Judges and Lawmaking Authority: The New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code and the Limits of How a Civil Law Judge Could Act As a Common Law Judge

Rafael de Oliveira Rodrigues
{"title":"Judges and Lawmaking Authority: The New Brazilian Civil Procedure Code and the Limits of How a Civil Law Judge Could Act As a Common Law Judge","authors":"Rafael de Oliveira Rodrigues","doi":"10.30845/ijbss.v11n1a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article intends to compare two distinguished legal systems, by the perspective of the role of judges and how this officer of the court applies and interprets the law. This paper focuses on how and when judges are allowed to create the law within their judicial decisions. In this sense, we analyze how application and interpretation of the law fit within the legal concept of discretion and, in case of adopting the possibility in which the judicial authority carries out this prerogative. Also, it is taken into account how different judicial discretion comes from legislative and administrative discretion. Taking law application and interpretation as an exercise of judicial discretion is a key element to allow us to identify the way the judges create the law in civil law and common law systems. This reasoning will lead us to find elements to understand the purpose and length of a trend seen in countries in Latin America such as Brazil and its new Civil Procedure Code, which focuses on importing means from common law system to increase the efficiency of Judiciary Power, in order to attend social needs.","PeriodicalId":108255,"journal":{"name":"International journal of business and social science","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of business and social science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbss.v11n1a4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article intends to compare two distinguished legal systems, by the perspective of the role of judges and how this officer of the court applies and interprets the law. This paper focuses on how and when judges are allowed to create the law within their judicial decisions. In this sense, we analyze how application and interpretation of the law fit within the legal concept of discretion and, in case of adopting the possibility in which the judicial authority carries out this prerogative. Also, it is taken into account how different judicial discretion comes from legislative and administrative discretion. Taking law application and interpretation as an exercise of judicial discretion is a key element to allow us to identify the way the judges create the law in civil law and common law systems. This reasoning will lead us to find elements to understand the purpose and length of a trend seen in countries in Latin America such as Brazil and its new Civil Procedure Code, which focuses on importing means from common law system to increase the efficiency of Judiciary Power, in order to attend social needs.
法官与立法权:新《巴西民事诉讼法》与民法法官担任普通法法官的界限
本文拟从法官的角色以及法官如何适用和解释法律的角度,对两种不同的法系进行比较。本文的重点是如何以及何时允许法官在其司法判决中创造法律。在这个意义上,我们分析了法律的适用和解释如何符合自由裁量权的法律概念,以及在采用司法机关行使这一特权的可能性的情况下。同时也考虑了司法自由裁量权与立法自由裁量权和行政自由裁量权的区别。将法律的适用和解释视为司法自由裁量权的行使,是使我们能够识别大陆法系和英美法系法官创造法律的方式的关键因素。这一推理将引导我们找到一些要素,以理解巴西等拉美国家及其新《民事诉讼法》所出现的一种趋势的目的和持续时间,这种趋势侧重于从英美法系引进手段来提高司法权力的效率,以满足社会需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信