El impacto del diálogo entre derecho sustantivo y derecho procesal
The impact of the dialogue between substantive law and procedural law
Barra lateral del artículo
PDF
FLIP
HTML
XML
Cómo citar
[1]
Pérez Ragone, Álvaro 2018. El impacto del diálogo entre derecho sustantivo y derecho procesal. Revista Derecho del Estado. 41 (may 2018), 255–283. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n41.10.
Sección
Artículos
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
La justicia o equidad procedimental sustentan la realidad de unión e interdependencia, mas no la de la dicotomía, entre sustancia y procedimiento. Es por ello que el énfasis en la dignidad individual ante los órganos del Estado es entendido por el juez como un derecho de dignidad del ser humano. Aunque tradicionalmente el procedimiento ha sido entendido como intrínsecamente sustantivo, ahora también debemos apreciar que la sustancia es inherentemente procesal. La construcción del derecho sustantivo implica suposiciones acerca de los procedimientos que se aplicarán cuando, en última instancia, se utilice ese derecho sustantivo. Esos procedimientos se inscriben en el derecho sustantivo, y en caso de inaplicación darán lugar a una infracción del mandato sustantivo. Así entonces, la justificación pública de la participación como estrategia respetuosa de la dignidad humana, con mecanismos que ponderan el discurso, pero también el derecho a la verdad y la ponderación de lo justo (para aceptar la legitimidad de una decisión), imponen procedimientos que establezcan un diálogo sólido entre el derecho sustantivo y el derecho procesal.
Palabras clave:
Descargas
Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.
Detalles del artículo
Referencias (VER)
Aarnio, A. (1987). The rational as reasonable. A treatise on legal justification. Netherlands: Springer.
Alexander, L. (1998). Are procedural rights derivative substantive rights? Law and Philosophy 17.
Alexander, L. (1987). The relationship between procedural due process and substantive constitutional rights. U. Fla. L. Rev. 39.
Allan, L. E. y Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. 27 Int’L J. Psychology.
Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Baxter, H. (2011). The discuourse theory of law and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction the principles of morals and legislations. New York: Hafner Press.
Bentham, J. (1827). The rationale of judicial evidence. London: Hunt and Clarke.
Bieresborn, D. (1999). Klage und Klageerwiderung im deutschen und englischen Zivilprozeß. Frankfurt a.M.
Blackstone, W. (1975). Commentaries on the Laws of England: A facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1763. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bone, R. G. (2003). Agreeing to fair process: The problem with contractarian theories of procedural fairness. 83 B.U. L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2008). Making effective rules: The need for procedure theory. 61 Okla. L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2009). Pleading rules, and the regulation of court access. 94 Iowa L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2007). Who decides? A critical look at procedural discretion. 28 Cardozo L. Rev.
Borchers, P. J. (1993). The origins of diversity jurisdiction, the rise of legal positivism, and a brave new world for Erie and Klaxon. 72 Tex. L. Rev.
Breidenstein, M. (2012). Zur Methodik der Verfahrensrechtsvergleichung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Bruns, A. (2010). Materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht in der Dogmatik des Deutschen Zivilprozessrechts. En: Stürner, R. (ed.). Die Bedeutung der Rechtsdogmatik für die Rechtsentwicklung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Burbank, S. B. (1982). The Rules Enabling Act of 1934. 130 U. Pa. L. Rev.
Cadiet, L. (2000). Droit judiciaire privé- Paris: Litec.
Caponi, R. (2015). “Just Settlement” or “just about settlement”? Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht Rabelsz 79.
Cappelletti, M. y Garth, B. G. (1987). Policies, trends and ideas in civil procedure. En: XVI International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 14. Tübingen: Nijhoff y Mohr Siebeck.
Cavani, R. (2015). Decisión justa: ¿mero slogan? –por una teorización de la decisión judicial para el proceso civil contemporáneo–. Justicia, 1.
Celano, B. (2009). Justicia procedimental pura y teoría del derecho. En: Derecho, justicia, razones - Ensayos 2000-2007. Greppi-Laporta, trad. Madrid: CEPC.
Chiovenda, G. (1903). L’azione nel sistema dei diritti. En: Saggi di diritto processuale civile. Bologna.
