O moderno conceito de democracia não se sustenta apenas sob o pilar único do modelo representativo. O respeito aos direitos fundamentais faz-se elemento imprescindível para o delineamento do Estado Democrático de Direito. Não obstante, a cláusula de que todo poder emana no povo também deve ser revisitada no estágio atual, de modo a contemplar instrumentos da democracia participativa, que devem se imbricar ao processo representativo. Esta ideologia participativa também é sentida perante o Poder Judiciário, com reflexos sensíveis às garantias processuais, mormente ao contraditório. Deste modo, é pela ótica dos princípios irradiados pelo Estado Democrático de Direito que a intervenção do Poder Judiciário no controle das políticas públicas deve ser analisada. Por este paradigma instituído pela Constituição Federal de 1988, torna-se poder-dever do Poder Judiciário, juntamente com as demais funções estatais, concorrer para a efetivação dos objetivos constitucionais, o que representa a possibilidade de deliberação judicial em assuntos de largo espectro político e social. Não há dúvidas de que esta intervenção tem limites, de modo a impedir qualquer invasão indevida do Poder Judiciário em assuntos que, a priori, são de atribuição das demais funções estatais, executiva e legislativa. Por esta razão, torna-se imprescindível definir os parâmetros da atividade jurisdicional no controle das políticas públicas, o que exige o estudo da interpretação constitucional e da discricionariedade administrativa. Para o cumprimento deste mister, a escolha do instrumento processual adequado torna-se condição sine qua non com vistas ao alcance de uma decisão justa. Afastando-se do modelo individualista, o processo coletivo acompanha a evolução do direito material, impulsionado por um contexto dominado pelos valores da solidariedade e do coletivismo. As políticas públicas, compreendidas enquanto método para a distribuição igualitária dos bens comuns, são direcionadas sempre a uma coletividade. Diante disso, a tutela de direitos essencialmente coletivos, é, preferencialmente, a forma mais adequada para o controle das políticas públicas perante o Poder Judiciário, pois a característica da indivisibilidade do direito preserva o valor da isonomia inerente às políticas públicas. Aliados à técnica processual coletiva, estão outros instrumentos que corroboram para a democratização do provimento jurisdicional. O primeiro deles refere-se à análise da representatividade adequada do legitimado coletivo. Em uma abordagem política da representação dos membros ausentes, a proposta é que o órgão julgador possa analisar, no caso concreto, se os interesses sociais foram adequadamente postulados na ação coletiva. Ademais, a realização de audiências públicas durante o curso do processo torna-se um mecanismo de participação popular, evitando-se que o debate sobre as importantes deliberações políticas restrinja-se às partes processuais formais, tornando-o eminentemente técnico. Por fim, a intervenção do amicus curiae nos processos coletivos, que tem como pauta o controle das políticas públicas, qualifica o debate, trazendo importantes vozes da sociedade que, por sua experiência e conhecimento, podem contribuir para uma escorreita deliberação judicial. / The modern democracy concept cannot hold itself under the sole pillar of the representative model. The respect of the fundamental rights becomes a mandatory element for the Democratic State of Rights outlining. Inspite of this, the clause that all power emanates from the people must be taken into consideration in the current stage, so as to contemplate participative democracy instruments that have to conform to the representative process. This participative ideology is also felt in the face of the Judiciary Power, with meaningful reflexes on the processual guarantees, mainly to the principle of an adversarial process. Thus, it is through the optic of the principles irradiated by the Democratic State of Rights that the intervention of the Judiciary Power in the control of public policies must be analyzed. By this model instituted by the Federal Constitution of 1988, it becomes power-duty of the Judiciary Power, together with the other state functions, collaborate for the effetivation of the constitutional aims, which represent the possibility of Judiciary deliberation in matters of wide political and social spectrum. There is no doubt that this intervention has limits, so as to avoid an undue invasion of the Judiciary Power in matters that, a priori, are attribution of the other state functions, as the Executive and Legislative. For this reason, it becomes mandatory to define the parameters of the juridical activities in the control of public politics, which demands the study of the constitucional interpretation and of the administrative discritionarity. To ful-fill this aim, the choice of the proper processual becomes a sine qua non with a view to reaching a fair decision. Getting far from the individualist, the collective