Considérée depuis plus de deux siècles comme une tradition intangible, la brièveté des décisions de justice est aujourd'hui remise en question par les juridictions suprêmes françaises. Les évolutions actuelles de la justice conduisent les juges à s'interroger sur le maintien de la concision caractéristique de leurs décisions. Ce questionnement s'inscrit dans une réflexion globale sur la fonction de juger. Le style des décisions est en effet lié à une certaine représentation de la justice. Dès lors, il convient de mettre au jour la représentation exprimée par la brièveté des décisions et celle qu'appellerait un mode de rédaction plus long. L'étude des significations prises par la brièveté des décisions montre qu'elle exprime la puissance refusée de la justice et se heurte à l'exercice du pouvoir de juger. Le caractère ambivalent de la brièveté permet de montrer le paradoxe qui traverse l'histoire de la justice française. En se taisant, le juge a entretenu jusqu'à présent la fiction du juge bouche de la loi tout en exerçant son pouvoir créateur. Son pouvoir ne faisant désormais plus de doute, le juge doit l'assumer à travers une rédaction plus développée de ses décisions. / Considered for over two centuries as an established tradition, courts' brevity decisions is now challenged by French's supreme courts. Current developments of justice lead judges to highlight the necessity or not to maintain one of their main singularity which is to writ short decisions. This question is part of an overall consideration of the judicial function. The way the decisions are written is indeed related to some representations of justice. Then, it's necessary to update the judicial function's representation which is now also expressed by decisions' brevity. The study of the brevity meanings points out that brevity expresses a denied power of justice and faces the judge's power exercise. The ambivalent nature of brevity shows an historical paradox which is present through the history of French justice. By remaining silent, the judge has so far maintained the fiction of a non creative judge while exercising his creative power. No longer in doubt, the judge's power must be assumed through a more developed writing of its decisions.

The special role courts play in a democracy requires designers of constitutions to consider the delicate trade-offs between democratic accountability and judicial independence. This dissertation analyzes the decisional consequences of state supreme court institutional structures. States utilize several types of election and elite reconfirmation, and each method carries a systematically different risk of incumbent defeat. My theory predicts that as reappointment uncertainty increases, judicial independence decreases. I define judicial independence as decisions made by judges using only considerations that are internal to the rule of law. I measure judicial independence by quantifying the external influence of partisan, elite, popular, and economic pressures applied to judges. I conclude by considering the normative implications of the empirical findings. Because judicial independence is a problem of optimization, not maximization, constitutional designers hope to strike a balance between some form of judicial accountability, popular constitutionalism, and judicial independence. / text

O trabalho objetiva dar uma abordagem crítica ao julgamento do Superior Tribunal de Justiça no recurso especial repetitivo. O julgamento por amostragem trata-se de técnica que identifica questões de direito que se repetem em vários recursos especiais, escolhe recursos para serem julgados como representativos da controvérsia e paralisa os demais recursos que versem sobre o tema a ser decidido. Na análise realizada constata-se que o julgamento por amostragem é uma tutela recursal coletiva adequada para o enfrentamento do problema do excesso de recursos e da litigância de massa. No entanto, para o aproveitamento adequado da sua potencialidade, o trabalho conclui no sentido de que deve ser superada a crise de identidade do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, amoldando-o às funções contemporâneas das Cortes Supremas, bem como os problemas relativos à instabilidade da sua jurisprudência e à baixa aderência aos seus precedentes. Para adequada aplicação do recurso especial repetitivo, enquanto modelo de julgamento por amostragem, deve-se dar ênfase ao aspecto gerencial desse modelo de tutela recursal coletiva, a exemplo do que ocorre nas experiências de outros países nos modelos de tutela multipartes. Para adequação do recurso especial repetitivo ao modelo de julgamento por amostragem em sua efetiva potencialidade, devem-se aperfeiçoar os aspectos procedimentais para o fim de assegurar a efetividade do contraditório pelos amici curiae. / The aim of this work is to provide a critical approach regarding the trial of the so-called repetitive special appeals by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Sampling judgment is a technique that identifies repetitive law issues in several special appeals, chooses those appeals that will be tried as representative of the controversy and paralyzes the remaining appeals about that same topic. In the analysis it was found that sampling judgment is an appropriate collective appellate adjudication to address the problem concerning the excessive amount of judicialization and mass claims. However, for proper use of its potential, this study concludes that the identity crisis of the Superior Court of Justice must be overcome, shaping it to contemporary functions of the Supreme Courts, as well as problems related to the instability of its jurisprudence and low compliance to its precedents. In order to obtain an adequate implementation of repetitive special appeals, as an example of sampling judgment, the managerial aspect of this collective appellate adjudication model needs to be emphasized, similar to what occurs in the experiences of other countries regarding multiparty adjudication models. To adapt repetitive special appeals to the model of sampling judgment in its effective potential, the procedural aspects should be improved to ensure the effectiveness of the right of adversarial proceedings by amici curiae.

