A presente dissertação tem por objetivo analisar a utilização de precedentes estrangeiros pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal no controle de constitucionalidade. O uso de direito constitucional comparado pela jurisdição constitucional com o intuito de solucionar casos domésticos tem aumentado progressivamente e se tornou algo corriqueiro. Vários nomes surgiram para denominar o fenômeno: fertilização cruzada, empréstimos constitucionais, diálogo constitucional, migração de ideias constitucionais, interlocução constitucional, entre outros. No entanto, a difusão desta prática não veio acompanhada de uma reflexão acerca seus fundamentos e dos possíveis critérios e método que possam norteá-la. Logo, o presente trabalho focou-se justamente nesta problemática, analisando os argumentos prós e contra o uso de julgados estrangeiros na solução de controvérsias constitucionais, descrevendo as diversas formas de uso encontradas, sugerindo critérios e método para utilização legítima dos precedentes estrangeiros no âmbito da jurisdição constitucional. Por fim, este estudo voltou-se para uma análise da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal com base nos parâmetros estabelecidos. / This paper aims to analyze the use of foreign precedents in constitution adjudication (judicial review) by the Brazilian Supreme Court. The use of comparative constitutional law by the constitutional jurisdiction for the purpose of resolving domestic cases has progressively increased and became commonplace. Several names are being used to describe the phenomenon, among others: cross-fertilization, constitutional borrowing, constitutional dialogue, migration of constitutional ideas and constitutional engagement. However, the increase of this practice has not been accompanied by a reflection on its theoretical justifications and on the possible criteria and method that can guide it. Consequently, this paper focuses on the above mentioned phenomenon by examining the arguments for and against the use of foreign precedent in constitutional decision-making, describing the various modes of use and suggesting criteria and method for legitimate use of foreign precedents within the constitutional jurisdiction. The study finalizes with an analysis of the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Supreme Court based on established parameters.

Submitted by Silvana Teresinha Dornelles Studzinski (sstudzinski) on 2016-10-11T14:55:58Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Eduardo Reis Fortes do Rego_.pdf: 905042 bytes, checksum: 155c79b1d9ebf0c419bbff3ff378bc0e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-10-11T14:55:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Carlos Eduardo Reis Fortes do Rego_.pdf: 905042 bytes, checksum: 155c79b1d9ebf0c419bbff3ff378bc0e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-17 / CNPQ – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / A presente dissertação se propõe a analisar o papel exercido pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América no cenário político-jurídico do país. De uma instituição meramente jurídica, historicamente, a Suprema Corte tem desempenhado importante papel na formulação de políticas públicas nacionais e na condução do debate público nacional. Mediante uma análise histórica do Direito estadunidense, pretende-se apresentar as diferenças e as peculiaridades do Direito dos Estados Unidos, em comparação ao Direito inglês. Nesse cotejo, nota-se que antecedentes do controle jurisdicional de constitucionalidade de leis já eram vistos no Direito inglês, como as contribuições de Edward Coke, e na própria história colonial americana. Com fundamento no common law inglês, mas com influências da tradição jurídica romano-germânica, o Direito estadunidense desenvolveu institutos próprios, aptos a enfrentar os desafios surgidos no novo país. Entre as inovações, há a Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, órgão de cúpula do Poder Judiciário, que, entretanto, desempenha importante função política na concretização das disposições constitucionais, na harmonização entre os Poderes e entre os diversos entes federados. Em verdade, a Corte concorre na elaboração de políticas públicas nacionais, voz ativa nas principais deliberações públicas nacionais, influenciada e influenciando os atores políticos tradicionais. / This thesis analyzes the role played by the United States Supreme Court in the legal and political frame. From a legal institution, historically, the Supreme Court has played an important role in the formulation of national policies and the conduct of national public debate. For historical analysis of U.S. Law, it intends to show the differences and peculiarities of the U.S. Law versus to English law. Then, the judicial review`s history started in English Law, as the study of Edward Coke, and even in the American colonial history. Based on English common law, but with influences from civil law tradition, the American Law has developed its own institutions, able to face the challenges in the new country. Among the innovations, there is the United States Supreme Court, a member of the Federal Judiciary, which, however, plays an important political role in the respect of constitutional provisions, the harmonization between the powers and the States. In fact, the Court takes part of the national policies, thus it is an active voice in the national public deliberations, whereas the Court influenced and is influencing for the traditional political actors.

