The book is an adaptation of part of the author's PhD thesis, which won the international prize Prémio FIBE, and was voted one of the three best in Brazil, in the field of Law, in 2023. It deals with the history of the notion of abuse of rights, in its two traditions: the Franco-Belgian (abus de droit) and the German (unzulässige Rechtsausübung). It also presents the discourse of abuse of rights with a 'shortcut' function. Finally, it places the scientific formulation of groups of cases as necessary for the proper use of the abuse of rights discourse. Fabio Carvalho de Alvarenga Peixoto PhD in Constitutional Law (Universidade de Fortaleza - Brazil). State Attorney. Private lawyer. Winner of the international prize Prémio FIBE, and of an honorable mention in the Capes (Brazilian Ministry of Education) PhD Thesis Award 2023. INTRODUCTION 1 THE BEGINNING OF THE HISTORIES OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS 2 THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS 2.1 Literature Admission of Abuse of Rights as an Atypical Unlawfulness 2.1.1 Unconscious Phase 2.1.2 Constructive Phase of Incipient Dogmatization 2.1.3 Constructive Phase of Peripheral Systematization 2.2 Delimitation of Abuse of Rights in the Face of Abuse (Misuse) of Power 2.3 Presuppositions of the Notion of Abuse of Rights 2.3.1 Permission Granted by ‘Abstract’ Interpretation of a Normative Text 2.3.2 Prohibition ‘Discovered’ by Judge, Outside the Limits of ‘Abstract’ Interpretation of Normative Text 3 THE FUNCTION OF THE NOTION OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS 3.1 Abuse of Rights as a “Gathering Concept” 3.2 Practical Indispensability of the Dogmatic Formulation of (Open) Groups of Cases for the Rational Application of the Prohibition of Abuse of Rights 3.3 Abuse of Rights as a “Shortcut” (which “can Slow You Down”) 4 THE TWO TRADITIONS OF PRIVATE LAW DOCTRINES OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS 4.1 The French-Belgian Tradition of Abus de Droit 4.1.1 Harmful Intent Approach 4.1.1.1 The Beginnings of the Abus de Droit Tradition 4.1.1.2 Unnecessary Dammage Approach 4.1.2 Deviation from the Economic and Social Purposes of Rights Approach 4.1.2.1 Louis Josserand’s Original Approach 4.1.2.2 Violation of Dominant Morality Approach 4.1.2.3 Reception in Germany by Wolfgang Siebert of the Deviation of Purpose Approach (Rechtsmißbrauch) and its Evolution into the Doctrine of Institutional Abuse (Institutioneller Rechtsmißbrauch) 4.1.2.4 Denial of the Axiological Fundament (‘Formal Axiologism’) Approach: Non-Replacing Overcoming 4.1.3 Disproportion between Advantages and Losses Approach 4.2 The German Tradition of Unzulässige Rechtsausübung 4.2.1 Prohibition of Chicanery Approach 4.2.2 Violation of Objective Good Faith Approach 4.2.3 Violation of Good Customs Approach 4.3 Excerpt: Germanophile Definitory Approach of Abuse of Rights as Violation of Principle 5 THE METHODICAL ISSUES NOT RESOLVED BY DOCTRINES OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS 5.1 The Importance of the Recognition of the Meta-Individual Function of Rights 5.2 Meta-Individual Function and Individual Function: Methodical Requirement of Sizing Criteria for Each Right 5.3 Limited Scope of the Objective Good Faith Approach 6 THE NEED FOR RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF ABUSE OF RIGHT AS A MECHANISM FOR CONTROLLING JUDICIAL DISCRETION 6.1 Insufficiency of the Standard Theories of Legal Argumentation for Rational Justification of the Evaluation of Abuse of Rights 6.2 The Use of Dogmatically Formulated Groups of Cases for the Rational Justification of the evaluation of Abuse of Rights CONCLUSION REFERENCES