Search

Submitted by leitem@stj.jus.br (leitem@stj.jus.br) on 2019-08-12T19:00:09Z No. of bitstreams: 2 possivel_antikelseniano_mentir_amado.pdf: 1066881 bytes, checksum: 963a8001f0563a206d4299b7fe3c16fb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Roberta Marins (rmarins@stj.jus.br) on 2019-08-15T18:14:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 possivel_antikelseniano_mentir_amado.pdf: 1066881 bytes, checksum: 963a8001f0563a206d4299b7fe3c16fb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2019-08-15T18:14:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 possivel_antikelseniano_mentir_amado.pdf: 1066881 bytes, checksum: 963a8001f0563a206d4299b7fe3c16fb (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019

Submitted by Maria Helena Souza (mariahs@stj.jus.br) on 2014-10-08T18:14:45Z No. of bitstreams: 1 direito_nao_cumprimento_traesel.pdf: 1197779 bytes, checksum: 789940c2477590368d630d364c6823d3 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2014-10-08T18:14:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 direito_nao_cumprimento_traesel.pdf: 1197779 bytes, checksum: 789940c2477590368d630d364c6823d3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013

Submitted by Maria Helena Souza (mariahs@stj.jus.br) on 2014-10-08T19:01:22Z No. of bitstreams: 1 estado_instrumento_dominacao_oliveira.pdf: 1163894 bytes, checksum: 9ea57539e92ad9188d247b88682d56f3 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2014-10-08T19:01:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 estado_instrumento_dominacao_oliveira.pdf: 1163894 bytes, checksum: 9ea57539e92ad9188d247b88682d56f3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013

Submitted by gsalbuqu@stj.jus.br (gsalbuqu@stj.jus.br) on 2017-04-19T18:59:54Z No. of bitstreams: 2 desejo_necessidade_vontade_torrens.pdf: 201732 bytes, checksum: c6973e20ac972746198919da510f6a2a (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Approved for entry into archive by Renata Ribeiro (rribeiro@stj.jus.br) on 2017-12-05T16:54:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 desejo_necessidade_vontade_torrens.pdf: 201732 bytes, checksum: c6973e20ac972746198919da510f6a2a (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-05T16:54:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 desejo_necessidade_vontade_torrens.pdf: 201732 bytes, checksum: c6973e20ac972746198919da510f6a2a (MD5) license.txt: 1239 bytes, checksum: c9b4c351324448672315a00808efb725 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009

Submitted by Diana Wolney Araujo Covello null (diacovel@stj.jus.br) on 2015-04-06T17:20:26Z No. of bitstreams: 1 principio_demanda_acoes_almeida.pdf: 568212 bytes, checksum: 5c92616778dfaa626030bce28e4d9f2a (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-06T17:20:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 principio_demanda_acoes_almeida.pdf: 568212 bytes, checksum: 5c92616778dfaa626030bce28e4d9f2a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2005

Habermas, em multiplos aspectos, se refere criticamente ao paradigma liberal-contratualista, pois, ao inserir no campo do direito o elemento da democracia, Habermas retira o carater privatista da producao de direitos e o substitui por um criterio procedimental que nao se aplica somente aos individuos isoladamente, mas a propria sociedade por meio da acao estatal. Por essa razao, o titulo de seu principal livro sobre o assunto — em alemao, Faktizitat und Geltung — marca a distincao entre a dimensao factual e a dimensao normativa dos direitos. Outra critica ao contratualismo tambem emergiu no campo das ciencias sociais do seculo XX, que e a perspectiva do pluralismo juridico, que tem se inclinado para a assuncao do seguinte pressuposto: existem outras fontes legitimas de producao de direito que nao necessariamente se confundem com o direito estatal, tampouco sao emanadas de um orgao estatal. Nesta linha, o pluralismo juridico assume que normas nao estatais podem interferir no processo de producao de normas estatais, assim como podem nao resguardar quaisquer relacoes com elas. As divergencias com Habermas no tocante a legitimidade do direito sao evidentes. Este artigo tem por objetivo discutir a dimensao da legitimidade do direito a partir da perspectiva teorica de Habermas e do pluralismo juridico. Pretende-se, portanto, organizar a analise a partir de dois eixos analiticos: a) a relacao entre direito e mundo da vida; b) a proeminencia do Estado como definidor do direito e sua contraposicao a ideia de pluralismo juridico. Espera-se, com isso, refletir sobre os elementos que possivelmente constituem a legitimidade do direito, assim como demonstrar seus limites e possibilidades de aplicacao e reflexao na sociedade brasileira. Habermas, in multiple aspects, refers critically to the liberal-contratualist paradigm, because, when inserting in the rights’ field the democracy element, Habermas rejects the privatist character of the production of rights and substitutes it for a procedural criterion that does not only is applied to the individuals separately, but to the proper society by the state action. So, the heading of his main book on the subject — in German, Faktizitat und Geltung — marks the distinction between the factual dimension and the normative dimension of rights. One another critic to contratualism also emerged in the field of social sciences on twentieth century XX, which is the legal pluralism perspective, that has been tending to the assumption of the following premise: other legitimate sources of rights production exist that not necessarily are confused with the state law, neither are emanated of a state agency. In this line, legal pluralism assumes that non-state norms can intervene on the process of production of state norms, as well as it cannot have any relations with these. The divergences with Habermas about the legitimacy of law are evident. This article has as objective to argue the dimension of rights legitimacy from the theoretical perspective of Habermas and of legal pluralism. It is intended, therefore, to organize the analysis from two analytical axes: a) the relation between law and lifeworld; b) the State importance as defining rights and its contraposition to the idea of legal pluralism. One expects, with this, to reflect on the elements that possibly constitute the legitimacy of law, as well as demonstrating its limits and possibilities of application and reflection in the Brazilian society.