Embora existam estudos relevantes no Brasil a respeito do controle de constitucionalidade exercido pelo STF, o assunto ainda demanda pesquisa. Uma das áreas de pesquisa que precisa ser aprofundada é a dinâmica da interação ao longo do tempo entre o órgão judicial que exerce o controle de constitucionalidade e os órgãos que editam atos normativos sujeitos ao controle de constitucionalidade. Diante disso, o objeto desta tese é o exame da interação entre o STF e o Congresso Nacional nos anos de 1988 a 2013 decorrente da declaração judicial de inconstitucionalidade de atos normativos do Congresso Nacional. A tese baseia-se em uma pesquisa de jurisprudência e de legislação, e adota perspectiva teórica que reconhece haver um contínuo diálogo institucional entre os Poderes. Um dos objetivos da tese é descrever os padrões das decisões judiciais que declararam a inconstitucionalidade de atos normativos, e as possíveis relações entre a deliberação judicial e a legislação subsequente. Outro objetivo do estudo é proporcionar parâmetros para avaliação da contínua interação entre o controle de constitucionalidade exercido pelo STF e a atividade do Congresso Nacional. Terceiro objetivo é identificar desafios que devem ser enfrentados caso se pretenda fortalecer a legitimidade do diálogo entre os Poderes. / There are relevant studies made in Brazil about Federal Supreme Court judicial review, but the subject still demands research. One of the research areas that needs to be deepened is the dynamic of the interaction over time between the judicial branch that controls the constitutionality of legislation and the legislative branch that make the norms subject to judicial review. In the face of this, the object of this thesis is to exam the interaction between the Federal Supreme Court and the National Congress in the period of 1988 to 2013 derived from judicial decisions that declared norms unconstitutional. The thesis is based on a research of judicial decisions and legislation, and it adopts a theoretical perspective that recognizes a continuous institutional dialogue between the Powers. One of the objectives of the thesis is to describe the patterns of the judicial decisions that declared norms unconstitutional, and the feasible connections between the judicial deliberation and subsequent legislation. Another objective of the study is to provide standards to assess the continuous interaction between the Federal Supreme Court judicial review and the activity of the National Congress. The third objective is to identify challenges that must be faced if one pretend to strengthen the legitimacy of the dialogue between the Powers.

Por que a um grupo de indivíduos não eleitos é dado derrubar uma decisão política tomada pela maioria dos representantes do povo? Para justificar o papel contramajoritário de juízes e cortes, vários arranjos têm sido propostos ao longo de um debate ainda em curso na teoria constitucional. Autores como John Rawls e Ronald Dworkin sustentaram uma qualidade deliberativa do processo decisório judicial - magistrados, especialmente os das Cortes Supremas, teriam destreza e motivação institucional para apresentar argumentos mais apropriados sobre o significado da constituição e cartas de direitos. Críticos negam que a deliberação judicial seja um paradigma de razão pública e, especialmente no Brasil, afirmam que o órgão de cúpula do Judiciário possui um modelo decisório não-dialógico. Neste trabalho, portanto, o desempenho deliberativo interno do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) é investigado através de um modelo de análise denominado Escala de Deliberatividade Intrainstitucional (EDI). Os dados colhidos indicam que, apesar da existência de interação entre os membros do colegiado, a decisão final não valoriza os potenciais ganhos deliberativos da sessão de julgamento, tornando a prática decisória da Corte o que a dissertação chama de ação coletiva figurativa - quando, apesar de existir um momento de aparente de deliberação entre os membros, aquilo que faz o colegiado apresenta um produto de algo que os membros individuais fazem sozinhos, ou seja, daquilo que fazem sem pensar que estão agindo enquanto grupo. Sem rationes decidendi que expressem a opinião da Corte como um todo, prejudica-se a formação de precedentes e, consequentemente, a construção de uma jurisprudência constitucional íntegra, estável e coerente. / Why can a group of unelected individuals overturn a political decision taken by the majority of the people\'s representatives? To justify the countermajoritarian role of judges and courts, a lot of possibilities have been proposed throughout a debate that still occurring in constitutional theory. Authors such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin sustained a deliberative potential of judicial decision-making - judges, especially Supreme Court Justices, would have the skills and institutional motivation to present more appropriate arguments about the meaning of the constitution and charters of rights. Critics deny that judicial deliberation is a paradigm of public reason and, especially in Brazil, argue that the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) has a non-dialogical decision-making model. In this paper, the internal deliberative performance of STF is investigated through an analysis model called Intrainstitutional Deliberativity Scale (IDS). The results indicate that, despite the existence of interaction between the members of the collegiate, the final decision doesn\"t value the potential deliberative gains of the plenary session, making the decision model of the Court what we call collective figurative action - when, despite there is a moment of apparent deliberation among the members, what the collegial does presents a product that individual members do alone, i. e., what they do without thinking that they are acting as a group. Without common rationes decidendi, the Court undermines the precedential value of a case and, consequently, the construction of the jurisprudential integrity and authority.

