[pt] O presente trabalho de dissertação verifica a mudança de paradigma de interpretação ensejado pelas decisões de caráter concretista provenientes da jurisdição constitucional brasileira através das quais se exterioriza o fenômeno jurídico político denominado por expansionismo jurisdicional, gênero constituído pelas espécies denominadas por ativismo judicial e judicialização da política, que têm na ineficiência do Estado em executar políticas públicas, bem como na omissão de documentos legislativos que restringem a fruição, por parte da sociedade, dos direitos fundamentais garantidos constitucionalmente, como elementos motivadores para a mudança do parâmetro. Para tanto, realiza pesquisa para identificar conceitos e elementos históricos da evolução do fenômeno jurídico para melhor compreender as possíveis causas para a alteração da performance na interpretação das decisões que realizam os magistrados. / [en] This dissertation verifies the paradigm shift of interpretation occasioned by decisions concretist character from the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction through which externalizes the political and legal phenomenon called by jurisdictional expansionism genus comprises the species named by judicial activism and legalization of politics, that have the inefficiency of the state run public policies, as well as the omission of legislative documents that restrict the enjoyment, by society, the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, as motivators for change of parameter elements.For both, conducts research to identify concepts and historical elements of the evolution of the legal phenomenon to better understand the possible causes for the change in performance in the interpretation of decisions that carry the magistrates.

La présente thèse porte sur l'activisme juridictionnel du Tribunal Fédéral suprême du Brésil dans le cadre de la constitution de 1988, c'est-à-dire sur les méthodes et les stratégies permettant à la Cour d'affirmer son rôle vis-à-vis du justiciable et des autres pouvoirs publics. L'activisme y est étudié en utilisant les concepts développés par la doctrine française, les plaçant dans le contexte de la séparation des pouvoirs consacrée par la constitution de 1988. D'un point de vue méthodologique, cette thèse s'appuie sur une démarche qualitative, et privilégie l'analyse des décisions judiciaires. Elle se compose de deux parties, découpées en huit chapitres totaux. La première partie se concentre sur les conditions permettant l'activisme du Tribunal fédéral suprême. Elle démontre que ce phénomène a eu lieu en raison de la convergence contextuelle de diverses circonstances historiques, institutionnelles, normatives et doctrinales, au nombre desquelles les plus importantes ont été des innovations apportées par la constitution de 1988 et l'adoption de nouvelles conceptions doctrinales de la fonction du juge constitutionnel dans l’État de droit. La deuxième partie identifie et analyse les manifestations concrètes de l'activisme de la Cour. Partant des motifs des décisions judiciaires, elle expose les orientations et l'évolution des politiques jurisprudentielles du Tribunal fédéral suprême, mises en perspective avec les compétences des autres institutions. La configuration normative et doctrinale de la séparation des pouvoirs au Brésil, comme l'identification des compétences attribuées au Tribunal suprême, servent ainsi d'instrument heuristique pour l'exposition du rhème abordé. / This dissertation joins a vibrant conversation in legal sciences about judicial activism and the place of supreme courts and constutional tribunal in today's representative democracies. It explores the judicial activism of the Brazilian Supreme court under the Constitution of 1988. Following the tradition of French law schools, the dissertation is divided two parts. The first part examines the scope and context of the Supreme court's activism. It posits that an expansion of the Court's role in relation to the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, starting ine the 1990's, originated in many historical, institutional, normative and doctrinal innovations that took place in Brazil after democratization in the 1980's. Notably, the promulgation of a democratic Constitution in 1988 and the adoption of new theoretical concepts regarding the role of the Judiciary in a democracy were key factors that allowed the court to rethink its place among Brazil'q supreme organs of State. The second part identifies ans examines the concrete manifestations of the Supreme Court's activism. Focusing on the qualitive analysis of the Court's decisions, the dissertation delineates the evolution of selected key themes in the Court's case law, considering it within the context of the competences conferred by the Constitution to other branches of government. Thus, the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution of 1988 is the heuristic device employed to organize the analysis and demonstrate the expansion of the Court into the domains of the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary powers.

