Купить СНПЧ А7 Архангельск, оперативня доставка

crosscheckdeposited

Responsabilidade Civil, Análise Econômica e o Princípio da Diferença

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18836/2178-0587/ealr.v5n2p188-204

http://portalrevistas.ucb.br/index.php/EALR/index 

downloadpdf

Leandro M. Zanitelli4

 

Resumo: O trabalho examina se um regime de responsabilidade civilminimizador dos custos de acidentes como preconizado pela análise econômica do direito pode ser requerido ou, ao menos, mostrar-se compatível com o princípio da diferença de Rawls. As conclusões são as seguintes. Se o principio da diferença for entendido como princípio que requer a maximização da riqueza dos cidadãos em desvantagem, então uma responsabilidade civil minimizadora de custos é parte necessária de uma ordem justa sch'lmdo o referido princípio. Há, todavia, algumas complicações decorrentes: a) da possibilidade de o princípio da diferença ser interpretado como principio não maximizador; b) de uma discrepância entre os sentidos do termo "riqueza" em Rawls c na análise econômica do direito; c c) de o princípio da diferença reh'lllar a distribuição de outros bens além da riqueza. Essas complicações não descartam, contudo, a compatibilidade de uma responsabilidade civil minimizadora de custos com o principio da diferença.

Palavras-chave: Responsabilidade Civil; AED; Princípio da Diferença; Rawls; Igualitarismo

 

Abstract: Thc arridc considcrs whcthcr a tort regime which minimizes accidem costs in rhe way preconized by economic analysis o f law may bc rcquircd or, at lcast, dccmcd compatible with Rawls's differcnce principie. Thc conclusions are as t~)llows. lf the difference principie is understood as a principie requiring wealth maximization for the least favored citizens, a tort regime minimizing accidem coses is a necessary component of a just institucional order according to such principie. Thcre are, nevcrthcless, some complications accruing from: a) thc fact that thc diffcrcncc principie may also be interpreted as a non-maximizing principie; b) a discrepancy between the meanings given to the term "wealth" by Rawls and economic analysis of law; and c) orher types of goods beyond wealrh whose disrribution is also govcrncd by thc diffcrcncc principie. Thcsc complications do not rulc out, howcver, the compatibility between a cost-minimizing tort law and the difference principie.

Key words: Tort Law; Economic Analysis o f Law; Difference Principie; Rawls, Egalitarianism

 

1 UFRGS. E-mail: leandrozanitelli@gmail.com.

 

Literatura Citada

Ackerman, F. & Heinzerling, L. (2002). Princing the Priceless: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Protection. Uníversity Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), pp. 1.553-1.584. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3312947

Arneson, R. H. (1999). Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity. Phílosophícal Studies, 93(1), pp. 77-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004270811433

Avraham, R., Fortus, D, & Logue, K. (2004). Revisiting the Role of Legal Rules and Tax Rules in lncome Redistribution: A Response to Kaplow & Shavell. IowaLaw Revíew, 89(4), pp. 1.125-1.158.

Calabresi, G. (1970). The Costs of Accidents: A Legaland EconomícAnalysís. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Calfee, J. E., & Rubin, P. H . (1992). Some lmplications ofDamage Payments for Nonpecuniary Losses.fournal ojLegal Studies, 21 (2), p. 371-412.

Jolls, C. (1998). Behavioral Economic Analysis of Redistributive Legal Rules. Vanderbilt Law Revíew, SI(6),pp. 1.653-1.677.

Kaplow, L , & Shavell, S. (1994). Why the Legal System is Less Efficient than the Income Tax in Redistributing Income? fournal ofLegal Studies, 23(2), pp. 667-681.

Keren-Paz, T. (2007). Torts, Egalitarianism and Distributive j ustice. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.

Kordana, K., & Tabachnick, D. H. (2005). Rawls and Contract Law. The George Washington Law Revíew, 73(3), pp. 598-632.

Kordana, K., & Tabachnick, D. H. (2006). On Belling the Cat: Rawls and Tortas Corrective Justice. Virgínia Law Review, 92(7 ) , pp. 1.279-1.310.

Lindenbergh, S. D., & van Kippersluis, P. P. M. (2009). Non Pecuniary Losses. In: M. Faure (Ed.), Tort Law and Economics (pp. 215-227). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781848447301.00017

Logue, K., & Avraham, R. (2003). Redistributing Optimally: OfTax Rules, Legal Rules, and lnsurance. Tax Law Revíew, 56(2), pp. 157-258.

Pogge, T. (1989). Realízíng Rawls. Ithaca: Co rnell University Press.

Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (1998). Punitive Damages: An Economic Analysis. Harvard Law Review, 111 ( 4), pp. 869-962. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1342009

Posner, R. (1998). Economic Analysis ofLaw (5a ed.). Nova York: Aspen Publishers.

Queralt, J. (2013). The Place of the Market in a Rawlsian Economy. Analyse & Kritik, 2013(1), pp. 121-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/auk-2013-0111

Rawls,J. (1975). Fairness to Goodness. PhilosophicalReview> 84(4), pp. 536-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183853

Rawls, J. ( 1993). Political Liberalism. Nova Y ork: Columbia U niversity Press.

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of]ustice (ed. rev.). Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Ripstein, A. (2004). The Division of Responsibility and the Law of Tort. Fordham Law Review, 72(5),pp.l.811-1.844.

Sanchirico, C. W. (2001). Deconstructing the New Efficiency Rationale. Cornell Law Review, 86(5), pp. 1.003-1.089.

Shavell, S. (1987). EconomicAnalysis of Accident Law. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/9780674043510

Van Parijs 2003. Difference Principies. In: S. R. Freeman (Ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawü (pp. 200-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, A. (2011). Linguistic Protectionism. In: A. Gosseries & Y. Vanderborght (Eds.), Arguing About Justice: Essaysfor Philippe Van Parijs (pp. 395-402). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.