| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.68 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente investigação verifica se houve e quais são os fundamentos da mudança paradigmática da autolimitação ao ativismo judicial do Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro, bem como verificar a legitimidade dessa Corte no equacionamento de questões políticas, sejam políticas públicas promotoras de direitos fundamentais ou mesmo de política “pura” ou mega-política. A investigação está fulcrada na expansão do ativismo judicial no cenário de decisões políticas no Brasil, suas conseqüências relacionais com os demais Poderes, os impactos destas decisões e procura contribuir para a comunidade científica ao apontar caminhos possíveis de superação destas dificuldades. Investiga-se como a atuação proativa deste Tribunal Superior se relaciona com a redefinição da teoria da separação dos poderes e quais são os limites e possibilidades da atuação política do Supremo Tribunal Federal no contexto brasileiro. Analisa-se a Judicialização da política como uma reação do Judiciário frente à provocação de um terceiro com a finalidade de revisar a decisão de um poder político (Executivo ou Legislativo) tomando como base a Constituição e, desta forma, ampliando seu poder em relação aos demais e o ativismo judicial associado a uma participação mais ampla e intensa do Judiciário na concretização dos valores e fins constitucionais, com maior interferência no espaço de atuação dos outros dois Poderes, ou seja, o Judiciário se colocando como protagonista das decisões políticas sempre que provocado. Diante da constatação da realidade, apresenta críticas às “teorias da última palavra” e adentra nas teorias fomentadoras do diálogo interinstitucional com o escopo de tentar contribuir ao tema trazendo elementos da democracia deliberativa em defesa de uma atuação dialogal interinstitucional como forma de superação do embate entre os Poderes e da colonização dos espaços de poder. É defendida uma relação cooperativa dialógica entre os Poderes na interpretação e aplicação da Constituição, afastando as decisões isoladas e não comunicativas, e promovendo maior cooperação entre os Poderes na deliberação em busca da melhor decisão possível.
This research verifies if there has been and what are the foundations of the change the self-limitation to judicial activism of the brazilian supreme court, and verify the legitimacy this Court in the settlement of political issues, whether public policies that promote fundamental rights or even political "pure" or mega policy. The research is based on the expansion of judicial activism in the setting of policy decisions in Brazil, its relational consequences with the other powers, the impacts of these decisions and seeks to contribute to the scientific community to identify possible ways of overcoming these difficulties. Investigating as the proactive role of this High Court relates to the redefinition of the theory of separation of powers and what are the limits and possibilities of political action of the Supreme Court in the Brazilian context. Analyzes the judicialization of politics as a judicial reaction to the provocation of a third party in order to review the decision of a political power (Executive and Legislative) building on the Constitution and, thus expanding their power in relation to others and the judicial activism associated with a greater and more intensive participation of the judiciary in achieving the values and constitutional purposes, more interference in the work space of the other two powers, namely the judiciary is placing as a protagonist of political decisions when provoked. On the observation of reality, it presents critical of "theories of the last word" and enters in fomenting theories of inter-institutional dialogue with the aim of trying to contribute to the theme bringing elements of deliberative democracy in defense of a dialogical interaction as a way of overcoming the conflict between Powers and colonization of the spheres of power. It is defended a dialogic cooperative relationship between the Powers in the interpretation and application of the Constitution, removing isolated and not communicative decisions, and promoting greater cooperation between the powers in the decision to seek the best possible decision.
This research verifies if there has been and what are the foundations of the change the self-limitation to judicial activism of the brazilian supreme court, and verify the legitimacy this Court in the settlement of political issues, whether public policies that promote fundamental rights or even political "pure" or mega policy. The research is based on the expansion of judicial activism in the setting of policy decisions in Brazil, its relational consequences with the other powers, the impacts of these decisions and seeks to contribute to the scientific community to identify possible ways of overcoming these difficulties. Investigating as the proactive role of this High Court relates to the redefinition of the theory of separation of powers and what are the limits and possibilities of political action of the Supreme Court in the Brazilian context. Analyzes the judicialization of politics as a judicial reaction to the provocation of a third party in order to review the decision of a political power (Executive and Legislative) building on the Constitution and, thus expanding their power in relation to others and the judicial activism associated with a greater and more intensive participation of the judiciary in achieving the values and constitutional purposes, more interference in the work space of the other two powers, namely the judiciary is placing as a protagonist of political decisions when provoked. On the observation of reality, it presents critical of "theories of the last word" and enters in fomenting theories of inter-institutional dialogue with the aim of trying to contribute to the theme bringing elements of deliberative democracy in defense of a dialogical interaction as a way of overcoming the conflict between Powers and colonization of the spheres of power. It is defended a dialogic cooperative relationship between the Powers in the interpretation and application of the Constitution, removing isolated and not communicative decisions, and promoting greater cooperation between the powers in the decision to seek the best possible decision.
Description
Tese de doutoramento, Direito (Ciências Jurídico-Políticas), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Direito, 2016
Keywords
Teses de doutoramento - 2016