The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2015 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Scientia Iuris (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/19935 |
Resumo: | This paper proposes a maximum of proportionality study and its maximum partial, especially of the Negotiating law perspective and in the sphere of legal limitation for proportionality in the practice of commercial freedoms. The constant use of the maximum of proportionality, as the basis of judicial decisions without proper methodological rigor, triggers a debate about the use of the Theory of Fundamental Rights as a mere rhetorical reference, including criticism of an incomplete legal basis of the principle of proportionality, which by means of judicial decisions can take on a different character or subverted that provided in the doctrine of Robert Alexy. |
id |
UEL-6_f1cc050894262714e4ddb6f8046189f5 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/19935 |
network_acronym_str |
UEL-6 |
network_name_str |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATINGA proporcionalidade como limite jurídico ao direito negocialProportionality MaximumFundamental RightsJudicial decisionRobert AlexyMáxima da ProporcionalidadeDireitos FundamentaisDecisão JudicialRobert AlexyThis paper proposes a maximum of proportionality study and its maximum partial, especially of the Negotiating law perspective and in the sphere of legal limitation for proportionality in the practice of commercial freedoms. The constant use of the maximum of proportionality, as the basis of judicial decisions without proper methodological rigor, triggers a debate about the use of the Theory of Fundamental Rights as a mere rhetorical reference, including criticism of an incomplete legal basis of the principle of proportionality, which by means of judicial decisions can take on a different character or subverted that provided in the doctrine of Robert Alexy. Este trabalho propõe o estudo da máxima da proporcionalidade e suas máximas parciais, sobretudo da perspectiva do Direito Negocial e na esfera da limitação jurídica pela proporcionalidade ao exercício de liberdades comerciais. O emprego constante da máxima da proporcionalidade, como fundamento das decisões judiciais, sem o devido rigor metodológico, provoca um debate acerca da utilização da Teoria dos Direitos Fundamentais como mera referência retórica, compreendendo a crítica de uma fundamentação judicial incompleta do princípio da proporcionalidade, o qual por meio das decisões judiciais pode assumir um caráter distinto ou subvertido daquele previsto na doutrina de Robert Alexy.Universidade Estadual de Londrina2015-06-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/1993510.5433/2178-8189.2015v19n1p149Scientia Iuris; v. 19 n. 1 (2015); 149-1662178-81891415-6490reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELporhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/19935/16319Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iurisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessda Silva Zolet, Lucas AugustoSantos de Morais, Fausto2015-06-09T13:35:52Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/19935Revistahttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iurisPUBhttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/oairevistamdireito@uel.br2178-81891415-6490opendoar:2015-06-09T13:35:52Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING A proporcionalidade como limite jurídico ao direito negocial |
title |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
spellingShingle |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING da Silva Zolet, Lucas Augusto Proportionality Maximum Fundamental Rights Judicial decision Robert Alexy Máxima da Proporcionalidade Direitos Fundamentais Decisão Judicial Robert Alexy |
title_short |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
title_full |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
title_fullStr |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
title_full_unstemmed |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
title_sort |
The PROPORTIONALITY AS LEGAL LIMIT THE RIGHT NEGOTIATING |
author |
da Silva Zolet, Lucas Augusto |
author_facet |
da Silva Zolet, Lucas Augusto Santos de Morais, Fausto |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Santos de Morais, Fausto |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
da Silva Zolet, Lucas Augusto Santos de Morais, Fausto |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Proportionality Maximum Fundamental Rights Judicial decision Robert Alexy Máxima da Proporcionalidade Direitos Fundamentais Decisão Judicial Robert Alexy |
topic |
Proportionality Maximum Fundamental Rights Judicial decision Robert Alexy Máxima da Proporcionalidade Direitos Fundamentais Decisão Judicial Robert Alexy |
description |
This paper proposes a maximum of proportionality study and its maximum partial, especially of the Negotiating law perspective and in the sphere of legal limitation for proportionality in the practice of commercial freedoms. The constant use of the maximum of proportionality, as the basis of judicial decisions without proper methodological rigor, triggers a debate about the use of the Theory of Fundamental Rights as a mere rhetorical reference, including criticism of an incomplete legal basis of the principle of proportionality, which by means of judicial decisions can take on a different character or subverted that provided in the doctrine of Robert Alexy. |
publishDate |
2015 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2015-06-08 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artigo avaliado pelos Pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/19935 10.5433/2178-8189.2015v19n1p149 |
url |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/19935 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5433/2178-8189.2015v19n1p149 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/19935/16319 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iuris info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iuris |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Iuris; v. 19 n. 1 (2015); 149-166 2178-8189 1415-6490 reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) instacron:UEL |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) |
instacron_str |
UEL |
institution |
UEL |
reponame_str |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
collection |
Scientia Iuris (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revistamdireito@uel.br |
_version_ |
1799306014734942208 |