(Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2023-12-29) Chanjan Documet, Rafael
The aim of this article is to analyses the theory of non-executive co-authorship and its viability as a criminal charge for leaders of social protests for crimes originating in this context. For this, a review of national and international jurisprudence and doctrine on the theory of non-executive co-authorship is carried out in order to show what concept of this figure is compatible with the traditional foundations of co-authorship. This, to then show when its application is possible, considering its dogmatic approaches and a human rights approach, in protest. In this regard, it is argued that it can only be charged under this title if there is sufficient evidence that shows that the social leader, under a common plan, participated in an essential and remote way in the executive phase of the attributed crime.
(Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2023-12-29) Ugarte Mostajo, Daniel
The remoteness rule constitutes a limit on quantum respondeatur that has not been well understood by national doctrine, which –from a unifying approach to different systems of civil liability– has come to question its usefulness and coherence with the full compensation principle. In this paper, this approach is debated and, based on a review of Comparative Law, a renewing conception of the rule is proposed that allows it to be understood as the distinctive element of liability for breach of contract and the fundamental criteria of objective attribution of damage in the Peruvian contract Law.
(Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2023-12-29) Vásquez Rebaza, Walter Humberto
One of the most important –and controversial– ways in which the legislator intervenes in standardized contracts (i.e., contracts with general contracting clauses and adhesion contracts) lies in the possibility for jurisdictional authorities to control their contractual content. The purpose of this intervention is to eliminate or substitute clauses effectively incorporated in them for being abusive or vexatious. This paper examines the discipline of content control provided by Article 1399 of the Civil Code, a rule that, despite having been unjustly relegated by national scholars, has enormous potential to achieve the protective purposes set by our Substantive Code, when correctly understood.On this occasion, we will first analyze the various legal rules contained in Article 1399, as well as their respective hypotheses and consequences. This analysis will be complemented by a practical application to concrete cases, allowing an understanding of the functioning of the normative provision. Secondly, the basis and importance of the article in question will be discussed, as well as its potential to become a notion capable of eradicating dysfunctional stipulations beyond the brief definition established by the Peruvian legislator in 1984 in Article 1398. Thirdly and lastly, we will develop which are the justifying circumstances capable of neutralizing, in each specific case, the abstractly vexatious nature of an allegedly abusive clause under Article 1399. This analysis takes on special relevance since its treatment by national scholars has been almost nonexistent.