Suchergebnisse

"Legal Education in the Western World provides an encompassing history of legal education from Ancient Rome to present day Europe and the Americas. Legal education is considered the locus of the formation of professional culture, and in this book Rogelio Pérez-Perdomo contributes to our understanding of its formation by paying attention to how legal knowledge is conceived, the way it is created and transmitted, and the social status of masters, professors, teachers, apprentices and students. He focuses on historical periods and societies that have influenced the current state of legal education. While these are established touchpoints used by historians and supported by a vast bibliographies in English, Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese, this book also includes material often overlooked by historians. Ultimately, this concise and accessible history presents a panoramic view that highlights the strengths and weaknesses of approaches to legal education in different societies, and an examination of the shared idea of law manifested in them. This historical and comparative perspective will be useful to comparative legal scholars and legal historians interested in a more informed general approach to improving legal education"--

Se considera en este ensayo el debilitamiento del Estado en varios países de América Latina, entre ellos Venezuela, y cuyo centro de reflexión es analizar en qué se convierte el derecho cuando el Estado se debilita y cómo el orden social puede ser afectado y afectado también el funcionamiento del sistema político y del jurídico. ; In this essay the weakening of the State in several Latin American countries is considered, among them Venezuela. The article analyze what the law becomes when the State is weakened and how the social order can be affected affecting also the functioning of the political and legal system. ; 71-95

ResumenEl régimen de Gómez (1909-1935) consolidó y centralizó al Estado usando métodos cruelmente represivos. Este trabajo analiza el papel del derecho y de la justicia durante ese régimen. Juristas distinguidos colaboraron con Gómez y fueron responsables de la redacción de códigos considerablemente liberales que sobrevivieron al régimen y permanecieron vigentes mucho más allá de su extinción. Esto es verdad, incluso, para el Código Penal y el Código de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, que regulan la represión. El sistema judicial formal funcionó con considerable independencia, pero no interfería con la represión política realizada directamente por el poder político, produciendo así una especie de doble sistema de justicia. La represión política era especialmente severa, sin plazo fijo de detención, con uso habitual de torturas,grillos y condiciones sanitarias pésimas, con alta mortalidad de los presos. No hay información oficial sobre la represión política. Los relatos disponibles sugieren una represión selectiva que se publicitaba de manera de generar terror en la población. El sistema formal de justicia imponía penas determinadas cortas. Hay buena información estadística sobre presos comunes que muestra un incremento moderado a pesar del bajo nivel de delincuencia.Aunque formalmente sólo los jueces podían decretar la prisión, en la práctica éstos no intentaban interferir con el sistema de represión política. Esto define la marginalidad del sistema judicial que permitió a los jueces sobrevivir al régimen de Gómez sin haber sido teñidos por sus abusos.AbstractUnder Gomez' regime Venezuela became a centralizedState. The government had control of the national territory and regional caudillos disappeared. The methods of political control were cruelly repressive. This paper analyzes the role of law and justice in this period. Distinguished jurists collaborated with Gomez and drafted liberal codes and statutes that survived the regime. These provisions included the Penal Code and the Judicial Criminal Procedure. Judges worked with a high degree of independence but could not interfere with political repression, brought ondirectly by the government. Political repression was especially severe, imprisonmentwas open-ended, torture and shackles were normally used. This treatment and the terrible sanitary conditions of prisons produced a high mortality rate among political prisoners. There are no official figures on political repression. The narratives of that time suggest that repression was selective yet well publicized to cause terror in the population. In contrast, the formal legal system imposed rather short punishments. The records of non-political prisoners were published officially. The numbers increased during that period. Even if constitutionaland legal provisions established that only judges could sentence to imprisonment, in practice judges did not interfere at all with political repression. Civil justice data shows a limited use of courts by the population. All these features show the marginality of the judicial system, which allowed judges to survive the fall of the regime in 1936, without being tarnished for having collaborated with a tyrant.