O trabalho objetiva dar uma abordagem crítica ao julgamento do Superior Tribunal de Justiça no recurso especial repetitivo. O julgamento por amostragem trata-se de técnica que identifica questões de direito que se repetem em vários recursos especiais, escolhe recursos para serem julgados como representativos da controvérsia e paralisa os demais recursos que versem sobre o tema a ser decidido. Na análise realizada constata-se que o julgamento por amostragem é uma tutela recursal coletiva adequada para o enfrentamento do problema do excesso de recursos e da litigância de massa. No entanto, para o aproveitamento adequado da sua potencialidade, o trabalho conclui no sentido de que deve ser superada a crise de identidade do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, amoldando-o às funções contemporâneas das Cortes Supremas, bem como os problemas relativos à instabilidade da sua jurisprudência e à baixa aderência aos seus precedentes. Para adequada aplicação do recurso especial repetitivo, enquanto modelo de julgamento por amostragem, deve-se dar ênfase ao aspecto gerencial desse modelo de tutela recursal coletiva, a exemplo do que ocorre nas experiências de outros países nos modelos de tutela multipartes. Para adequação do recurso especial repetitivo ao modelo de julgamento por amostragem em sua efetiva potencialidade, devem-se aperfeiçoar os aspectos procedimentais para o fim de assegurar a efetividade do contraditório pelos amici curiae. / The aim of this work is to provide a critical approach regarding the trial of the so-called repetitive special appeals by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Sampling judgment is a technique that identifies repetitive law issues in several special appeals, chooses those appeals that will be tried as representative of the controversy and paralyzes the remaining appeals about that same topic. In the analysis it was found that sampling judgment is an appropriate collective appellate adjudication to address the problem concerning the excessive amount of judicialization and mass claims. However, for proper use of its potential, this study concludes that the identity crisis of the Superior Court of Justice must be overcome, shaping it to contemporary functions of the Supreme Courts, as well as problems related to the instability of its jurisprudence and low compliance to its precedents. In order to obtain an adequate implementation of repetitive special appeals, as an example of sampling judgment, the managerial aspect of this collective appellate adjudication model needs to be emphasized, similar to what occurs in the experiences of other countries regarding multiparty adjudication models. To adapt repetitive special appeals to the model of sampling judgment in its effective potential, the procedural aspects should be improved to ensure the effectiveness of the right of adversarial proceedings by amici curiae.

