• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
 
  Bookmark and Share
 
 
Master's Dissertation
DOI
10.11606/D.2.2012.tde-29082013-132628
Document
Author
Full name
Juliana Sipoli Col
Institute/School/College
Knowledge Area
Date of Defense
Published
São Paulo, 2012
Supervisor
Committee
Maranhão, Juliano Souza de Albuquerque (President)
Barbosa, Samuel Rodrigues
Rodriguez, José Rodrigo
Title in Portuguese
Coerência, ponderação de princípios e vinculação à lei: métodos e modelos
Keywords in Portuguese
Aborto
Anencefalia
Decisão judicial (aspectos filosóficos)
Filosofia do direito
Abstract in Portuguese
O objeto da discussão é a racionalidade das decisões judiciais em casos em que se constata conflito de princípios ou entre princípios e regras, casos esses considerados difíceis, uma vez que não há no ordenamento jurídico solução predeterminada que permita mera subsunção dos fatos à norma. São examinados métodos alternativos ao de subsunção. O primeiro é o método da ponderação, difundido principalmente por Robert Alexy, com suas variantes. Entretanto, o problema que surge com a aplicação do método da ponderação é da imponderabilidade entre ponderação e vinculação à lei, ou seja, a escolha dos pesos dos princípios e sua potencial desvinculação da lei. O segundo modelo, chamado de coerentista, busca conferir alguma racionalidade e fornecer critérios que poderiam explicar escolhas entre valores conflitantes subjacentes à legislação e mesmo aos pesos do método de ponderação. Dentro do modelo coerentista, examina-se em particular a versão inferencial que explora a coerência entre regras e princípios pela inferência abdutiva dos princípios a partir das regras. A aplicação dos diferentes modelos é feita em duas decisões prolatadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal em casos de conflito de princípio, casos Ellwanger e de aborto de anencéfalos. O que não permite generalização, mas oferece ilustrações específicas das virtudes e vícios desses modelos de decisão.
Title in English
Coherence, weighing and balancing and law binding: methods and models
Keywords in English
Anencephalic abortion
Coherence model
Collision of principles
Ellwanger
Subsumption method
Weighting and balancing
Abstract in English
The subject of this study is rationality of judgments when there is collision of principles or conflict between principles and rules, which are hard cases, since there is no predetermined solution in legal system that allows only subsuming facts to the norm. Alternative methods are then examined. The first is the method of weighting and balancing proposed mainly by Robert Alexy, in spite of its variants. However, the difficulty to apply such method is theweightlessness between weighing and law binding, that is, the choice of weight of principles and its untying to the Law. The second model, called coherence model, intends to reach any rationality and provide criteria that could explain choices between conflicting values underlying Law and also the ascription of weights of the weighing and balancing method. In coherence model, it is studied especially its inferential version that explores coherence between rules and principles through abduction of principles from rules. These methods are tested in two decisions by Brazilian Supreme Court in cases of collision of principle, in Ellwanger and anencephalic abortion cases. That does not allow a general approach, but only specific outlines of the virtues and defects of these models of decision.
 
WARNING - Viewing this document is conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms of use:
This document is only for private use for research and teaching activities. Reproduction for commercial use is forbidden. This rights cover the whole data about this document as well as its contents. Any uses or copies of this document in whole or in part must include the author's name.
Publishing Date
2013-09-11
 
WARNING: Learn what derived works are clicking here.
All rights of the thesis/dissertation are from the authors
Centro de Informática de São Carlos
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of USP. Copyright © 2001-2020. All rights reserved.