Comoglio, L. P. (2004). Etica e tecnica del “giusto processo”. Torino: Giappichelli.
Dan-Cohen M. (1984). Decision rules and conduct rules: On acoustic separation in Criminal Law. 97 Harv. L. Rev.
Dedek, H. (2010). From norms to facts: The realization of rights in Common and Civil Private Law. McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill. Vol. 56, n.º 1.
Dernburg, H. (1888). Pandekten. Vol. 1. 2.ª ed. Berlin.
Doherty, D. y Wolak, J. (2012). When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior. Vol. 34, n.º 2, 301-323.
Draper, J. A. (2003). Jeremy Bentham, procedimiento jurídico y utilidad. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco de Suárez, 37, s.d. Disponible en: http://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/acfs/article/view/1094/1292 (Consultado el 2 de enero 2016).
Dwyer, J. P. (1990). The pathology of symbolic legislation. 17 Ecology L.Q. 233.
Easterbrook, F. H. (1982). Substantive due process. Sup. Ct. Rev. 85.
Ferraro, F. (2011). Il giudice utilitarista: flessibilità e tutela delle aspettative nel pensiero giuridico di Jeremy Bentham. Pisa: ets, 2011.
Fiss, O. (1984). Against settlement. Yale. L.J.
Forst, R. (2007). Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Friedman, L. M. (2016). Impact: How Law affects behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Frison-Roche, M.-A. (2003). La procédure de l’effectivité des droits substantiels. En: Benoît-Rohmer, F. y Grewe, C. (eds.). Procédure(s) et effectivité des droits. Bruxelles: Nemesis, 1-12.
Galligan, D. (1997). Due process and fair procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Clarendon Press.
Genn, H. (2010). Judging civil justice. London: University College.
Gentili, A. (2009). Contraddittorio e giusta decisione nel processo civile. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile. N.º 2.
Hammond, G. (1991). Rethinking remedies: The changing conception of the relationship between legal and equitable remedies. En: Berryman, J. (ed.). Remedies: Issues and perspectives. Scarborough: Carswell.
Harel, A. (2014). Why Law matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart Ely, J. (1974). The irrepressible Myth of Erie. 87 Harv. L. Rev.
Hay, B. L. (1997). Procedural justice - Ex ante vs. ex post. 44 Ucla L. Rev.
Holmes, O. W. (1968). Early English Equity. En: Selected essays in Anglo-American Legal History. Boston, 1908; reimp., Frankfurt a.M., II.
Hoffmann, R. (1992). Verfahrensgerechtigkeit. Studien zu einer Theorie prozeduraler Gerechtigkeit. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L. y Thibaut, J. (1978). Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol.
Hovell, D. (2016). The power of process: The value of due process in Security Council Sanctions. London: Oxford University Press.
Kaplow, L. (1994). The value of accuracy in adjudication: An economic analysis. 23 J. Legal Stud.
Kelly, P. J. (1990). Utilitarianism and distributive justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelsen, H. (2000). Was ist Gerechtigkeit? Wien: Deutricke, 1953; reimp., Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.
Klinger, E. y Bierbrauer, G. (2015). How role and framing influence litigants’ perception of civil procedure. En: Mathis, K. (ed.). European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Bern: International Publishing Switzerland.
Kollmann, V. A. (1996). Begriffs- und Problemgeschichte des Verhältnisses von formellem und materiellem Recht. Berlin: Dunckner & Humblot.
Lahav, A. D. (2015). Participation and procedure. 64 DePaul L. Rev.
Langdell, C. C. (1968). The development of Equity - Pleading from Canon Law Procedure. En: Selected essays in Anglo-American Law History. Boston, 1907; reimp., Frankfurt a.M., ii.
LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. 36 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology.
Lautmann, R. (2011). Justiz – Die stille Gewalt. 2.ª ed. Wiesbaden: Lehmanns.
Laycock, D. (2008). How remedies became a field: A history. 27 Rev. Litigation.
Maitland, F. W. (1984). Lectures on the forms of action at common law. Cambridge, 1936; reimp.
Matsumoto, H. (2010). Materielles Recht und Prozessrecht in der Dogmatik des Zivilprozessrechts. En: Stürner, R. (ed.). Die Bedeutung der Rechtsdogmatik für die Rechtsentwicklung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
McCarthy, D. (1997). Rights, explanations, and risks. 107 Ethics.
