Thesis (LL.M.)--George Washington University, May 1998. / Directed by: Richard Cummins.

What are the causes and consequences of judicial empowerment? What motivates the political decision to delegate authority to independent judiciaries, and what explains the subsequent behavior of these institutions? Going against current trends in comparative judicial politics, this dissertation answers these questions by taking ideas seriously. Dominant accounts of judicial empowerment and behavior associate the emergence of rights protecting judiciaries with the actions of powerful political actors concerned with the protection and promotion of their political self-interests. In contrast, my analysis of Brazil and Colombia links the emergence of such institutions to the actions of groups and individuals who subscribe to the principled belief that courts should focus their efforts on the protection and promotion of constitutional guarantees. These ideational carriers use their resources to convince institutional designers of the suitability of their proposals, and exert powerful influence over the institutional outcome of constitutional transitions. These actors also influence the actions of newly empowered courts to the extent that they are able to entrench their ideational allies on the bench during the uncertainty of the transition. These findings contradict the arguments that judicial empowerment is designed to weaken electoral opponents or to insulate the political process from popular pressures, and that judges are rational-strategic actors whose main concern is to protect their institutional integrity. / text

No description available.

The influence of ideology and attitudes on the decision-making process of Supreme Court justices has been well documented, such that the attitudinal model has emerged as the dominant paradigm for understanding judicial behavior. When ideology and personal preferences seem to eclipse legal factors, such as adherence to precedent and deference to the democratically-elected branches, outcries of 'judicial activism' have occurred. Previous studies (Lindquist and Cross 2009) have operationalized judicial activism and have provided measures for studying behavior that may be considered activist (as opposed to restrainist), further supporting the premise that ideology trumps other extra-attitudinal and legal factors in the judicial decision-making process. While the attitudinal model indicates that ideology is the strongest predictor of judicial decision-making, this research will include a number of legal variables that have significantly influenced justices' votes. As previous studies have demonstrated, an integrated model that combines a number of critical variables can have more explanatory power than one that relies on attitudinal reasons alone (Banks 1999; Hurwitz and Stefko 2004; Mishler and Sheehan 1996). As such, the purpose of this research is to examine individual level decision-making of the most ideological justices on the Burger and Rehnquist Courts (1969-2004) in regards to their activist behavior to overrule legal precedents and invalidate federal statutes. This research will employ multivariate regression analysis to assess the effects of attitudinal, legal and extra-attitudinal factors in the judicial decision-making process.

This study analyzes activist behavior of Supreme Court justices in 132 decisions which struck down congressional statutes as unconstitutional in 1789-1990. Analysis of the justices' activist rates and liberalism scores demonstrate that these votes are ideologically based. Integrated models containing personal attribute and case factor variables are constructed to explore the votes as activist behavior. The same models are also tested with a new dependent variable constructed to measure the nullification votes as liberal votes. The models which explain the votes as ideological responses better explain the votes than the models which explain the votes as activism or restraint. The attribute variables offer better explanation in the late 20th century models and the case factors offer better explanation in the early period models.

Judicial activism Abstract This thesis tries to complexly grasp the phenomenon of judicial activism. The key role for it and its analysis of judicial activism is the theory of separation of powers in the state, without its comprehension it is hardly possible to correctly assess. The first chapter thus focuses on the theoretical concept of separation of powers, its evolution and current standing. Takes a critical stand with present thinkers and suggests rethinking its approach to stress the theory's purpose instead. The second chapter analyses judiciary and judicial system from the functional and institutional approach. Offers its classical definitions yet describes many authors who criticize the affinity of judicial power's activity to the one of state administration. It tries to rebut those opinions with arguments of specific expertise of judges and of its legitimacy. In the third chapter the focus is on the judicial activism. It identifies large dispersion of its definitions therefore uses meta-analysis of Keenan Kmiec for its definition. Firstly, discusses the major change of judicial power in society during the last century and for this reason addresses those most important changes: hypertrophy of law and human rights, and shift of the main interpretational paradigms to natural law emphasis....