State supreme courts are autonomous institutions with significant power. Yet, despite this authority, state supreme courts routinely rely on one another to explain why and how they reached their decisions. This puzzle of why state supreme courts cite each other in their opinions led me to pose two questions. First, under what conditions do state supreme courts cite other states supreme courts? And second, to whom do they turn for guidance? To answer these questions, I propose a new theory for evaluating state supreme court citations, the social learning model. I borrow policy diffusion’s learning mechanism and I pair it with network theory and methods to explain peer-to-peer state supreme court citations practices. I argue that courts are social actors who interact, influence, and learn from one another, and the citations are communications by and between the courts. To model citations between courts, I apply a temporal exponential random graph network analysis model or TERGM. TERGMs simulate the evolution of the state-to-state citation network by including aspects of both the courts and the network structure. I argue that only by understanding how networks and issue areas evolve can we begin to understand how courts and justices make decisions. The network approach to citations specifically tests these endogenous relationships, it also directly models the complex dependencies of citation networks. My findings demonstrate the courts became more connected over time and no single state supreme court leader emerges. I find that citations are endogenous; what one court does affects other courts. I also discover that the area of law matters a lot and it is insufficient to pool all legal issues into a single model. Finally, state supreme courts do not cite state supreme courts who look like them. Overall, the evidence suggests the courts are learning from each other. The courts’ written language discloses the mechanism. Courts state their own case law does not provide a solution to the question presented and they must seek answers elsewhere. Additionally, the courts do not always cite the same state, as we would expect from emulation. Together, these findings demonstrate that state supreme courts are connected, they learn from one another.

No description available.

Cortes e sociedade civil na América Latina estão em transformação, assim como a sua relação. Casos de grande repercussão social, decisões judiciais que incidem sobre políticas públicas, concentração de efeitos das sentenças, mecanismos de deliberação dentro dos processos são fenômenos relacionados a essas transformações. A tese deste trabalho é de que tanto o desenho institucional das cortes influencia a mobilização social jurídica, quanto a presença de uma forte mobilização social em torno das cortes pode influenciar não só a sua agenda de casos, mas também o seu desenho institucional. E esta relação precisa ser estudada de modo dinâmico e funcional. Para tanto, foram realizadas entrevistas com organizações não governamentais, think tanks, acadêmicos, magistrados e agência financiadora na Argentina, Brasil e Colômbia. É a narrativa comparada desses atores que oferece as variáveis de desenho institucional e mobilização social jurídica relevantes para compreender essas transformações. O trabalho, por fim, aponta para a necessidade de reformulação das agendas dos atores envolvidos sobre como pensar a inter-relação entre cortes e sociedade civil, tanto em termos de experimentação prática, imaginação institucional, desafios teóricos e de legitimação. / Courts and civil society in Latin America are under transformation, as well as the relationship between them. Cases of great social repercussion, judicial decisions which affect public policies, concentration effects of judgments, deliberation mechanisms within the processes are phenomena related to these changes. The thesis of this work is that both the institutional design of the courts affect social legal mobilization and the presence of strong social mobilization around the courts can influence not only their cases agenda, but also its institutional design. This relationship needs to be studied in a dynamic and functional way. To this end, interviews were conducted with nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, scholars, judges and funding agencies in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia. It is the compared narrative of these actors that offers the \"variables\" of institutional design and of legal and social mobilization that are relevant to understand these changes. The thesis finally points to the need to reform the agendas of the actors involved on the reflections about the interplay between courts and civil society, in terms of practical experimentation, institutional imagination, theoretical challenges and legitimation.

