Novos instrumentos do ativismo judicial: jurisprudência cruzada, estado de coisas inconstitucional e compromisso significativo

• Autor(a) principal: Costa, Marco Antônio Moreira da
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/19724
• topic: Ativismo judicial; Jurisdição constitucional; Direitos fundamentais; Judicial activism; Constitutional jurisdiction; Civil rights; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO

The presente thesis tries to foment, from a phenomenological perspective, the dialogue with several works that deal with the subject of judicial activism. The starting point is an analysis of constitutionalism under the prism of social rights, with special emphasis on the historical context. Then, we proceed to analyze the different doctrinal currents regarding the role played by the Judiciary Branch around the concretization of these social rights, mainly the proceduralist and substantialist currents. The concept of judicial activism is scrutinized within the scope of the presented currents, and after, concrete cases are analyzed which reflect the incorporation of an activist position by the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil. Thus, the importance of opening the Brazilian Judiciary to foreign jurisprudential experience regarding the implementation of fundamental human rights, with a brief analysis of what is understood by social judicial activism in India, the creation of the institute " unconstitutional state of affairs" by the Colombian Constitutional Court and the adoption of the so-called "meaningful compromise" in the Constitutional Court of South Africa. The work indicates the jurisprudential precedents that open the way for a dialogical and coordinated relationship between the Branches, through the incorporation of a new decision-making model. And, finally, it analyzes the legitimacy of this incipient way of deciding, which reflects the continuity of the constitutional jurisdiction, even after the delivery of the decision