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

University of Macau / Faculty of Law

The Republic of China¡¦s Legislative Yuan approved International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Enforcement Act of the two international human right covenants on March 31 th , 2009. The President promulgated the Enforcement Act of the two international human right covenants on April 22 th , 2009, and ratified the two international human right covenants on May 14th, 2009. Subsequently, the President ordered the Executive branch to promptly formulate a complete set of relevant legislative framework to domesticate the two international human right covenants. Such move symbolizes that the government has taken a significant step forward on the human right issues. Presently, the government should comprehensively review all the laws, regulations, administrative ordinances, and administrative measures for the protection and deepening of human rights especially after the ratification of the two international human right covenants. Under the contemporary trend of embracing human rights, democratic states have incorporated alien into their national fundamental rights protection system. Within the scope of protection, aliens enjoy the same fundamental human rights as that of the country¡¦s nationals, and are equally protected under the constitution. However, aliens are different from nationals in certain regards. Therefore, on the issues of the suffrage, social welfare, and economic human rights, discrimination toward aliens are permissible under the two international human right covenants and the constitutions of each state. However, according to constitutional equal protection theory, discrimination on aliens could not be premised on prejudice, unless there is a legitimate purpose and reasonably distinguishable criteria. Under international human rights development in the 20th century, international norms likewise influence the rights enjoyed by aliens and the treatments to alien in a state, in addition to limits stipulated by constitution and the laws of the state. The research purpose of this thesis is to discuss if the rights enjoyed by aliens and the treatment of aliens in our state conform with the two international human right covenants and consistent with the equal protection principle under the ROC constitution. In addition to the category of alien, there is a distinct set of laws and regulations that apply to people from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau in Republic of China (Taiwan). To appreciate a macro picture, the scope of the article will include aliens, people from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau, and identify the legal status of each category of people in Republic of China (Taiwan). Based on the aforementioned research purpose, the thesis will firstly introduce the contents of the two international human right covenants and the constitutions of each state in order to understand the fundamental human rights that aliens enjoy. The thesis will also illustrate the discriminations permitted by the constitution of each state and the two international human right covenants, and refer to the legislative and judicial practice of each state, to analyze and identify reasonable discrimination criteria and judicial review standards for aliens in each state. Based upon the above criteria, the article will proceed to survey and discuss the relevant applicable regulations to aliens, people from the Mainland, Hong Kong, and Macau in Republic of China (Taiwan), and also review the multi-track legislative model. I will explore the existing norms and describe their inconsistencies with the two international human right covenants or their violations of the equal protection principle under the Constitution, and make recommendations for the legislators to amend the relevant legislations accordingly.

Originally presented as the author's Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Frankfurt am Main, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [xxi]-xliv).

The attitudinal model of judicial behavior dominates judicial politics scholarship, including studies of federal courts and agencies. Extant research finds limited support for legal constraints as determinants of judge behavior when agency decisions are under review. Attitudinal scholars suggest judges substitute their policy preferences in place of agency preferences. Contrarily, the legal model suggests judges defer to agencies because of procedures and doctrine rooted in the rule of law. This study tests hypotheses predicting whether federal agency review decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals during 1982-2002 are a function of judges‘ attitudes, namely ideology, or a function of legal constraints, including agency adherence to legally prescribed procedures and agency passing standard-of-review muster. Using logistic regression, I examine the impact of legal and ideological variables on the outcome of judges‘ reviews of agency decisions. Results support several hypotheses. Agency adherence to procedural standards, such as those outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, increases the likelihood that a review panel will defer to the agency. If review panels and judges answer standard-of-review questions favorably toward agencies, review panels and judges are more likely to support agencies in final case outcomes. Individual judge votes to support agencies are influenced by the ideology of other judges on the review panel: if the ideology of the review panel is in agreement with the agency position, individual judges are more likely to support agencies in final case outcomes. Finally, a judge is more likely to dissent when he/she is in ideological (dis)agreement with the agency position. In sum, results suggest that judges‘ regard for law and regard for their judge colleagues informs decisionmaking. Judges often defer to federal administrative agencies, even when their personal policy preferences are not found to be significantly associated with decisions. Judges‘ ideological preferences appear to be less important in the U.S. Courts of Appeals than previous scholarship indicates, but ideology may influence judges‘ decisions through the ideological composition of the review panel and in dissent behavior. The implication is that the legal model of judicial behavior may be more prominent than the attitudinal model in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Thesis (doctoral)--Philipps-Universität, Marburg. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 311-336) and indexes.