O tema dos recursos excepcionais, direcionados às Cortes Supremas, é de enorme importância no processo civil contemporâneo. Esse trabalho busca definir, à luz da Teoria do Direito e do Direito Comparado, quais funções devem ser assinaladas ao Superior Tribunal de Justiça para, a partir disso, poder realizar uma reconstrução dogmática do procedimento do recurso especial. Não há dúvida de que, à luz dos princípios do Estado de Direito, aos Tribunais Superiores deve ser hoje asinalada uma função precipuamente prospectiva, voltada para a orientação dos juízes e jurisdicionados por meio do estabelecimento de precedentes, e não para os litigantes, de forma retrospectiva. A experiência comparada e a análise detida do funcionamento dos Tribunais Superiores demonstra que bons resultados só podem ser cumpridos mediante mecanismos que permitam selecionar os recursos com base na sua importância. Defende-se, por isso, a criação de um filtro para o recurso especial, à semelhança do que já conhece o recurso extraordinário brasileiro por meio da exigência de repercussão geral da questão constitucional debatida. Em face da função prospectiva do Superior Tribunal de Justiça devem ser interpretados todos os demais problemas que gravitam em torno do recurso especial e do acesso à Corte (distinção entre fato e direito, pré-questionamento etc.) / Appeals to Supreme Courts are an enormously important theme in modern civil procedure. This essay intends to define tge function that should govern the practise of Brazils Superior Tribunal de Justiça, with support from legal theory and comparative law studies, so that the characteristics of the appeal (recurso especial) directed to the Court may be rethought on solid grounds. There should be no doubt that, in light of the rule of law principles, Supreme Courts should be assigned a prospective, facing forward function of establishing solid precedents for the guidance of judges and citizens, instead of facing towards the single parties involved in litigation and the past. Comparative studies show that this may only be done if the Court has control over its docket. The essay proposes the adoption of such a mechanism for the recurso especial, as has already been done for the recurso extraordinario through the requirement of general importance of the constitutional issue raised in the appeal. All other aspects regarding access of the parties to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (such as the distinction between law and fact, the prior decisison of the legal issue raised etc.) should be interpreted in light of the prospective function of the Court.

Cortes e sociedade civil na América Latina estão em transformação, assim como a sua relação. Casos de grande repercussão social, decisões judiciais que incidem sobre políticas públicas, concentração de efeitos das sentenças, mecanismos de deliberação dentro dos processos são fenômenos relacionados a essas transformações. A tese deste trabalho é de que tanto o desenho institucional das cortes influencia a mobilização social jurídica, quanto a presença de uma forte mobilização social em torno das cortes pode influenciar não só a sua agenda de casos, mas também o seu desenho institucional. E esta relação precisa ser estudada de modo dinâmico e funcional. Para tanto, foram realizadas entrevistas com organizações não governamentais, think tanks, acadêmicos, magistrados e agência financiadora na Argentina, Brasil e Colômbia. É a narrativa comparada desses atores que oferece as variáveis de desenho institucional e mobilização social jurídica relevantes para compreender essas transformações. O trabalho, por fim, aponta para a necessidade de reformulação das agendas dos atores envolvidos sobre como pensar a inter-relação entre cortes e sociedade civil, tanto em termos de experimentação prática, imaginação institucional, desafios teóricos e de legitimação. / Courts and civil society in Latin America are under transformation, as well as the relationship between them. Cases of great social repercussion, judicial decisions which affect public policies, concentration effects of judgments, deliberation mechanisms within the processes are phenomena related to these changes. The thesis of this work is that both the institutional design of the courts affect social legal mobilization and the presence of strong social mobilization around the courts can influence not only their cases agenda, but also its institutional design. This relationship needs to be studied in a dynamic and functional way. To this end, interviews were conducted with nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, scholars, judges and funding agencies in Argentina, Brazil and Colombia. It is the compared narrative of these actors that offers the \"variables\" of institutional design and of legal and social mobilization that are relevant to understand these changes. The thesis finally points to the need to reform the agendas of the actors involved on the reflections about the interplay between courts and civil society, in terms of practical experimentation, institutional imagination, theoretical challenges and legitimation.

The task of the Supreme Courts and the Constitutional Courts has undergone an evolution through years of history, from its classic reactive role to a more proactive one, which prevails in the current models.In this article, the author analyzes this evolution describing the roles -and their basis- of control of legality, as a classical function, and to give meaningto the normative text and complete the meaning of the legislative document with binding precedents, as a contemporary function. The author completesthe analysis focusing on the overruling and its application in Perú. / La labor de las Cortes Supremas y Cortes Constitucionales ha sufrido una evolución a través de la historia, desde su clásica función reactiva hasta la función proactiva, imperante en los modelos actuales. En el presente artículo, el autor analiza dicha evolución describiendo las funciones y sus fundamentos del control de legalidad, como función clásica, y la de otorgar sentido al texto normativo y completar el significado del documento legislativo con precedentes vinculantes, como función contemporánea. Completa el análisis con el estudio del overruling y su aplicación en el Perú.