Os diálogos institucionais como alternativa à supremacia judicial no processo de construção do sentido da Constituição
The main objective of this monographic work is to demonstrate the importance of institutional dialogues, especially between the Judiciary and Legislative Powers, to overcome the paradigm of judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation and to indicate possibilities for dialogic practice within...
Na minha lista:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Outros Autores: | |
| Formato: | bachelorThesis |
| Idioma: | pt_BR |
| Publicado em: |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
|
| Assuntos: | |
| Endereço do item: | https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/53900 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | The main objective of this monographic work is to demonstrate the importance of institutional dialogues, especially between the Judiciary and Legislative Powers, to overcome the paradigm of judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation and to indicate possibilities for dialogic practice within the scope of the Federal Supreme Court. For this purpose, a description of the theoretical assumptions of the constitutionality control of laws and their implementation in the Brazilian legal system was initially carried out. Based on a historical and legal analysis, an attempt was made to explain the institutional, political and interpretative conditions of the process of strengthening the Brazilian judiciary in the post-1988 period. Next, a jurisprudential and statistical study was undertaken to verify the phenomena of the judicialization of politics and judicial activism in the country's political-institutional scenario. Subsequently, a critical explanation of the main theses of the debate between Ronald Dworkin and Jeremy Waldron about the democratic legitimacy of constitutional jurisdiction was developed, pointing out the main limitations of each theory. Considering the propensity of the characteristics of Brazilian constitutionalism to the ideology of judicial supremacy, the conceptual bases that found the ideas of institutional dialogues and their indispensability for the promotion of deliberative democracy were presented. Afterward, it was argued that, in the face of penumbral rights and reasonable moral disagreements, the Judiciary should adopt minimalist decisions in order not to bar widespread discussion and parliamentary deliberation around issues with strong moral and social repercussions. Finally, from the appreciation of concrete cases, it was seen that it is possible to implement dialogic techniques in the jurisdictional practice of the Federal Supreme Court, even though judges still have some difficulty in tracing the democratic limits of their jurisdictional action. The research basically relied on a bibliographical review of a wide range of legal literature, verification of statistical data, and legislative and jurisprudential analysis, with the collected information being related according to the hypothetical-deductive scientific method. |
|---|