process follows the evolution of the material right, moved ahead by a context dominated by the solidarity and collectivism values. Politic public actions, understood as a method for the equal distribution of common wellfare, are always directed for a collectivity. So, the guardianship of essentially collective goods is, preferably, the most adequate form for the control of public policies before the Judiciary Power, for the characteristic of the indivisibility of right will preserve the value of the isonomy inherent to public policies. Together with the processual collective technique, there are other instruments which collaborate for the democratization of the juridical provision. The first of them refers to the analysis of the proper representativity of the legitimate collective. In a political approach of the representation of the absent members, the proposal is that the judging organ may analyze, in the concret case, whether the social interests have been properly postulated in the collective action. Furthermore, the realization of public audiences during the process becomes a mechanism of popular participation, avoiding that the debate about the important politic deliberations is restricted to the processual formal parties, making it become eminently technical. Last, the intervention of the amicus curiae in the collective processes, having as aim the control of public policies, gives quality to the debate, bringing in important voices of society, which, for their experience and knowledge, may contribute for a fair judicial deliberation.

Why do interest groups participate in state courts of last resort by filing amicus curiae briefs? Are they influential when they do? This dissertation examines these questions using an original survey of organized interests that routinely participate in state supreme courts, as well as data on all amicus curiae briefs and majority opinions in over 14,000 cases decided in all fifty-two state supreme courts for a four year period. I argue that interest groups turn to state judiciaries to achieve the dual goals of influencing policy and organizational maintenance, as amicus briefs can help organized interests achieve both outcomes. Furthermore, I contend that amicus briefs are influential in shaping judicial policy-making through the provision of legally persuasive arguments. The results suggest that interest groups do file amicus briefs to both lobby for their preferred policies and to support their organization's long-term viability. Additionally, the results indicate that organized interests also participate in counteractive lobbying in state courts of last resort by filing amicus briefs to ensure their side is represented and to dull the effect of oppositional amici. The findings also demonstrate support for the influence of amicus briefs on judicial policy-making on state high courts, as amicus briefs can influence the ideological direction of the court's majority opinions. Overall, this research extends our understanding of interest group lobbing in the judiciary and in state policy venues, and provides insight into judicial politics and policy-making on state courts of last resort.

L’arbitrage public international est demeuré un domaine exclusif aux États souverains jusqu’à la fin des années 50, alors que sont apparus les traités bilatéraux relatifs aux investissements (TBI). La principale caractéristique de ces TBI est sans conteste le recours direct de l’investisseur étranger en arbitrage international contre des États récalcitrants, une alternative aux tribunaux locaux souvent inefficaces. Plus récemment, en 1998, l’organe d’appel de l’OMC est allé jusqu’à accepter l’opinion d’amicus curiae dans un différend opposant des États et aujourd’hui, l’admission de ce type d’opinion est expressément prévue dans plusieurs TBI de nouvelle génération. Mais si l’investisseur bénéficie d’un recours devant une instance arbitrale neutre, il en va tout autrement pour la population locale qui se trouve souvent lésée par la présence, sur son territoire, d’investisseurs étrangers. Le droit de présenter une opinion ne peut remplacer le droit de faire valoir une réclamation. Se pose donc la question : est-ce que, dans le contexte actuel du droit de l’investissement international, des tiers (par rapport aux parties signataires de TBI et par rapport aux parties au différend) peuvent prétendre à une voie de recours direct en arbitrage international? Nous sommes d’avis qu’une telle voie de recours est actuellement possible et que le contexte de l’arbitrage relatif à l’investissement constitue un terrain fertile pour la mise en place de ce droit, étant donné la place déjà faite aux investisseurs. Nous verrons que les principales objections à l’admission de tiers à l’arbitrage international peuvent être rejetées. L’objection de l’absence du consentement des parties intéressées tombe quand on constate les nombreux cas d’arbitrage international où la portée du consentement a été étendue pour inclure