Motulsky, H. (1973). Écrits: études et notes de procédure civile. Paris: Dalloz.
Newman, J. O. (1985). Rethinking fairness: Perspectives on the litigation process. 94 Yale L.J.
Niiniluoto, I. (2000). Is it rational to be rational? En: Krawietz, W., Summers, R., Weinberger, O. y Von Wright, G. H. The reasonable as rational? Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 101-110.
Popp, A. (2005). Verfahrenstheoretische Grundlagen der Fehlerkorrektur im Strafverfahren. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Postema, G. J. (1989). Bentham and the common law tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pound, R. (1905). The decadence of Equity. 5 Colum. L. Rev.
Quabeck, C. (2010). Dienende Funktion des Verwaltungsverfahrens und Prozeduralisierung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Redish, M. H. y Murashko, D. (2008). The rules enabling act and the procedural-substantive tension: A lesson in statutory interpretation. 93 Minn. L. Rev.
Rehg, W. (1996). Against subordination: Morality, discourse, and decision in the legal theory of Jürgen Habermas. 17 Cardozo L. Rev.
Reimer, P. (2015). Verfahrenstheorie. Ein Versuch zur Kartierung der Beschreibungsangebote für rechtliche Verfahrensordnungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Resnik, J. (2010). Managerial judges, Jeremy Bentham and the privatization of adjudication. En: Walker, J. y Chase O. (ed.). Common law, civil law and the future of categories. Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 205-224.
Risinger, M. (1982). “Substance” and “procedure” revisited: With some afterthoughts on the constitutional problems of “irrebuttable presumptions”. 30 UCLA L. Rev.
Roth, H. (2016). Die Zukunft der Ziviljustiz. Zeitschrift für Zivilprocessrecht (zzp). Vol. 129, 3-21.
Rosenfeld, M. (1996). Can rights, democracy, and justice be reconciled through discourse theory? Reflections on Habermas’s proceduralist paradigm of Law. 17 Cardozo L. Rev.
Savigny, F. C. (1840-1849). System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Berlin: Veit und Comp. V.
Schmitthoff, C. M. (1972). Der Zivilprozeß als Schlüssel zum englischen Rechtsdenken. JZ.
Schwab, K. H. (1968). Zur Wiederbelebung des Rechtsschutzanspruchs. Zeitschrift für Zivilprocessrecht (ZZP). Vol. 81.
Sorabji, J. (2014). English civil justice after the Woolf and Jackson Reforms: A critical analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stephens, P. J. (1993). Manipulation of procedural rules in pursuit of substantive goals: A reconsideration of the impermissible collateral attack doctrine. 24 Ariz. ST. L.J.
Summers, R. (1974). Evaluating and improving legal process – A plea for ‘process values”. Cornell L. Rev. 60.
Taruffo, M. (2017). Derecho sustancial y procesal. En: Priori, G. (coord.). Derecho material y proceso. Lima: Palestra.
Taruffo, M. (2012). Uma simples verdade – O juiz e a construção dos fatos. V. de Paula Ramos, trad. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Taruffo, M. (1997). Idee per uma teoria della decisione giusta. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile. N.º 2.
Taruffo, M. (1975). La motivazione della sentenza civile. Padova: Cedam.
Taruffo, M. (2007). Consideraciones sobre la teoría chiovendana de la acción. Revista de la Universidad del Externado.
Taruffo, M. (2015). Abuso del proceso. Contratto e impresa. Vol. 31, n.º 4-5, 832-846.
Taruffo, M. (1999). General report abuse of procedural rights: Comparative standards of procedural fairness. En: Taruffo, M. Abuse of procedural rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 3-29.
Uzelac, A. y van Rhee, C. H. (2014). Appeals and other means of recourse against judgements in the context of the effective protetion of civil rights and obligations. En: Uzelac, A. y Van Rhee, C. H. Nobody’s perfect. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Van Prooijen, J. W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96, 1166.
Vermeule, A. (2006). Judging under uncertainty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wach, A. (1885). Handbuch des deutschen Civilprozessrechts. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Waldrom, J. (1992). The Law. London: Routledge.