This study examines the effect of judicial protection of minority rights on the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy. The framing of the Marriage Act shows that Parliament intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. By nullifying section 30(1) of the Act and making the order above, the Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate of upholding fundamental human rights. At the same time, it negated the intention of Parliament which represents majoritarian interests. The Constitutional Court is, in contra-distinction with Parliament, unelected. By voiding section 30(1) of the Marriage Act and arousing public opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions, it raised a ‘countermajoritarian difficulty.’ This ‘countermajoritarian difficulty’ has elicited intense scholarly debate.17 The study examines how the Court’s negation of majoritarian interests in order to protect minority rights affects its legitimacy. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007. / A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Associate Prof. Tamale Sylvia of the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

[pt] A centralidade assumida pelo STF na cena política brasileira tem suscitado diversas reflexões teóricas sobre o papel a ser exercido pela jurisdição constitucional e sobre sua legitimidade democrática. No âmbito latino-americano, muito tem se falado em um novo constitucionalismo caracterizado, dentre outros aspectos, pela ampliação da gama de direitos previstos e pelo fortalecimento do Judiciário. O presente trabalho tem por objetivo discutir a atuação do Supremo Tribunal Federal em face das perspectivas criadas pelas teorias que buscam justificar seu protagonismo. Para tanto, parte-se da premissa de que a análise crítica do fenômeno deve contemplar não apenas os elementos jurídicos, mas também a natureza política de muitas das escolhas realizadas pela corte e por seus membros. Nessa linha, são trazidos alguns julgamentos históricos do tribunal, escolhidos para demonstrar como ele construiu seu personagem ao longo do tempo, dando destaque tanto para as dimensões políticas como jurídicas de sua atuação. Em seguida, discutem-se as possibilidades de desenhos institucionais em países marcados por fortes desigualdades sociais, dentro de um contexto de entusiasmo com o desempenho das cortes constitucionais na efetivação de garantias básicas da cidadania. Após este panorama teórico, o trabalho se debruça sobre a realidade empírica da atuação do tribunal, verificando em que medida sua conduta corresponde às expectativas criadas em torno das capacidades institucionais da jurisdição constitucional. / [en] The central role assumed by the Federal Supreme Court in the Brazilian political scene has raised various theoretical considerations about the part that the constitutional jurisdiction will play, and about its democratic legitimacy. In the Latin-American context, a lot has been said about a new constitutionalism, which is characterized, among other aspects, by a greater scope of prescribed rights and by the strengthening of the judiciary. The present work intends to discuss the Federal Supreme Court’s practice, taking in consideration perspectives created by theories that seek to justify its protagonism. For this purpose, this work assumes that the critical analysis of the phenomenon must contemplate not only legal elements, but also the political nature of many of the choices made by the Court and its members. Therefore, historical judgments of the Court were selected to demonstrate how it has built its persona through time, highlighting both the political and legal dimensions of its action. After that, this work will discuss institutional designs possibilities in countries characterized by strong social inequalities, inside a context of social excitement about the performance of constitutional courts in implementing basic citizenship guarantees. After the theoretical overview, the research approaches the empirical reality of Court practices, verifying to what extent its conducts correspond to the expectationsvcreated around the institutional abilities of constitutional jurisdiction.

Text in Afrikaans / Summaries in Afrikaans and English / Die beginsel van die onafhanklikheid van die regbank word verskans in die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika van 1996. 'n Onafhanklike regbank is noodsaaklik ten einde te voldoen aan die primere funksie van die regbank, naamlik die bewerkstelliging van geregtigheid. Openbare vertroue in die onafhanklikheid van die regbank verhoog die legitimiteit van hierdie instelling, wat noodsaaklik is vir nakoming en eerbiediging van die howe se beslissings deur die gemeenskap. In die verlede het kritici beweer dat die regbank 'n legitimiteitskrisis beleef op grond daarvan dat polilieke oorwegings 'n rol gespeel het by die aanstelling van regsprekende amptenare, dat die regbank nie verteenwoordigend genoeg is van die bevolking wat betref ras en geslag nie en dat die howe in die verlede in sommige gevalle te owerheidsgesind was en soms diskriminerende wetgewing sonder veel skroom of teenspraak aanvaar en toegepas het. Kritici het daarop gewys dat die opbloei in die volkshowe as alternatief tot die formele howe, as voorbeeld dien van die algehele miskenning van en wantroue in die reg bank. 