A carregar...
Publicação
O Tribunal de Schrödinger
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34.92 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
A legitimidade da jurisdição constitucional assenta num paradoxo inicial, em que as jurisdições constitucionais são chamadas a garantir os direitos fundamentais, concebidos como “trunfos contra as maiorias”, mas em que se pretende simultaneamente que a composição dessas jurisdições assente numa legitimação democrática (indireta) que possa refletir as maiorias existentes.
Para além de proceder a uma apreciação sumária das análises do comportamento dos magistrados dos tribunais com competência de fiscalização da constitucionalidade, o presente trabalho procura identificar quais os critérios (formais e informais)de designação dos juízes constitucionais que consigam corresponder ao duplo desafio de garantir a imparcialidade e independência dos tribunais e assegurar a sua legitimidade num Estado de Direito Democrático.
Analisam-se, em particular, e com especial incidência na experiência constitucional portuguesa, quais as características profissionais, académicas, cívicas e politicas capazes de qualificar ou desqualificar um cidadão para o exercício dessa magistratura, quanto a sua independência, autoridade e preparação
The legitimacy of judicial review rests on a paradoxical starting point, in which courts are expected to guarantee fundamental rights, conceived as “trumps against majorities”, but whose composition is simultaneously supposed to be endowed with (indirect) democratic legitimacy that is able to reflect existing majorities. Apart from briefly analyzing judicial behavior models of judges in courts with constitutional review powers, this paper attempts at identifying which (formal and informal) criteria for appointment are able to live up to the double challenge of guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the courts and to ensure their legitimacy within a Democratic State based on the rule of law. The paper focuses, in particular, and with special insights at the Portuguese constitutional experience, on which professional, academic, civic and political characteristics are best suited to qualify or disqualify a citizen from access to the bench, in what relates to their independence, authority and preparation.
The legitimacy of judicial review rests on a paradoxical starting point, in which courts are expected to guarantee fundamental rights, conceived as “trumps against majorities”, but whose composition is simultaneously supposed to be endowed with (indirect) democratic legitimacy that is able to reflect existing majorities. Apart from briefly analyzing judicial behavior models of judges in courts with constitutional review powers, this paper attempts at identifying which (formal and informal) criteria for appointment are able to live up to the double challenge of guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of the courts and to ensure their legitimacy within a Democratic State based on the rule of law. The paper focuses, in particular, and with special insights at the Portuguese constitutional experience, on which professional, academic, civic and political characteristics are best suited to qualify or disqualify a citizen from access to the bench, in what relates to their independence, authority and preparation.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Justiça constitucional Politização Independência Comportamento judicial
Contexto Educativo
Citação
In: Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa, Vol. 58, nº 1 (2017), 0870-3116. - p. 97-132
Editora
Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa