Abstract: The philosophical hermeneutics is able to change the Brazilian Judiciary because of the understanding of the characteristics of the human being. It is impossible for humans, to be invested in the function of being a judge, making absolutely neutral decisions, but the philosophical hermeneutics can assist the judge making impartial decisions, based on the federal constitution. The normative legal positivism imagined a neutral judge, a judge able to try without any preconceived ideas, without allowing his/her background to influence him/her. When a judge arbitrates based on legal rules, the problem is smaller, but when there are no clear legal rules, and the judge must try based on principles, the risk of the decision is based on what they believe in. Solipsistically, this issue gains a huge dimension. Today, the Brazilian judiciary is independent, but there must be a greater knowledge of philosophy and the philosophy of law, partially because the bigger problem is the unpredictability of decisions made by the judiciary. Actually, when a lawsuit is filed, the result of this judgment is absolutely unpredictable. It is almost a gamble. There must be the slightest legal certainty and predictability of judicial decisions, so that people, with similar cases, may not receive opposite sentences. The relativism, since classical antiquity, believes in the possibility of multiple answers. Since the Greeks in in the sixth century before Christ, through the Germans in the eighteenth century, and even today, it has been established the constitution as the great law, the Groundnorm, and thus, the relativism of life can be greatly reduced when a hermeneut uses the Constitution as North interpretational, where all interpretation must act as the hermeneutic constitutional filter. For a current philosophy of law, that inside a legal system with a Federal Constitution, there is a single correct answer to a specific case. The challenge is how to find this right answer. The only answer to this question will be that we should use the constitutional principles. But in many cases, a collision between principles will take place, and to resolve this issue, the judge or the hermeneut will choose a solipsism way, using what they personally believe to be the right one. For obvious reasons, that conduct is not safe. Thus, a theory of decision is necessary to seek justice, and the hermeneutic philosophy and the linguistic turn will be necessary for one to find the right answer. In order to help this difficult mission, it will be necessary to use philosophical hermeneutics in order to find the right answer, which is the constitutionally most appropriate response. The constitutionally appropriate response will not always be the answer that individuals agree to, but we must put aside our preferences and defend the answer that the Constitution gives us. Therefore, the hermeneutics applied to Law, in search constitutionally appropriate response, should be the safest way to avoid judicial individual decisions. The aim of this paper is to present the science of law starting from the linguistic turn, the philosophical hermeneutics, moving away from legal positivism. The methodology used in this paper is qualitative, academic and theoretical, philosophical hermeneutics with the mission to conduct research proposing a new way of thinking about the science of law. The research sought to demonstrate the difficulty of the Brazilian courts to depart from the secular influence of legal positivism. Moreover, the research sought to demonstrate the need to think science of law within a contemporary perspective, where the linguistic turn, philosophical hermeneutics, will be the surest way to conduct the science of law in the present century.
Abstract: This study aims to examine the application of
occupational health and safety supervision in Turkey and EU
countries in terms of legal regulations. The results of research reveal
that occupational health and safety supervision in EU countries,
whatever the understanding of welfare state, is effectively carried out
and almost all legal regulations on this subject are consistent with the
EU directives. On the other hand, there are serious problems in
applications, not legal regulations, of occupational health and safety
supervision in Turkey by the side of EU countries. Indeed, Turkey
has modern regulations on occupational health and safety supervision
whereas there are several problems such as ignoring prevention
policy on occupational health and safety supervision, understanding
of monotype inspector, problems resulting from this understanding
and dispersed structure of occupational health and safety
organizations in workplaces. As a result, Turkey needs to carry out
effective supervision mechanisms.