Limites à liberdade de interpretação e motivação das decisões judiciais : em busca de maior estabilidade jurídica

• Autor(a) principal: Ayub, Carlos Eduardo Garrastazu
• Data de Publicação: 2016
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS
• Texto Completo: http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/7192
• topic: CONSTITUCIONALIDADE; ESTADO DE DIREITO; DECISÕES JUDICIÁRIAS - BRASIL; DIREITO; CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO

This master thesis starts highlighting the challenges legal interpretation is going through in the modern society we live in. Henceforth, it makes a historical immersion in the doctrinal influence of formalist and antiformalist schools of interpretation. On formalistic perspectives of interpretation, it makes foray into the school of exegesis; historical school of law and jurisprudence of concepts; analytical jurisprudence. The study of antiformalist school begins through a brief description of François Geny thought, going then to the analysis of free law and American legal realism. Later, it critically analyzes the contributions of formalist and antiformalist schools to law theory, engaging with the study of the structure of motivation in judicial decisions. In the second part of the study, the legal value of argument power and judicial interpretation is analysed, which linked the constitutional guarantee of motivation ensures a court decision in harmony with the democratic rule of law. Goes on to expose the criteria to reach a decision capable of bringing legal stability to jurisdictional, with special attention to the study of MaCormick, Alexy, Aarnio and Lorenzetti theories of interpretation, all supporters of the standard theory of interpretation. The third and final part deals with the duty of motivation as the rule of law framework. It approaches in a specific manner the reasoning of judicial decisions under the light of constitutional principles, with particular appreciation of the contradictory for the certainty that the parties should be guaranteed to influence court’s decision. Therefore, it demonstrates in detail the minimum requirements for a decision to be complete and constitutional.