des non-parties ou encore pour soumettre à l’arbitrage des matières non envisagées au départ. Par ailleurs, l’absence de qualité pour agir en droit international est un problème théorique, car les investisseurs y ont déjà accès malgré l’absence de cette qualité. Reste donc à déterminer quelle pourrait être la base d’un recours en droit substantiel international pour qu’un tiers puisse faire valoir une réclamation. Nous verrons qu’il existe des instruments juridiques et des principes internationaux dont la contravention pourrait très bien engager la responsabilité de l’État ou de l’investisseur fautif, tout comme il est possible de bien circonscrire les critères d’admissibilité des tiers à la procédure d’arbitrage international. / International arbitration has remained an exclusive domain sovereign states until, in the late 50s, came the first bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main feature of these BITs is undoubtedly the right, granted to investors, to direct international arbitration against recalcitrant States, an alternative to often ineffective local justice. More recently, in 1998, the appellate body of the WTO went to accept the opinion of an independent amicus curiae in a dispute between State members. Today, the admission of such opinions is clearly provided for in several recent BITs. But if investors benefit from a right of action before a neutral international arbitration body, the situation is quite different for the local population, who is often affected by the presence of foreign investors on its territory. The right to submit an opinion cannot replace the right to legal action. This therefore raises one question: in the current context of international investment law, is it possible for third parties (non signatories of BITs and not parties to the dispute) are entitled to a remedy direct international arbitration? We are of the opinion that the answer to this question is: yes. And the context of investment arbitration, because of the right to direct arbitration against States already granted to investors, constitutes a fertile ground for the implementation of this right of action in favour of third parties. The objection based on the absence of the parties’ consent to such right of action has been set aside in many international arbitration cases where the scope of consent has been extended to include non-parties or to submit to arbitration matters not contemplated at first. Also, the objection based on the absence of legal standing of third parties in International Law proves to be theoretical as foreign investors already have access to international justice despite the lack of this quality. There remains to determine what substantial International Law will constitute a valid legal basis for a third party claim. We will see that there exists legal instruments and international principles and that their violation by States or investors may result in the obligation to compensate the prejudice suffered, as well as it is possible to clearly define and indentify who the third parties could be.

L’arbitrage public international est demeuré un domaine exclusif aux États souverains jusqu’à la fin des années 50, alors que sont apparus les traités bilatéraux relatifs aux investissements (TBI). La principale caractéristique de ces TBI est sans conteste le recours direct de l’investisseur étranger en arbitrage international contre des États récalcitrants, une alternative aux tribunaux locaux souvent inefficaces. Plus récemment, en 1998, l’organe d’appel de l’OMC est allé jusqu’à accepter l’opinion d’amicus curiae dans un différend opposant des États et aujourd’hui, l’admission de ce type d’opinion est expressément prévue dans plusieurs TBI de nouvelle génération. Mais si l’investisseur bénéficie d’un recours devant une instance arbitrale neutre, il en va tout autrement pour la population locale qui se trouve souvent lésée par la présence, sur son territoire, d’investisseurs étrangers. Le droit de présenter une opinion ne peut remplacer le droit de faire valoir une réclamation. Se pose donc la question : est-ce que, dans le contexte actuel du droit de l’investissement international, des tiers (par rapport aux parties signataires de TBI et par rapport aux parties au différend) peuvent prétendre à une voie de recours direct en arbitrage international? Nous sommes d’avis qu’une telle voie de recours est actuellement possible et que le contexte de l’arbitrage relatif à l’investissement constitue un terrain fertile pour la mise en place de ce droit, étant donné la place déjà faite aux investisseurs. Nous verrons que les principales objections à l’admission de tiers à l’arbitrage international peuvent être rejetées. L’objection de l’absence du consentement des parties intéressées tombe quand on constate les nombreux cas d’arbitrage international où la portée du consentement a été étendue pour inclure des non-parties ou encore pour soumettre à l’arbitrage des matières non envisagées au départ. Par ailleurs, l’absence de qualité pour agir en droit international est un problème théorique, car les investisseurs y ont déjà accès malgré l’absence de cette qualité. Reste donc à déterminer quelle pourrait être la base d’un recours en droit substantiel international pour qu’un tiers puisse faire valoir une réclamation. Nous verrons qu’il existe des instruments juridiques et des principes internationaux dont la contravention pourrait très bien engager la responsabilité de l’État ou de l’investisseur fautif, tout comme il est possible de bien circonscrire les critères d’admissibilité des tiers à la procédure d’arbitrage international. / International arbitration has remained an exclusive domain sovereign states until, in the late 50s, came the first bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main feature of these BITs is undoubtedly the right, granted to investors, to direct international arbitration against recalcitrant States, an alternative to often ineffective local justice. More recently, in 1998, the appellate body of the WTO went to accept the opinion of an independent amicus curiae in a dispute between State members. Today, the admission of such opinions is clearly provided for in several recent BITs. But if investors benefit from a right of action before a neutral international arbitration body, the situation is quite different for the local population, who is often affected by the presence of foreign investors on its territory. The right to submit an opinion cannot replace the right to legal action. This therefore raises one question: in the current context of international investment law, is it possible for third parties (non signatories of BITs and not parties to the dispute) are entitled to a remedy direct international arbitration? We are of the opinion that the answer to this question is: yes. And the context of investment arbitration, because of the right to direct arbitration against States already granted to investors, constitutes a fertile ground for the implementation of this right of action in favour of third parties. The objection based on the absence of the parties’ consent to such right of action has been set aside in many international arbitration cases where the scope of consent has been extended to include non-parties or to submit to arbitration matters not contemplated at first. Also, the objection based on the absence of legal standing of third parties in International Law proves to be theoretical as foreign investors already have access to international justice despite the lack of this quality. There remains to determine what substantial International Law will constitute a valid legal basis for a third party claim. We will see that there exists legal instruments and international principles and that their violation by States or investors may result in the obligation to compensate the prejudice suffered, as well as it is possible to clearly define and indentify who the third parties could be.

2001年11月世界貿易組織召開杜哈部長會議，重啟檢討爭端解決規則與程序瞭解書（DSU）之新回合談判，其中「法庭之友」議題頗受注目，已開發國家與開發中國家立場截然不同，幾無共識。DSU之本文與其附件皆未提及「法庭之友」一詞，歷經幾次關鍵性案件之裁決，上訴機構逐漸發展出一套規則，認為DSU第13條、第17.9條與上訴審查作業程序第16(1)條可資引用為小組與上訴機構接受與考慮「法庭之友」書面意見之法律基礎。本文首先從法律面向著手，將現行條文加以適當之解釋，認為目前上開條文之規定並無法為「法庭之友」提供一合理之法律基礎，上訴機構向來有關之裁決並不正確。 本文繼而從政策面向分析，主張未來世界貿易組織應適度突破傳統國際公法之限制，讓公民社會之成員有機會以「法庭之友」的身份，「間接」、「例外」地參與WTO爭端解決程序，以爭取全球民眾對世界貿易組織之支持與認同。為解決「法庭之友」之爭議，世界貿易組織會員應以修正DSU條文或另外做成決議之方式，明確釐清此一高度爭議問題，而非繼續任其模糊不清，徒增紛擾。 / The World Trade Organization (WTO) convened the Doha Ministerial Conference and restarted the review of provisions of Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) in November 2001. Inter alia, the issue of ‘amicus curiae’ was very controversial, opposite positions were raised during the DSB Special Session between the developed countries and developing countries. Since there are no words about amicus curiae in DSU and its annex, the Appellate Body concluded in some Appellate Body reports that Article 13 and 17.9 of DSU and 16(1) of Working Procedures for Appellate Review could be constituted as proper legal basis for Panel and the Appellate Body to accept and consider the amicus curiae briefs. This article starts with interpreting the existing provisions of DSU from the legal perspective, and concludes that the provisions mentioned above could not be regarded as a legal basis to for Panel and the Appellate Body to accept and consider the amicus curiae briefs and therefore, the Appellate Body’s decisions might not be appropriate. This article then suggests from the policy perspective that the WTO release itself from the restriction of traditional international public law in the future, allowing the members of civil society to present their submission in a ‘indirect’ and ‘exceptional’ way by the name of ‘amicus curiae’ in the WTO dispute settlement proceedings. At last, it also recommends that the WTO members revise some provisions of DSU or make a decision to solve this controversial problem manifestly, instead of leaving it ambiguous for a long time.

