Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pinheiro, Guilherme César
Data de Publicação: 2010
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Revista do Direito Público
Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/7555
Resumo: Considering that the institute legal proceedings of the decision gain more relevance in the Democratic State, this work - from a order’s question of the STF - Police Inquiry no 2424-4 - aims to present one essay about a decidability co-participed from of the one criticism the “Theory of Balacing of Values”, mainly, its undemocratic character of law application, concerning constitutional procedural guaranty, because the Supreme Federal Court has seemed to be following this theory., its using for reasons your decisions. For that, it’s necessary to consider the distinction between the reasons (justification discourse) and application (application discourse) of the norms, enunciated by Klaus Günther and appropriated for Harbermas. Besides this, it is essential a comprehension The Principle of Contra- dictory as guaranty of influence and not surprise, rejecting, this way, the concept of the mentioned principle, only as science and participation. Considering like this, will make some considerations for to structure proceduralism for a decidability co- participed.
id UEL-2_e66bb38b1d55e7a61997b0018df64b5f
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/7555
network_acronym_str UEL-2
network_name_str Revista do Direito Público
repository_id_str
spelling Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretionTeoria da argumentação e jurisprudência dos valores: a fundamentação das decisões em oposição à ideia de discricionariedade judicialBalancing valuesRules and valuesApplication discoursecontradic- tory principleDecision co-participaticiped.Ponderação de valoresNormas e valores Discurso de aplicaçãoPrincípio do contraditórioDecisão comparticipada.Considering that the institute legal proceedings of the decision gain more relevance in the Democratic State, this work - from a order’s question of the STF - Police Inquiry no 2424-4 - aims to present one essay about a decidability co-participed from of the one criticism the “Theory of Balacing of Values”, mainly, its undemocratic character of law application, concerning constitutional procedural guaranty, because the Supreme Federal Court has seemed to be following this theory., its using for reasons your decisions. For that, it’s necessary to consider the distinction between the reasons (justification discourse) and application (application discourse) of the norms, enunciated by Klaus Günther and appropriated for Harbermas. Besides this, it is essential a comprehension The Principle of Contra- dictory as guaranty of influence and not surprise, rejecting, this way, the concept of the mentioned principle, only as science and participation. Considering like this, will make some considerations for to structure proceduralism for a decidability co- participed.Considerando que o instituto jurídico processual da decisão jurisdicional ganhou maior relevância no Estado Democrático, este - a partir de uma questão de ordem do STF – Inquérito Policial nº 2.424 - objetiva apresentar um ensaio sobre a decisibilidade comparticipada a partir de uma crítica à teoria da ponderação material de valores, principalmente ao seu caráter antidemocrático de aplicação do direito, em face às garantias processuais porque o Supremo Tribunal Federal tem se mostrado adepto da mencionada teoria, usando-a para fundamentar suas decisões. Para tanto, é necessário considerar a distinção entre a fundamentação (discurso de justificação) e a aplicação (discurso de aplicação) das normas, enunciada por Klaus Günther e apropriada por Harbermas. Além disso, é essencial a compreensão do princípio do contraditório como garantia de influência e não surpresa, rechaçando, dessa forma, o conceito do mencionado princípio, apenas como ciência e participação. E assim considerando, serão apresentadas algumas considerações para se estruturar procedimentalidade para uma decisibilidade comparticipada.Universidade Estadual de Londrina2010-12-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/755510.5433/1980-511X.2010v5n3p133Revista do Direito Público; v. 5 n. 3 (2010); 133-1491980-511Xreponame:Revista do Direito Públicoinstname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELporhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/7555/6641Pinheiro, Guilherme Césarinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2017-03-16T16:44:20Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/7555Revistahttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopubPUBhttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/oai||rdpubuel@uel.br1980-511X1980-511Xopendoar:2017-03-16T16:44:20Revista do Direito Público - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
Teoria da argumentação e jurisprudência dos valores: a fundamentação das decisões em oposição à ideia de discricionariedade judicial
title Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
spellingShingle Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
Pinheiro, Guilherme César
Balancing values
Rules and values
Application discourse
contradic- tory principle
Decision co-participaticiped.
Ponderação de valores
Normas e valores Discurso de aplicação
Princípio do contraditório
Decisão comparticipada.
title_short Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
title_full Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
title_fullStr Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
title_full_unstemmed Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
title_sort Argumentation theory and jurisprudence of value: the basis of the decision as opposition the idea judicial discretion
author Pinheiro, Guilherme César
author_facet Pinheiro, Guilherme César
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pinheiro, Guilherme César
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Balancing values
Rules and values
Application discourse
contradic- tory principle
Decision co-participaticiped.
Ponderação de valores
Normas e valores Discurso de aplicação
Princípio do contraditório
Decisão comparticipada.
topic Balancing values
Rules and values
Application discourse
contradic- tory principle
Decision co-participaticiped.
Ponderação de valores
Normas e valores Discurso de aplicação
Princípio do contraditório
Decisão comparticipada.
description Considering that the institute legal proceedings of the decision gain more relevance in the Democratic State, this work - from a order’s question of the STF - Police Inquiry no 2424-4 - aims to present one essay about a decidability co-participed from of the one criticism the “Theory of Balacing of Values”, mainly, its undemocratic character of law application, concerning constitutional procedural guaranty, because the Supreme Federal Court has seemed to be following this theory., its using for reasons your decisions. For that, it’s necessary to consider the distinction between the reasons (justification discourse) and application (application discourse) of the norms, enunciated by Klaus Günther and appropriated for Harbermas. Besides this, it is essential a comprehension The Principle of Contra- dictory as guaranty of influence and not surprise, rejecting, this way, the concept of the mentioned principle, only as science and participation. Considering like this, will make some considerations for to structure proceduralism for a decidability co- participed.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-12-15
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo avaliado pelos Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/7555
10.5433/1980-511X.2010v5n3p133
url https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/7555
identifier_str_mv 10.5433/1980-511X.2010v5n3p133
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/direitopub/article/view/7555/6641
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista do Direito Público; v. 5 n. 3 (2010); 133-149
1980-511X
reponame:Revista do Direito Público
instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron:UEL
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron_str UEL
institution UEL
reponame_str Revista do Direito Público
collection Revista do Direito Público
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista do Direito Público - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||rdpubuel@uel.br
_version_ 1799305929518219264

Registros relacionados