Waldron, J. (1999). The dignity of legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J. (2011). The rule of law and the importance of procedure. En: Felming, J. (ed.). Getting to the rule of law. Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy. New York: New York University Press y Nomos, 3-32.
Windscheid, B. (1856). Die actio des römischen Civilrechts, vom Standpunkte des heutigen Rechts. Düsseldorf: Verlagshandlung von Julius Budeus.
Wormald, P. (1986). Settlement of disputes in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zöllner, W. (1990). Materielles Recht und Prozeßrecht. Archiv für die Civilistische Praxis 190.
Alexander, L. (1998). Are procedural rights derivative substantive rights? Law and Philosophy 17.
Alexander, L. (1987). The relationship between procedural due process and substantive constitutional rights. U. Fla. L. Rev. 39.
Allan, L. E. y Earley, P. C. (1992). Procedural justice and culture. 27 Int’L J. Psychology.
Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Baxter, H. (2011). The discuourse theory of law and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction the principles of morals and legislations. New York: Hafner Press.
Bentham, J. (1827). The rationale of judicial evidence. London: Hunt and Clarke.
Bieresborn, D. (1999). Klage und Klageerwiderung im deutschen und englischen Zivilprozeß. Frankfurt a.M.
Blackstone, W. (1975). Commentaries on the Laws of England: A facsimile of the First Edition of 1765-1763. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bone, R. G. (2003). Agreeing to fair process: The problem with contractarian theories of procedural fairness. 83 B.U. L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2008). Making effective rules: The need for procedure theory. 61 Okla. L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2009). Pleading rules, and the regulation of court access. 94 Iowa L. Rev.
Bone, R. G. (2007). Who decides? A critical look at procedural discretion. 28 Cardozo L. Rev.
Borchers, P. J. (1993). The origins of diversity jurisdiction, the rise of legal positivism, and a brave new world for Erie and Klaxon. 72 Tex. L. Rev.
Breidenstein, M. (2012). Zur Methodik der Verfahrensrechtsvergleichung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Bruns, A. (2010). Materielles Recht und Verfahrensrecht in der Dogmatik des Deutschen Zivilprozessrechts. En: Stürner, R. (ed.). Die Bedeutung der Rechtsdogmatik für die Rechtsentwicklung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Burbank, S. B. (1982). The Rules Enabling Act of 1934. 130 U. Pa. L. Rev.
Cadiet, L. (2000). Droit judiciaire privé- Paris: Litec.
Caponi, R. (2015). “Just Settlement” or “just about settlement”? Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht Rabelsz 79.
Cappelletti, M. y Garth, B. G. (1987). Policies, trends and ideas in civil procedure. En: XVI International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law 14. Tübingen: Nijhoff y Mohr Siebeck.
Cavani, R. (2015). Decisión justa: ¿mero slogan? –por una teorización de la decisión judicial para el proceso civil contemporáneo–. Justicia, 1.
Celano, B. (2009). Justicia procedimental pura y teoría del derecho. En: Derecho, justicia, razones - Ensayos 2000-2007. Greppi-Laporta, trad. Madrid: CEPC.
Chiovenda, G. (1903). L’azione nel sistema dei diritti. En: Saggi di diritto processuale civile. Bologna.
Comoglio, L. P. (2004). Etica e tecnica del “giusto processo”. Torino: Giappichelli.
Dan-Cohen M. (1984). Decision rules and conduct rules: On acoustic separation in Criminal Law. 97 Harv. L. Rev.
Dedek, H. (2010). From norms to facts: The realization of rights in Common and Civil Private Law. McGill Law Journal / Revue de droit de McGill. Vol. 56, n.º 1.
Dernburg, H. (1888). Pandekten. Vol. 1. 2.ª ed. Berlin.
Doherty, D. y Wolak, J. (2012). When do the ends justify the means? Evaluating procedural fairness. Political Behavior. Vol. 34, n.º 2, 301-323.
Draper, J. A. (2003). Jeremy Bentham, procedimiento jurídico y utilidad. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco de Suárez, 37, s.d. Disponible en: http://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/acfs/article/view/1094/1292 (Consultado el 2 de enero 2016).
Dwyer, J. P. (1990). The pathology of symbolic legislation. 17 Ecology L.Q. 233.
