Navegando por Assunto "Brasil. Supremo Tribunal Federal"

Agora exibindo 1 - 5 de 5

Acesso aberto (Open Access)
O efeito vinculante na jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal:análise das reclamações constitucionais n. 11.000 a 13.000
(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2016-08) MAUÉS, Antonio Gomes Moreira
This article analyses how the Brazilian Supreme Court applies the binding effect of its rulings and summula, especially regarding its bindingness upon the other bodies of the judicial power. The research was based on the collection of data about the constitutional claims n. 11.000 to 13.000, from which we identified three most frequent subjects, related to the rulings on Direct Action of Unconstitutionality n. 3.395, Summula n. 10 and Declaratory Action of Constitutionality n. 16. The jurisprudential analysis of these claims shows that the Brazilian Supreme Court recognizes that the binding effect of its rulings upon judges and courts does not forbid them to make distinguishiments and to decide not to apply these precedents to specific cases.
Acesso aberto (Open Access)
Jogando com os precedentes: regras, analogias, princípios
(2012-12) MAUÉS, Antonio Gomes Moreira
This article analyses the use of binding precedents by the Brazilian Supreme Court in the light of three conceptions of precedents, which are developed by F. Schauer (precedents as rules), C. Sunstein (precedents as analogies) and R. Dworkin (precedents as principles). After the exposition of the main aspects of each theory, based respectively on the concepts of entrenched generalizations, incompletely theorized agreements and chain novel, the article debates the arguments that they can provide for the use of precedents in Brazilian law.
Acesso aberto (Open Access)
Pluralismo constitucional interamericano: a leitura plural da constituição de 1988 e o diálogo entre o supremo tribunal federal e a corte interamericana de direitos humanos
(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2015-10-19) MAGALHÃES, Breno Baía; MAUÉS, Antonio Gomes Moreira; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5100632338260364
The thesis argues for the Constitutional Pluralism as a theory better suited to describe and explain the interactions between the 1988 Federal Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights. Said interactions present themselves through the precedents of both the Supreme Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The thesis posits the theoretical fragility and the contextual mismatch of approaches based upon the monism/dualism dichotomy. Constitutional Pluralism, in turn, suggests the heterarchical interaction between constitutional orders through reciprocal influences. The supralegalty of international human rights treaties and the deference to regional constitutional interpretations enables the 1988 Constitution and the American Convention on Human Rights, respectively, to influence the substantive content of the fundamental and human rights through the deliberative dialogue between precedents and by having the construction of the pro homine principle as an ideal interpretive guide shared by both. Although Constitutional Pluralism is to be considered the theory that justifies the plural reading of the Brazilian constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court, despite the citations of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights precedents, does not dialogue with them.
Acesso aberto (Open Access)
Precedentes no direito brasileiro: uma análise crítica sobre a utilização do “distinguishing” no Supremo Tribunal Federal
(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2013) GARCIA, André Luis Bitar de Lima; COSTA, Rosalina Moitta Pinto da; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5469957203750291
The paper discusses judicial precedents in the Brazilian reality, to contribute to a better understanding of the distinguishing through the analysis of cases the Federal Supreme Court. The Brazilian system needs the force of precedent, especially given our control of constitutionality, the presence of open procedural clauses and of content of the principle of equality. However, we emphasize that the implementation of stare decisis in Brazil will not occur automatically, either via legislative imposition. From the contrast of two general theories of precedent (as previous rule Frederick Schauer principle and precedent as Ronald Dworkin), we discuss two decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, in order to establish criteria for the use of the technique of distinguishing. In the research, the precedents are considered principles, with space for a possible distinction and for the protection of fundamental rights. The theory of law chosen to support the conclusions of the study wasth at of Ronald Dworkin.
Acesso aberto (Open Access)
O STF como Corte Interpretativa: repercussões na decisão de inconstitucionalidade (precedentes constitucionais e tipologia decisória)
(Universidade Federal do Pará, 2016-11-11) MAROCCO, Jair Sá; COSTA, Rosalina Moitta Pinto da; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5469957203750291
This paper analyzes how the constitutionality of decisions by the Supreme Court (STF) were precedents; More specifically, it analyzes the distinction between the effects of the decision resulting from diffuse system of constitutional and concentrated system. Based on the current jurisprudential and doctrinal reference, is critical of the current system and proposes a new legislative garb for the theme. The second part proposes a typology of unconstitutionality decision that encompasses the two major forms of cited constitutional control - Kelsen model and marsshalliano, based on the distinction between text and consecrated standard. The above two points are preceded by theoretical analysis of some of the presuppositions for understanding the Supreme Court as Court Interpretative, notably the role of creating the right judicial decision.