Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T14:33:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 445030.pdf: 420484 bytes, checksum: 5fe4bd8acf819f5176faa3a4ba8c91ce (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-12-20 / The country needs a Judicial Branch that makes its decisions effective. That is the main concern and the ground from which this doctoral thesis stems, which thesis studied some of the major cases heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of America and the reason why, in one of the most controversial decisions in the Court s history, said court resolved to, via a series of measures, carry out a decision which apparently lacked the grounds to be actualized. It is the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, in which the Court, by breaking the hundred year-old cultural paradigm of a doctrine called separate but equal, authorized a black girl to attend a public school for whites as their equal. The decision by itself would have languished on the shelves of court files had not the Supreme Court, in this case, designed a more activist system in which the judge is authorized to carry out a court decision. From that standpoint and to design a potential Brazilian system, this thesis brings the ideas of Yale University professor Owen Fiss, who first used the term structural reform to refer to that type of judicial activism.It then becomes clear that this thesis turns to comparative law for a solution, and takes from the North-American doctrine a concept we believe can be implemented in Brazil. Next, the author discusses a few Brazilian Federal Supreme Court decisions which should resort to the doctrine addressed herein. In addition to that, the author states that structural reform cannot be carried out regarding every single case but solely with respect to those decisions whose elements somehow break the cultural paradigm existing in society, and it may step into legislative and even executive roles as there is a democratic foundation for such purpose, as is also advocated in labor / O pa?s precisa de um Poder Judici?rio que efetive suas decis?es. Essa ? a preocupa??o principal e a raz?o do nascimento da presente tese de doutoramento, na qual foram estudados alguns dos maiores casos julgados pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da Am?rica e o motivo pelo qual, num dos mais controvertidos julgamentos da hist?ria de sua Corte, houve ela por bem, por meio de uma s?rie de medidas, tornar efetiva uma decis?o que, aparentemente, nada tinha para se concretizar. Trata-se do caso Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, em que a Corte, rompendo com um paradigma cultural centen?rio de uma doutrina denominada separate but equal, autorizou que uma menina negra frequentasse, em sistema de igualdade, uma escola p?blica para brancos.A decis?o, por si s?, adormeceria nas prateleiras dos arquivos judiciais se a Suprema Corte n?o tivesse, nesse caso, modelado um sistema mais ativista, no qual o juiz est? autorizado a realizar a decis?o judicial. A tese traz, nessa perspectiva, para modelar um poss?vel sistema brasileiro, as ideias do Professor da Universidade de Yale, Owen Fiss, que denominou essa modalidade de ativismo judicial de structural reform. Fica claro, ent?o, que a tese busca solu??o no direito comparado, resgatando da doutrina estadunidense um conceito que defende poder ser implementado no Brasil. Num segundo momento, o autor traz ? tese algumas decis?es brasileiras oriundas do Supremo Tribunal Federal que necessitariam al?ar m?o da doutrina aqui abordada. Aliado a isso, defende que n?o ser? em todo e qualquer caso que se poder? realizar a structural reform, mas t?o somente naqueles julgamentos cujos elementos trazidos na decis?o judicial rompam, de alguma forma, o paradigma cultural existente na sociedade, podendo realizar esta imers?o em fun??es legislativas e at? mesmo executivas, pois h? um alicerce democr?tico para tal fim, consoante, tamb?m, defendido no trabalho