Easterbrook, F. H. (1982). Substantive due process. Sup. Ct. Rev. 85.
Ferraro, F. (2011). Il giudice utilitarista: flessibilità e tutela delle aspettative nel pensiero giuridico di Jeremy Bentham. Pisa: ets, 2011.
Fiss, O. (1984). Against settlement. Yale. L.J.
Forst, R. (2007). Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Friedman, L. M. (2016). Impact: How Law affects behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Frison-Roche, M.-A. (2003). La procédure de l’effectivité des droits substantiels. En: Benoît-Rohmer, F. y Grewe, C. (eds.). Procédure(s) et effectivité des droits. Bruxelles: Nemesis, 1-12.
Galligan, D. (1997). Due process and fair procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Clarendon Press.
Genn, H. (2010). Judging civil justice. London: University College.
Gentili, A. (2009). Contraddittorio e giusta decisione nel processo civile. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile. N.º 2.
Hammond, G. (1991). Rethinking remedies: The changing conception of the relationship between legal and equitable remedies. En: Berryman, J. (ed.). Remedies: Issues and perspectives. Scarborough: Carswell.
Harel, A. (2014). Why Law matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart Ely, J. (1974). The irrepressible Myth of Erie. 87 Harv. L. Rev.
Hay, B. L. (1997). Procedural justice - Ex ante vs. ex post. 44 Ucla L. Rev.
Holmes, O. W. (1968). Early English Equity. En: Selected essays in Anglo-American Legal History. Boston, 1908; reimp., Frankfurt a.M., II.
Hoffmann, R. (1992). Verfahrensgerechtigkeit. Studien zu einer Theorie prozeduraler Gerechtigkeit. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Houlden, P., LaTour, S., Walker, L. y Thibaut, J. (1978). Preference for modes of dispute resolution as a function of process and decision control. 14 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol.
Hovell, D. (2016). The power of process: The value of due process in Security Council Sanctions. London: Oxford University Press.
Kaplow, L. (1994). The value of accuracy in adjudication: An economic analysis. 23 J. Legal Stud.
Kelly, P. J. (1990). Utilitarianism and distributive justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelsen, H. (2000). Was ist Gerechtigkeit? Wien: Deutricke, 1953; reimp., Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.
Klinger, E. y Bierbrauer, G. (2015). How role and framing influence litigants’ perception of civil procedure. En: Mathis, K. (ed.). European perspectives on behavioural law and economics. Bern: International Publishing Switzerland.
Kollmann, V. A. (1996). Begriffs- und Problemgeschichte des Verhältnisses von formellem und materiellem Recht. Berlin: Dunckner & Humblot.
Lahav, A. D. (2015). Participation and procedure. 64 DePaul L. Rev.
Langdell, C. C. (1968). The development of Equity - Pleading from Canon Law Procedure. En: Selected essays in Anglo-American Law History. Boston, 1907; reimp., Frankfurt a.M., ii.
LaTour, S. (1978). Determinants of participant and observer satisfaction with adversary and inquisitorial modes of adjudication. 36 J. Personality & Soc. Psychology.
Lautmann, R. (2011). Justiz – Die stille Gewalt. 2.ª ed. Wiesbaden: Lehmanns.
Laycock, D. (2008). How remedies became a field: A history. 27 Rev. Litigation.
Maitland, F. W. (1984). Lectures on the forms of action at common law. Cambridge, 1936; reimp.
Matsumoto, H. (2010). Materielles Recht und Prozessrecht in der Dogmatik des Zivilprozessrechts. En: Stürner, R. (ed.). Die Bedeutung der Rechtsdogmatik für die Rechtsentwicklung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
McCarthy, D. (1997). Rights, explanations, and risks. 107 Ethics.
Motulsky, H. (1973). Écrits: études et notes de procédure civile. Paris: Dalloz.
Newman, J. O. (1985). Rethinking fairness: Perspectives on the litigation process. 94 Yale L.J.
Niiniluoto, I. (2000). Is it rational to be rational? En: Krawietz, W., Summers, R., Weinberger, O. y Von Wright, G. H. The reasonable as rational? Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 101-110.
Popp, A. (2005). Verfahrenstheoretische Grundlagen der Fehlerkorrektur im Strafverfahren. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.