'n Kritiese evaluering van hierdie aangeleenthede is gedoen aan die hand van 'n regsvergelykende ondersoek. Daar is tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Regterlike Dienskommissie en die Landdrostekommissie 'n belangrike hervorming teweeg gebring het op die gebied van aanstelling van regterlike amptenare. Verder is bevind dat die juriestelsel nie 'n realistiese oplossing bied om die regbank meer verteenwoordigend van die gemeenskap te maak nie, maar dat die assessorestelsel blyk 'n meer praktiese en geskikte alternatief te wees. Dit het verder geblyk dat daar van regterlike beamptes verwag word om, in die lig van die Grondwet van 1996 en 'n stelsel van grondwetlike oppermagtigheid, 'n aktivistiese waarde-ge6rienteerde of waarde-aktiverende benadering by wets- en grondwetuitleg te volg. Daar is verder bevind dat die informele howe behoue moet bly, maar aangepas behoort te word by veranderende omstandighede, in die lig van die Grondwet en die handves van fundamentele regte. Ten slotte is voorstelle gemaak as moontlike oplossing vir bepaalde probleme wat geidentifiseer is. / The principle of the independence of the judiciary is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. An independent judiciary is essential in order to fulfill the primary function of a judiciary, namely the realisation of justice. Public confidence in the independence of the judiciary increases the legitimacy of this institution, which is essential for respect for and compliance with the decisions of the court by the community. In the past critics maintained that the judiciary is experiencing a legitimacy crisis, due to the fact that political considerations have played a role in the appointment of judicial officials, that the judiciary is not representative of the community in respect of race and sex and that the courts have been too executive-minded in the past and have at times accepted and applied discriminatory legislation without much hesitation or contradiction. Critics alleged that the proliferation of people's courts as an alternative to the formal courts, was an indication of the general denial of and loss of confidence in the judiciary. A critical evaluation of these aspects was undertaken by way of a comparative study. It lead to the conclusion that the Judicial Service Commission and the Magistrates Commission brought about an important reform regarding the appointment of judicial officials. It was found that the jury system does not constitute a realistic solution to make the judiciary more representative of the community, but that the assessor system seems to be a more practical alternative. It became apparant that in view of the Constitution of 1996 and our system of constitutional supremacy, it is expected of judicial officals to follow an activistic value-orientated or value-activated approach during legislative and constitutional interpretation. It is furthermore concluded that the informal courts should be retained, but that they should be adapted to the changing circumstances in view of the Constitution and the bill of rights. Finally, suggestions are made in order to address certain problems which have been identified. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.

af / Suid-Afrika is sedert 27 April 1994 'n materiele regstaat, wat deur beide uitdruklike en 'ongeskrewe' fundamentele waardes onderskraag word. Dit is juis hierdie fundamentele waardes wat 'n blote formele konstitusie (as grondslag van 'n relative democracy) van 'n oppermagtige grondwet (as basis van 'n materiele standard-setting democracy) onderskei. Alhoewel daar 'n lewendige debat oor die toepaslikheid van die talle tradisionele grondwetuitlegmetodes gevoer word, is daar nietemin tans geen oorhoofse waardebaseerde paradigma vir grondwetuitleg nie. Soms wil dit voorkom asof fundamentele grondwetlike waardes net as normatiewe retoriek, in stede van materiele riglyn, by grondwetuitleg gebruik word. Die owerheidsgesag is aan hoer normatiewe regsbeginsels gebonde wat grotendeels in die fundamentele regte-akte (as deel van 'n oppermagtige grondwet) vervat is. Die gewaarborgde fundamentele regte dien derhalwe as konkretisering van beide die regstaat en die demokrasie: die materiele regstaatbegrip is die basis van _die grondwetlike staat. Die materiele regstaat, as geregtigheidstaat, kan dus gesien word as die eindbestemming van die grondwet as lex fundamentalis in die regsorde. 'n Oppermagtige grondwet is egter onlosmaaklik verbind aan die materiele regstaat. Daarom behels grondwetuitleg noodwendig die aktivering van die grondwetlik-gepositiveerde waardes. Hierdie normatiewe regsbeginsels en fundamentele waardes wat in die grondwet as grundnorm van die geregtigheidstaat beliggaam is, moet dan deur 'n onafhanklike regbank gehandhaaf en afgedwing word. In beginsel is grondwetuitleg gemoeid met die identifisering, handhawing en aktivering van die fundamentele waardes wat 'n oppermagtige grondwet onderskraag. Waarde-aktiverende grondwetuitleg is nietemin nie 'n bloudruk waarmee aile praktiese uitlegprobleme opgelos kan word nie, maar 'n oorhoofse waardebaseerde paradigma: 'n dwingende, normatiewe verwysingsraamwerk waarvandaan, waarbinne en waarheen grondwetuitleg op pad is. Die tradisionele grondwetuitlegmetodiek is bloat aanvullende tegnieke wat 'n waarde-aktiverende paradigma van grondwetuitleg ondersteun. Aangesien fundamentele waardes onlosmaaklik deel van die materiele regstaat is, moet grondwetuitleg nie net waardebaseer nie, maar ook waardegerig wees; nie net waardes handhaaf nie, maar ook bevorder en aktiveer; nie net waardes weerspieel nie, maar ook aktief vestig. 