La fin de la guerre froide amorça une nouvelle ère de privatisation, de libéralisation et de dérégulation sans précédent. L’internet et les nombreuses autres avancées technologiques ont rapproché les citoyens du monde à un degré impressionnant. Le monde au XXIème siècle semble être plus interdépendant que jamais. De nombreuses problématiques contemporaines dépassent largement les contrôles et les frontières étatiques, des problématiques reliées par exemple aux investissements étrangers directs, aux droits de l’homme, à l’environnement, à la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, etc. La globalisation des marchés marque par ailleurs le recul de l’État face aux acteurs non étatiques. La société civile et les multinationales surgissent dès lors en tant que véritables partenaires dans l’ordre juridique international. Cela est illustré notamment par l’accès accordé aux multinationales/investisseurs à la justice internationale économique. Ces derniers ont la capacité de poursuivre un État qui violerait leurs droits marchands découlant d’un TBI devant une juridiction arbitrale internationale. Qu’en est-il par contre des droits non marchands violés par les investisseurs ? Cette étude explore les motifs militant pour un accès de la société civile à la justice internationale économique. Le but d’un tel accès serait d’opposer les droits non marchands, suscités par des problématiques inhérentes à la globalisation des marchés, à la fois à l’égard des États et à l’égard des multinationales, et auxquelles aucune réponse étatique unilatérale ou interétatique ne peut remédier adéquatement. / The end of the cold war marked an unprecedented new era of privatisation, liberalisation, and deregulation. Internet and the numerous technological advancements have brought citizens of this world closer at an astonishing degree. The world in the XXIst century seems more interdependent than ever before. A number of contemporary problematic issues significantly bypass State controls and borders. They are for instance related to foreign direct investment, human rights, the environment, corporate social responsibility, etc. Globalisation marks the State’s retreat in favour of non-state actors. In this light, civil society and multinationals appear as significant partners in the international legal order. This is in part reflected in the access given to multinationals/investors to international trade law justice. They have the capacity to file claims against states in front of international arbitration jurisdictions for violations of their trade rights as provided under BITs. However, what about the non-trade rights that may have been violated by investors? The present study explores the motives that would justify civil society’s access to international trade law justice. The purpose of such access would be to stand for non-trade rights, raised by problematic issues inherent to globalization, against States and multinationals, and that cannot be remedied solely through unilateral nor interstate efforts.

Pendant longtemps, le droit international des investissements et le droit de l'Union européenne se sont ignorés. Leur rencontre en matière d'investissement a eu lieu dans le cadre des rapports entre les États membres de l'Union européenne, d'une part, et entre les États membres et les États tiers, d'autre part. Cette rencontre a donné lieu à de riches discussions sur l'interaction entre le droit de l'Union européenne et le droit international des investissements. Depuis l'entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, l'Union européenne dispose d'une compétence exclusive dans le domaine de la politique commerciale commune incluant les investissements directs étrangers en application de l'article 3, paragraphe 1, point e), du TFUE. L'étude analytique des aspects procéduraux de l'Union Européenne dans l'arbitrage international des investissements démontre la transition de son statut bien établi de I'«amicus curiae» vers le statut de « partie défenderesse» dans le contentieux international des investissements. / For a long time, international investment law and EU legislation were developing independently from each other. ln the field of international investment, both met as the EU countries interacted, either with each other or with non-member governments. This led to broad-ranging discussions on how the EU legislation should interact with international investment law. As per the Lisbon Treaty, the European Union is the exclusive authority for the common trade policy, including direct foreign investments under Article 3, subsection le) of the TFEU. The system analysis of the European Union procedural aspects relating to investment international arbitration demonstrates the transition from the well-established "amicus curiae" status to the status of "defendant".