Postema, G. J. (1989). Bentham and the common law tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pound, R. (1905). The decadence of Equity. 5 Colum. L. Rev.
Quabeck, C. (2010). Dienende Funktion des Verwaltungsverfahrens und Prozeduralisierung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Redish, M. H. y Murashko, D. (2008). The rules enabling act and the procedural-substantive tension: A lesson in statutory interpretation. 93 Minn. L. Rev.
Rehg, W. (1996). Against subordination: Morality, discourse, and decision in the legal theory of Jürgen Habermas. 17 Cardozo L. Rev.
Reimer, P. (2015). Verfahrenstheorie. Ein Versuch zur Kartierung der Beschreibungsangebote für rechtliche Verfahrensordnungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Resnik, J. (2010). Managerial judges, Jeremy Bentham and the privatization of adjudication. En: Walker, J. y Chase O. (ed.). Common law, civil law and the future of categories. Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 205-224.
Risinger, M. (1982). “Substance” and “procedure” revisited: With some afterthoughts on the constitutional problems of “irrebuttable presumptions”. 30 UCLA L. Rev.
Roth, H. (2016). Die Zukunft der Ziviljustiz. Zeitschrift für Zivilprocessrecht (zzp). Vol. 129, 3-21.
Rosenfeld, M. (1996). Can rights, democracy, and justice be reconciled through discourse theory? Reflections on Habermas’s proceduralist paradigm of Law. 17 Cardozo L. Rev.
Savigny, F. C. (1840-1849). System des heutigen römischen Rechts. Berlin: Veit und Comp. V.
Schmitthoff, C. M. (1972). Der Zivilprozeß als Schlüssel zum englischen Rechtsdenken. JZ.
Schwab, K. H. (1968). Zur Wiederbelebung des Rechtsschutzanspruchs. Zeitschrift für Zivilprocessrecht (ZZP). Vol. 81.
Sorabji, J. (2014). English civil justice after the Woolf and Jackson Reforms: A critical analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Stephens, P. J. (1993). Manipulation of procedural rules in pursuit of substantive goals: A reconsideration of the impermissible collateral attack doctrine. 24 Ariz. ST. L.J.
Summers, R. (1974). Evaluating and improving legal process – A plea for ‘process values”. Cornell L. Rev. 60.
Taruffo, M. (2017). Derecho sustancial y procesal. En: Priori, G. (coord.). Derecho material y proceso. Lima: Palestra.
Taruffo, M. (2012). Uma simples verdade – O juiz e a construção dos fatos. V. de Paula Ramos, trad. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Taruffo, M. (1997). Idee per uma teoria della decisione giusta. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile. N.º 2.
Taruffo, M. (1975). La motivazione della sentenza civile. Padova: Cedam.
Taruffo, M. (2007). Consideraciones sobre la teoría chiovendana de la acción. Revista de la Universidad del Externado.
Taruffo, M. (2015). Abuso del proceso. Contratto e impresa. Vol. 31, n.º 4-5, 832-846.
Taruffo, M. (1999). General report abuse of procedural rights: Comparative standards of procedural fairness. En: Taruffo, M. Abuse of procedural rights. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 3-29.
Uzelac, A. y van Rhee, C. H. (2014). Appeals and other means of recourse against judgements in the context of the effective protetion of civil rights and obligations. En: Uzelac, A. y Van Rhee, C. H. Nobody’s perfect. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Van Prooijen, J. W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96, 1166.
Vermeule, A. (2006). Judging under uncertainty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wach, A. (1885). Handbuch des deutschen Civilprozessrechts. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Waldrom, J. (1992). The Law. London: Routledge.
Waldron, J. (1999). The dignity of legislation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waldron, J. (2011). The rule of law and the importance of procedure. En: Felming, J. (ed.). Getting to the rule of law. Yearbook of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy. New York: New York University Press y Nomos, 3-32.
Windscheid, B. (1856). Die actio des römischen Civilrechts, vom Standpunkte des heutigen Rechts. Düsseldorf: Verlagshandlung von Julius Budeus.
Wormald, P. (1986). Settlement of disputes in Early Medieval Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zöllner, W. (1990). Materielles Recht und Prozeßrecht. Archiv für die Civilistische Praxis 190.
Citado por