From the nineteenth century onward, lawyers have been the leading members of Latin American political elites. Nevertheless, Latin American countries have been plagued with caudillos and dictators, and lawyers have been these strongmen's collaborators. The article explains the dissonance between the constitutionalism and legalism taught at the universities and the sordid political practices that resulted from the lack of independence of the legal profession: there was not a market for lawyers' services, so lawyers depended on those who controlled the political apparatus. The situation started changing in the late twentieth century. During this recent period, lawyers and judges have shown more independence and have become active political players, using the law as an instrument for opposing arbitrary political practices. The new trend is explained not only by the increased awareness of the rule of law values but also by the existence of a market for legal services.

Frontmatter -- PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION -- PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION -- CONTENTS -- I TWO LEGAL TRADITIONS -- II ROMAN CIVIL LAW, CANON LAW, AND COMMERCIAL LAW -- III THE REVOLUTION -- IV THE SOURCES OF LAW -- V CODES AND CODIFICATION -- VI JUDGES -- VII THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES -- VIII CERTAINTY AND EQUITY -- IX SCHOLARS -- X LEGAL SCIENCE -- XI THE GENERAL PART -- XII THE LEGAL PROCESS -- XIII THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION -- XIV LEGAL CATEGORIES -- XV THE LEGAL PROFESSIONS -- XVI CIVIL PROCEDURE -- XVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -- XVIII CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW -- XIX PERSPECTIVES -- XX THE FUTURE OF THE CIVIL LAW TRADITION -- RECOMMENDED READINGS -- INDEX

In past Venezuelan experiences with authoritarian regimes, the strongman handled the punishment of the opposition, and the courts dealt with nonpolitical cases. In today's "revolutionary" regime, courts are not only in charge of punishing dissidence but have also become the regime's main legitimation force. In December 2015, following a landslide victory by the opposition in parliamentary elections, the lame‐duck National Assembly appointed the Supreme Court justices in an irregular procedure that ignored the constitutional requirement for these positions. Consequently, the regime dominates the Supreme Court, which has deprived the National Assembly of its function, concentrating all powers in the President of the Republic. A controversial Supreme Court has become the only instrument supporting a regime that has lost the popular support completely, where citizens have taken to the streets to protest a government that has destroyed democracy and has subjected the country to deep political and economic crises.

El Tribunal Supremo de Venezuela ha anulado prácticamente todas las leyes y otras decisiones de la Asamblea Nacional tomadas en 2016. La Asamblea fue electa en diciembre de 2015 con una clara mayoría opositora y el Tribunal Supremo generalmente ha respondido a los intereses del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela. El conflicto es principalmente político, pero los argumentos son constitucionales y el conflicto es usado para analizar la legitimidad de los jueces y de los cuerpos legislativos en el Estado constitucional de derecho. ; The Venezuelan Supreme Court has voided almost all of the National Assembly's statutes and other decisions in 2016. The opposition parties obtained a clear victory in the parliamentary elections of December 2015 and have a decisive majority in the National Assembly. In contrast, the Supreme Court responds to the interests of the Venezuela United Socialist Party. Obviously political conflict was inevitable, but the arguments are clothed in constitutional robes. The conflict is used to analyze the issues of legitimacy of judges and legislative bodies in a constitutional democracy.

The Venezuelan Supreme Court has voided almost all of the National Assembly's statutes and other decisions in 2016. The opposition parties obtained a clear victory in the parliamentary elections of December 2015 and have a decisive majority in the National Assembly. In contrast, the Supreme Court responds to the interests of the Venezuela United Socialist Party. Obviously political conflict was inevitable, but the arguments are clothed in constitutional robes. The conflict is used to analyze the issues of legitimacy of judges and legislative bodies in a constitutional democracy. ; El Tribunal Supremo de Venezuela ha anulado prácticamente todas las leyes y otras decisiones de la Asamblea Nacional tomadas en 2016. La Asamblea fue electa en diciembre de 2015 con una clara mayoría opositora y el Tribunal Supremo generalmente ha respondido a los intereses del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela. El conflicto es principalmente político, pero los argumentos son constitucionales y el conflicto es usado para analizar la legitimidad de los jueces y de los cuerpos legislativos en el Estado constitucional de derecho.