86 'n raamwerk vir grondwetuitleg behels die 'animering' en konkretisering van fundamentele waardes, ideale en standaarde wat die materiele regstaat onderle, kortom, waarde-aktiverende grondwetuitleg as vergestalting van die materiele regstaat. / On 27 April1994 South Africa became a constitutional state (Rechtsstaat), underpinned by both express, and 'unwritten' fundamental constitutional values. These values represent the distinction between a formal constitution (ie the basis of a relative democracy), and a supreme constitution (the foundation of a material standard-setting democracy). Although the merits of various methods of constitutional interpretation are hotly debated, no general value-based paradigm for constitutional interpretation has yet been established. At times it seems as if fundamental constitutional values are merely invoked as normative rhetoric during constitutional interpretation, rather than as substantive guidelines. Government institutions are bound by these higher normative legal principles, which in a supreme constitution are articulated primarily in the bill of fundamental rights. The guaranteed fundamental rights are a concretisation of both the constitutional state and democracy: the material law state principle (Rechtsstaatprinzip) as the foundation of the constitutional state. The Rechtsstaat as 'just state' is the ultimate goal of a supreme constitution as lex fundamentalis in the legal order. A supreme constitution is inextricably linked to the Rechtsstaat. As a result, constitutional interpretation inevitably involves animating and activating values positivised within the constitution.These normative legal principles and fundamental values must be maintained and enforced by an independent judiciary. In principle, constitutional interpretation deals with the identification, maintenance and animation of the fundamental values underlying a supreme constitution. Value-activating constitutional interpretation is not a blueprint for resolving all practical interpretive problems, but it is a general value-based paradigm: a peremptory, normative frame of reference from which, within which and towards which all constitutional interpretation should be directed. The traditional methodologies of constitutional interpretation are merely ancillary techniques supporting a value-activating paradigm of constitutional interpretation. Since fundamental values undeniably form part of the Rechtsstaat, constitutional interpretation should not only be value-based, but also values-directed; should not merely uphold the values, but also promote and activate them; should not only reflect the values, but also actively establish them. Such a framework for constitutional interpretation involves the animation and concretisation of the fundamental values, standards and ideals underlying the constitutional state: valueactivating constitutional interpretation as embodiment of the Rechtsstaat. / Law / LL.D. (Law)

This dissertation deals with court-executive relations in post-authoritarian Argentina (1983-2006). Specifically, I analyse Supreme Court behaviour in highly sensitive cases to determine whether the tribunal has cooperated with or obstructed the government’s policy preferences in three key policy areas: human rights, economic emergency and pensions. This innovative type of approach – i.e., focusing on a small number of highly sensitive decisions – allows me to concentrate on cases that are genuinely important for the government or, more precisely, for the country’s political administration. There are cases that are significant for the State apparatus but irrelevant for the president (thinking of politicians as self-interested actors). My research uses a rational choice approach to courts, underscoring the strategic nature of judicial behaviour. This vision of judges provides a more accurate account of judicial-executive relations by bringing politics into the study of courts. By focusing exclusively on attitudes and apolitical jurisprudence, other visions take for granted the institutional context. Political stability, for example, cannot be assumed in many developing democracies. My findings indicate that the Argentine Supreme Court has consistently avoided obstructing the president’s policy preferences. Such behaviour is motivated by strategic considerations: judges are risk-averse actors that avoid clashing with the executive. For most of the time, the Supreme Court has operated under unified government, which increases the chances of being punished for anti-government decisions. Two other factors also account for the court’s risk-averse behaviour. First, procedural rules grant the Supreme Court wide discretion over its docket. The tribunal has used such discretion to strategically select the timing of its decisions. Second, recurrent democratic breakdowns have repeatedly led to attacks against the court, such as impeachment, irregular dismissals, and/or enlargements. Third, politicians exert broad control of judicial promotions, allowing them to block the careers of independent, courageous judges that act as a check on political power.