar Republic. Dictatorship. Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Controle de constitucionalidade. República de Weimar. Ditadura. |
| title_short |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| title_full |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| title_fullStr |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| title_full_unstemmed |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| title_sort |
CARL SCHMITT X HANS KELSEN: DEFENSOR OU SENHOR DA CONSTITUIÇÃO? |
| author |
Pinto, Roberto Bueno |
| author_facet |
Pinto, Roberto Bueno |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pinto, Roberto Bueno |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Judicial Review. Weimar Republic. Dictatorship. Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Controle de constitucionalidade. República de Weimar. Ditadura. |
| topic |
Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Judicial Review. Weimar Republic. Dictatorship. Carl Schmitt. Hans Kelsen. Controle de constitucionalidade. República de Weimar. Ditadura. |
| description |
The political crises of the contemporary democracies find their explanation in the past arguments composed by detractors of the parliamentarian democratic theory and practice. The debate between Schmitt and Kelsen on the protector of the Constitution and the (il)limitation, which must characterize the exercise of its power, contains one of the juridical and political reasons that exceeds its own time. We suggest that reason still beats and fulfills one of the many grooves of the contemporary democracy’s crisis, i.e., the unfinished debate on the supremacy of law over politics or politics over law, or still, the supremacy of the technique over the world of life (Lebenswelt) or, instead, the world of life over any type of regulation turned to assure the liberties. Starting from that premise this article looks to recognize – aside the self-perception of each author about his theories – who really support a theory composed by a defender, and who by a seignior of the Constitution. |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-10-21 |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/42346 10.5380/rfdufpr.v60i3.42346 |
| url |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/42346 |
| identifier_str_mv |
10.5380/rfdufpr.v60i3.42346 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
| language |
por |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/direito/article/view/42346/26942 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR; v. 60 n. 3 (2015); 103-136 2236-7284 0104-3315 10.5380/rfdufpr.v60i3 reponame:Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) instname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) instacron:UFPR |
| instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
| instacron_str |
UFPR |
| institution |
UFPR |
| reponame_str |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) |
| collection |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Faculdade de Direito UFPR (Online) - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||revistadireito@ufpr.br |
| _version_ |
1825134094917304320 |