Distinción y alcance de las Categorías Jurídicas Interés Público y Orden Público en el Derecho Administrativo Venezolano.
The fundamental aim of this research is to analise the concepts of the doctrine and jurisprudence about the juridical categories “public interest” and “public order”, for presenting a workable proposal in order to contribute to the improvement of venezuelan juridical forum. In such a task, the explo...
Saved in:
| Published: |
2016
|
|---|---|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10872/13350 |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The fundamental aim of this research is to analise the concepts of the doctrine and jurisprudence about the juridical categories “public interest” and “public order”, for presenting a workable proposal in order to contribute to the improvement of venezuelan juridical forum. In such a task, the exploration and descriptive, both in time and space, has been implemented as a work methodology. This thesis research is set up on four main chapters: the first one analise the most important theoretic model of reference of the research; the second, deepens on the different concepts about these categories; the third one analises the notion of jurisprudence in relation to such terms and the last one makes a synthetic of the contents of the first three chapters, presents conclusions and makes a proposal. As very important points of this research stand out: the important of such concepts for: breaking authoritarism and arbitrarisness of the Political Power, legalising the participation of the government on public affairs and strengthening the social ideology as the power for collective action and reflexion. For the theory the “public interest” is the reliable of the public service, and the “public order” is the defender of the social institutions, the social peaceand the empire of the law. It strengthens the fact that as dynamic and flexible category, both terms are resistant to be defined as permanet forms, but it is important to recognise the risk that brings about for personal freedom, the intention to balance both notions. The jurisprudence, on the other hand is pacific clear with the criteria that, in such a respect, mantains the theory, but in relation to “public interest” emphasises that this is concerned to public service, and as such it is a exclusively a government function, while when such a service is shared by individuals, it is appopiate to talk to it as a service of public utility. The jurisprudence also recommends that such a matter lacks of theory, so this concept should directly be linked with principles which rule the civil process. As outstanding conclusions of the research: the necessity of adopting a dialectic and advanced position in such juridical concepts as well as recogninsing the role that the government plays in this reality as a brief entity and promoter of social welfare of population. It emphasises the searching for innovative and inclusión ideas, in order to guarantee the collective participation, where such categories have the supreme priority. Finally, it presents a proposal of five aspects considered of compulsory attention. These are: the acknowledgement of the high important juridical value of such categories as tools for breaking the government authoritrism and arbitrarisness. The need to compensate the limitation of the lack of a definited theory on the subject., which demands conviction for its permanent analisis and research. It is important to recognise that it is the satisfaction of the “general interest” what makes them similar, without forggeting that from the two categories it is particular the “public order”, which is able to require from the government Administration, to get an express juridical law in order to affect the private indivual sphere. |
|---|