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Livia de Paiva Ziti Afonso.pdf: 720736 bytes, checksum: dfad43a24c7a9b97f129b8b34b642e67 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-25 / This dissertation aims to study the role of the judiciary in the effectiveness of fundamental social rights. Besides the traditional functions performed as guarantor of rights, the judiciary has acted to give effect to the social rights under the Constitution, such as the right to education, health and others. However, this performance has been criticized by many scholars as judicial activism, since the judiciary, when giving effect to social rights, acts as to fill the gap left by the omission of the Government, participating in spheres of the Legislative and Executive. Article 5, paragraph 1 of Federal Constitution (CF/88) expressly consecrates that: "The rules defining the rights and guarantees are immediately applicable". This rule reinforces the imperative of social rights and reflects the inevitable commitment made especially by the judiciary in ensuring the effectiveness of them. Reaching the conclusion that social rights are authentic subjective public rights, it is a Judiciary important role to implement the abovementioned rights and guide the actions within the limits set by the Federal Constitution. What is underlined here is the responsibility of the Judiciary in the enforcement of social rights, demystifying the ideas against the effectiveness of social rights and also contrary to the actions of the Judiciary concerning the implementation of these rights / A presente dissertação de mestrado pretende estudar o papel do Poder Judiciário na efetividade dos direitos fundamentais sociais. Além das funções clássicas desempenhadas como garantidor de direitos, o Poder Judiciário tem atuado no sentido de dar efetividade à norma que estabelece os direitos sociais previstos na Constituição, como o direito à educação, o direito à saúde, entre outros. No entanto, tal atuação tem sido criticada por muitos doutrinadores como ativismo judicial, uma vez que o Judiciário, ao dar efetividade aos direitos sociais, acaba superando, por via judicial, as omissões do Poder Público, atuando nas esferas dos Poderes Legislativo e Executivo. O artigo 5o, parágrafo 1º da CF/88 prevê expressamente que: As normas definidoras de direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata . Tal norma reforça a imperatividade dos direitos sociais e reflete o compromisso inevitável dos Poderes constituídos, especialmente do Judiciário, em garantir a sua efetividade. Chegando-se à conclusão de que os direitos sociais são autênticos direitos públicos subjetivos, cabe ao Judiciário o importante papel de implementador desses direitos, tendo sua atuação pautada dentro dos limites estabelecidos pela própria Constituição Federal. O que se pretende demonstrar é a responsabilidade do Poder Judiciário na efetivação dos direitos sociais, desmitificando não somente os argumentos contrários à eficácia dos direitos sociais, como também aqueles infensos à atuação do Poder Judiciário na concretização desses direitos

A sociedade brasileira aguarda pacientemente e há anos uma real reforma que introduza a ética e a moral no meio político e faça valer a soberania de seu povo. De um lado, observa-se um Poder Legislativo com sérias dificuldades de quebrar sua inércia e cumprir o seu papel de concretizar a lei como expressão da vontade geral. De outro, um Poder Judiciário que busca suprir os anseios sociais dando efetividade aos direitos fundamentais colocados na Constituição Federal da República Brasileira de 1988. O presente estudo almeja analisar como o Estado brasileiro tem convivido com um intenso ativismo judicial ou judicialização da política e suas consequências para a democracia pátria. Para a eficácia de suas conclusões, limitou-se o campo de estudo à matéria eleitoral, dada sua cristalina correlação com o Estado Democrático de Direito. Foram selecionadas, deste modo, as recentes decisões dos Tribunais nacionais em temas eleitorais para averiguar os reflexos desta jurisprudência sobre as bases democráticas de nosso país. E, em assim procedendo, foram trazidos elementos para uma crítica fundamentada à tentativa do Poder Judiciário de moralizar as instituições políticas, buscando fornecer as bases para concluir se esse altivo movimento dos Tribunais logrou, de fato, o aprimoramento do regime democrático vigente, preservando a harmonia entre os Poderes, a unidade do ordenamento jurídico e a legitimidade das instituições da nação ou se, ao contrário, apenas soluções pontuais foram conquistadas, combatendo-se uma doença grave com remédios paliativos ao invés de atacar a real causa das mazelas que assolam o Estado Democrático de Direito brasileiro. / The