La fin de la guerre froide amorça une nouvelle ère de privatisation, de libéralisation et de dérégulation sans précédent. L’internet et les nombreuses autres avancées technologiques ont rapproché les citoyens du monde à un degré impressionnant. Le monde au XXIème siècle semble être plus interdépendant que jamais. De nombreuses problématiques contemporaines dépassent largement les contrôles et les frontières étatiques, des problématiques reliées par exemple aux investissements étrangers directs, aux droits de l’homme, à l’environnement, à la responsabilité sociale des entreprises, etc. La globalisation des marchés marque par ailleurs le recul de l’État face aux acteurs non étatiques. La société civile et les multinationales surgissent dès lors en tant que véritables partenaires dans l’ordre juridique international. Cela est illustré notamment par l’accès accordé aux multinationales/investisseurs à la justice internationale économique. Ces derniers ont la capacité de poursuivre un État qui violerait leurs droits marchands découlant d’un TBI devant une juridiction arbitrale internationale. Qu’en est-il par contre des droits non marchands violés par les investisseurs ? Cette étude explore les motifs militant pour un accès de la société civile à la justice internationale économique. Le but d’un tel accès serait d’opposer les droits non marchands, suscités par des problématiques inhérentes à la globalisation des marchés, à la fois à l’égard des États et à l’égard des multinationales, et auxquelles aucune réponse étatique unilatérale ou interétatique ne peut remédier adéquatement. / The end of the cold war marked an unprecedented new era of privatisation, liberalisation, and deregulation. Internet and the numerous technological advancements have brought citizens of this world closer at an astonishing degree. The world in the XXIst century seems more interdependent than ever before. A number of contemporary problematic issues significantly bypass State controls and borders. They are for instance related to foreign direct investment, human rights, the environment, corporate social responsibility, etc. Globalisation marks the State’s retreat in favour of non-state actors. In this light, civil society and multinationals appear as significant partners in the international legal order. This is in part reflected in the access given to multinationals/investors to international trade law justice. They have the capacity to file claims against states in front of international arbitration jurisdictions for violations of their trade rights as provided under BITs. However, what about the non-trade rights that may have been violated by investors? The present study explores the motives that would justify civil society’s access to international trade law justice. The purpose of such access would be to stand for non-trade rights, raised by problematic issues inherent to globalization, against States and multinationals, and that cannot be remedied solely through unilateral nor interstate efforts.

