• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
 
  Bookmark and Share
 
 
Doctoral Thesis
DOI
https://doi.org/10.11606/T.2.2020.tde-23032021-002848
Document
Author
Full name
Julio Grostein
Institute/School/College
Knowledge Area
Date of Defense
Published
São Paulo, 2020
Supervisor
Committee
Leal, Roger Stiefelmann (President)
Horbach, Carlos Bastide
Jucá, Francisco Pedro
Casagrande, Cassio Luis
Francisco, José Carlos
Ramos, Elival da Silva
Title in Portuguese
Autocontenção judicial e jurisdição constitucional
Keywords in Portuguese
Ativismo judicial -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Controle da constitucionalidade -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Jurisdição constitucional -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Jurisprudência -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Poder Legislativo -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Tribunal Supremo -- Brasil; Estados Unidos
Abstract in Portuguese
Este trabalho tem por objeto o estudo da autocontenção judicial, promovendo uma análise comparativa deste comportamento judicial na jurisprudência da Suprema Corte federal norte-americana e do Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro. Para tanto, são identificados os elementos essenciais do que se tem denominado autocontenção judicial, bem como se analisa a sua origem, evolução e classificações doutrinárias já formuladas. Vinculando-se a noção de autocontenção aos limites autonomamente impostos pelos próprios juízes constitucionais, busca-se examinar os diversos critérios deste comportamento restrito, isto é, os mecanismos desenvolvidos pela jurisdição constitucional para permitir a adoção de posturas autocomedidas. O exame de julgados que externam comportamentos autorrestritos bem como a análise da literatura especializada brasileira e norte-americana indicam que a autocontenção destes tribunais se expressa por meio da doutrina das questões políticas, da presunção de constitucionalidade e de algumas técnicas processuais que impedem o julgamento de mérito de demandas. Examina-se, assim, a aplicação destes critérios na jurisprudência dos dois tribunais estudados, apreciando como cada um deles se relaciona com limitações à jurisdição constitucional impostas pelo ordenamento constitucional e legal. Afere-se, assim, formas puras e híbridas de cada um dos critérios de autocontenção, conforme tenham origem na opção autônoma do tribunal e/ou em normas jurídicas positivadas. Com base neste contexto, é possível promover uma análise comparativa da autocontenção judicial no Supremo Tribunal Federal e na Suprema Corte, apreciando se há coerência no uso dos critérios, as tendências da autocontenção, suas novas tipologias e seus efeitos perante os dois sistemas constitucionais estudados. Este cenário permite, ao final, examinar como comportamentos autocontidos efetivamente se relacionam com a noção de ativismo judicial.
Title in English
Judicial self-restraint and constitutional jurisdiction
Keywords in English
Consistency in applying criteria
Judicial activism
Judicial self-restraint
Political pluralism
Political questions
Presumption of constitutionality
Procedural criteria
Pure and hybrid self-restraint
Self-restraint criteria in Brazil and in the United States
Abstract in English
This research aims to study judicial self-restraint, promoting a comparative analysis of this judicial behavior in the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court and the Brazilian Supreme Court. Therefore, the essential elements of what has been called judicial selfrestraint are identified, as well as its origin, evolution and already formulated doctrinal classifications about it. By linking the notion of self-restraint with the limits autonomously imposed by the constitutional judges themselves, the research seeks to examine the various criteria of this restricted behavior, that is, the mechanisms developed by courts exercising judial review to allow the adoption of self-restrained attitudes. Analysis of both selfrestrained decisions and Brazilian and American authors indicates that the judicial selfrestraint of these courts is expressed through the political questions doctrine, the presumption of constitutionality and some procedural techniques that prevent reaching the merits in some cases. Thus, this work studies the application of these criteria by the jurisprudence of the two analyzed courts, considering how each of them relates to limitations to judicial review imposed by constitutional and legal rules. In this manner, pure and hybrid forms of each of the self-restraint criteria can be traced according to its origin: whether the court's autonomous choice and/or positive legal or constitutional rules. Based on this context, it is possible to promote a comparative analysis of judicial selfrestraint in both supreme courts analyzed, considering whether there is consistency in the use of the criteria, the trends of self-restraint, their new typologies and their effects on the two constitutional systems studied. This scenario allows, in the end, to examine how selfrestrained postures effectively relate to the notion of judicial activism.
 
WARNING - Viewing this document is conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms of use:
This document is only for private use for research and teaching activities. Reproduction for commercial use is forbidden. This rights cover the whole data about this document as well as its contents. Any uses or copies of this document in whole or in part must include the author's name.
8482094_Tese_Parcial.pdf (599.58 Kbytes)
There are withheld file due to requirements (data publishing, patents or rights).
Release Date
2023-03-23
Publishing Date
2021-10-13
 
WARNING: Learn what derived works are clicking here.
All rights of the thesis/dissertation are from the authors
CeTI-SC/STI
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of USP. Copyright © 2001-2021. All rights reserved.