Brazilian society waits patiently and for many years for a deep change that introduces ethics and moral to politics to renew the sovereignty of its people. On one hand, the Parliament presents serious difficulties in moving forward to fulfill its role of materializing the law as an expression of the general will. On the other hand, the judiciary tries to meet social expectations, providing effectiveness to basic rights constitutionally established. This study aims to analyze how the Brazilian State has been living with an intense judicial activism and a judicialization of its politics and its consequences to democracy. For the effectiveness of its conclusions, the object of the analysis was limited to electoral issue, due to its crystal clear relation with the Rule of Law. In this manner, some recent judicial decisions of the national Courts as regards electoral subjects were chosen to verify the consequences of this jurisprudence on the democratic foundations of our country. And, in so proceeding, many aspects were brought to enable a justified criticism to the judiciary attempt to moralize political institutions, trying to provide the basis for the following questions: have, in fact, this noble movement of the Courts succeeded in improving the current democratic Brazilian system, preserving the harmony between the Powers, the unity of the legal system and the legitimacy of the nation institutions?; or, on the opposite, only few hoc solutions have been conquered, fighting with a serious illness by ministering palliative drugs, instead of solving the real cause of the illness that plagues the State?

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-06-23T12:48:13Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dimitrius Boatini_.pdf: 1175657 bytes, checksum: 8cf2ab094f0559a8e82d1b550209f300 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-23T12:48:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dimitrius Boatini_.pdf: 1175657 bytes, checksum: 8cf2ab094f0559a8e82d1b550209f300 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-07 / Nenhuma / O trabalho estuda o tão polêmico conceito de ativismo judicial, sujeito a inúmeras definições, mas aqui entendido como a ingerência do poder judiciário nas áreas de competências precípuas dos poderes legislativo e executivo, em conjunção com a responsabilidade civil do estado por omissão inconstitucional no que tange aos direitos fundamentais, em especial, no que diz respeito a um dos principais desdobramentos da nova responsabilidade civil; o nexo causal presumido. Para isso um primeiro capítulo será dedicado em estudar de maneira central em relação à responsabilidade civil, não somente em seu contexto histórico e tradicional, mas com todos os desdobramentos da atualidade que surgem como uma complexidade a mais tão somente passível de ser resolvida com a via do ativismo judicial. O segundo capítulo envolverá todas as conceituações, críticas e argumentos a favor do ativismo judicial, bem como a definição de seu conceito para efeitos deste trabalho; além da análise dos mais diversos casos práticos da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Se evidencia uma necessidade de ativismo judicial para a satisfação dos direitos fundamentais, amparado por ampla doutrina, porém, com uma série de parâmetros que possibilitem que o mesmo seja utilizado de maneira adequada; como a diferenciação entre o juízo de probabilidade do nexo causal presumido e a teoria do risco integral, utilização da teoria da causa eficiente em detrimento da mais tradicional teoria da causa direta e imediata utilizada pelo Judiciário nacional, e o maior auto-comedimento do Judiciário nos casos envolvendo um confronto de direitos fundamentais. / The essay is about the controversial figure of Judicial Activism, that is defined under a wide array of concepts, but here will be treated as the judiciary acting on the legislative and executive competencies, in conjunction with the civil responsibility of the state for unconstitutional omissions on the fundamental rights, especially with the one of the most relevant new consequences from the civil responsibility in its new figure, the assumed causal link. For this to happen, the first chapter will study the civil responsibility in a deep and thoughful manner, not only on its traditional and historical scope, but also with the contemporary events that unfold and change the law in a way that only judicial activism can bring an answer to it. The second chapter will bring all the concepts and positions about the judicial activism, besides define what is the concept that this essay will use. The essay ends with the idea that the judicial activism is necessary for the fulfilling of the fundamental rights, such as numerous authors had already advocated, but theres a wide array of guidelines created for it to be used in an adequated manner, like, being able to differentiate the probability judgement from the assumed causal link theory from the full risk theory from the state, the use of the theory of the efficient cause instead of the direct and immediate cause, and a bigger use of the judiciary self-restraint when the case in question brings a clash from fundamental rights.