Submitted by Ana Côrtes (ana.cortes@gvmail.br) on 2018-05-16T22:26:39Z No. of bitstreams: 1 VC Em busca de diálogo e reconhecimento no STF - Ana de Mello Côrtes.pdf: 1099102 bytes, checksum: 3c71780f7aba8c919be63f10f5520fea (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Pamela Beltran Tonsa (pamela.tonsa@fgv.br) on 2018-05-16T22:33:36Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 VC Em busca de diálogo e reconhecimento no STF - Ana de Mello Côrtes.pdf: 1099102 bytes, checksum: 3c71780f7aba8c919be63f10f5520fea (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzane Guimarães (suzane.guimaraes@fgv.br) on 2018-05-17T14:31:14Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 VC Em busca de diálogo e reconhecimento no STF - Ana de Mello Côrtes.pdf: 1099102 bytes, checksum: 3c71780f7aba8c919be63f10f5520fea (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-05-17T14:31:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 VC Em busca de diálogo e reconhecimento no STF - Ana de Mello Côrtes.pdf: 1099102 bytes, checksum: 3c71780f7aba8c919be63f10f5520fea (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-04-20 / Tendo em vista a relevância das questões levadas ao STF relacionadas à alteração do registro civil para pessoas trans (ADI 4.275 e RE 670.244) e ao uso do banheiro de acordo com a identidade de gênero dessas pessoas (845.779) e o papel de democratização usualmente atribuído ao instituto amicus curiae, esta dissertação se propõe a fazer um exame dos agentes que participaram do processo constitucional como amici curiae nesses casos e de sua atuação, a fim de verificar os avanços dessa possibilidade de atuação da perspectiva dos atuantes bem como as limitações e dificuldades enfrentadas. Em uma apresentação dos casos e do contexto, são recuperadas teorias sobre mobilização do direito que embasam o trabalho e é exposto o histórico do movimento trans no Brasil assim como sua relação com o direito até chegar nos casos abordados. Trata-se de casos nos quais todas as tentativas de ingresso como amicus curiae foram feitas por parte de organizações que se colocaram em defesa dos direitos de pessoas trans estudados em um momento em que ainda não haviam sido julgados, mas em que já haviam sido colocados em pauta (de forma que não seriam aceitos novos amici curiae). Com um olhar em geral afastado da corte e do resultado e focado nas organizações de movimentos sociais e sua atuação, como fruto da pesquisa considerando todas as manifestações escritas e orais das entidades nos casos em pauta assim como entrevistas realizadas com a maior parte das organizações atuantes, as unidades de análise apresentam em categorias uma descrição do trabalho das entidades acompanhada da análise dos principais desafios e problemas enfrentados, relacionados especialmente a legitimidade para atuação, requisitos de ingresso exigidos para amici curiae e falta de financiamento para litigância estratégica em defesa de pessoas trans. São destacadas e colocadas em pauta especialmente a seletividade do STF e, buscando superá-la, a interação e as escolhas das entidades atuantes nesses casos específicos, que objetivando conquistas além do resultado no caso concreto se articulam para vencer desafios e superar limitações de acesso e admissibilidade. Levando à conclusão de que embora a participação como amici curiae represente um papel importante na democratização da jurisdição constitucional, há algumas questões, como a exigência de representação por profissional habilitado pela OAB, cuja revisão poderia significar que o papel atribuído de democratização fosse cumprido de forma mais efetiva. / Considering the importance of issues taken to Supreme Federal Court concerning transgender civil registry change and use restrooms according to gender identity and also the democratization role usually assigned to the amicus curiae institute, this dissertation proposes to exam the agents that took part in the constitutional process and their performance aiming to verify the benefits of this possibility of participation in the perspective of the actors as well as limitations and troubles faced. The cases and the context are presented by introducing theories about legal mobilization that base the work and exposing the history of the transgender movement in Brazil and its relation to law getting to the studied cases. In this cases all the entities that tried to engage in the processes were pro transgender rights and they were studied when there wasn’t a decision yet but new amici curiae would no longer be admitted. Looking beyond courts and decisions and focusing more broadly on social movement organizations and their performance, as the product of the research considering all the ways of participation in the processes in addition to interviews with the majority of the organizations, this dissertation presents a description of the organizations’ work and analyses the major challenges faced, especially related to legitimacy, requirements for amicus curiae participation in constitutional process and lack of financing for strategic litigation on transgender rights. Supreme Federal Court’s seletivity and organizations’ interaction and choices aiming to overcome the selectivity are highlighted. The goals of this kind of participation are also related to visibility and dialogue and go beyond the decision so the organizations articulate themselves to prevail over difficulties and limitations of access and admissibility. The dissertation conclusion points out that nevertheless the participation as amicus curiae plays an important role in the democratization of constitutional jurisdiction, there are some issues that could be reconsidered so the goal of democratization would be better accomplished.