O princípio da separação de poderes sofreu alterações fundamentais ao longo dos mais de três séculos desde sua consagração. Dentre as alterações na balança dos poderes, destaca-se a evolução do Poder Judiciário, com o alargamento de suas funções e aumento de sua importância se comparado em face da concepção clássica. No contexto brasileiro pós Constituição de 1988, dois fatores têm se mostrado fundamentais ao avanço do Poder Judiciário a uma posição de destaque no cenário político e constitucional: o desenvolvimento sistema de controle de constitucionalidade aliado às características das normas do texto constitucional, aliados a outros fatores, permitindo o seu avanço ao campo do chamado ativismo judicial. Dentro desta abordagem, o presente estudo busca apontar as implicações desta nova forma de atuação do Poder Judiciário denominada de ativismo judicial em face da democracia, analisando os principais pontos de tensão e críticas surgidas de seu confronto / The principle of separation of powers has undergone fundamental changes over the last three centuries since its establishment. Among the changes in the balance of powers, there is the evolution of the judiciary, with the enlargement of its functions and increase its importance compared in view of the classical conception of the separation of powers principle. In the Brazilian context after the 1988 Constitution, two factors have been shown to be fundamental to the advancement of the Judiciary to a prominent position in political and constitutional landscape, the development of the mechanisms of judicial review combined with the features of constitucional norms, also combined with other factors, allowing its advancement to the field of so-called judicial activism. Within this approach, this study seeks to identify the implications of this new form of action of the Judiciary called judicial activism in the face of democracy, analyzing the main points of tension and conflict that arises from them.

A busca de soluções capazes de imprimir maior eficiência e efetividade ao processo tem norteado as diversas reformas processuais nas últimas décadas. Com esse escopo, aumentaram os poderes do juiz, para justificar essa ampliação no caráter público do processo. Consequência desse aumento de poderes, verificou-se uma alteração no comportamento dos sujeitos envolvidos em um processo, outrora fundamentado nas premissas do princípio dispositivo, fato esse justificado pelos escopos sociais e políticos do processo na busca por uma decisão mais justa. Além disso, a busca por maior efetividade fez com que a duração razoável do processo ganhasse status de Direito Constitucional expressamente reconhecido, de modo a exigir do juiz uma conduta mais ativa na busca de melhor prestação jurisdicional. Como consequência, relegou-se a um plano secundário a participação das partes no processo, que se restringiu, praticamente, à instauração da demanda, de modo que a instrução probatória, cuja premissa maior era a igualdade formal balizada pelos limites do princípio dispositivo, passou, então, a ser influenciada pela iniciativa do juiz. O presente trabalho busca, seguindo os influxos das novas tendências e tendo em vista ser da essência da própria jurisdição a equidistância do magistrado dos interesses em conflito e, como o princípio dispositivo resulta da autonomia da vontade que reina no âmbito de grande parte dos Direitos atuados pelo processo civil, estimular a reflexão sobre o fato de a revalorização deste princípio, que, embora mitigado, ainda orienta o processo civil brasileiro, para confiar às partes, integralmente, tarefas que hoje incumbem aos magistrados no âmbito da instrução probatória, constituiria uma alternativa capaz de solucionar o problema da morosidade que afeta o Judiciário e compromete a efetividade processual. Dentro dessa perspectiva, o presente estudo se desenvolverá em três partes e enfatizará as questões ligadas ao tema proposto. Na primeira parte, será feito um estudo do princípio dispositivo para avaliar os impactos da sua mitigação no processo civil brasileiro contemporâneo, bem como a importância de sua subsistência como limite à atuação do juiz na busca de maior efetividade processual. Na segunda parte, o estudo será dirigido aos poderes do juiz, para refletir se a sua postura proativa realiza, de fato, os escopos da jurisdição, visto que, em geral, no âmbito do processo, se cuida de direitos disponíveis. Na terceira parte, buscar-se-á traçar um panorama atual da instrução probatória no processo civil brasileiro e, ao compará-la a outros ordenamentos estrangeiros, estimular a reflexão, sob a perspectiva da instrumentalidade, quanto ao fato de a maior valorização do princípio dispositivo constituir uma forma de evitar dilações temporais desnecessárias no curso do processo, visto que, não obstante o fortalecimento dos poderes do juiz, a realidade demonstra que o interesse das partes é sempre a mais eficiente mola propulsora da vida dos direitos e da sua efetividade. / The seek for solutions capable of bringing more efficiency to the due process of law has guided the variety of procedural law reforms in the last decades. Aiming to deliver more effectiveness to procedural mechanisms, these reforms enhanced the judges power, using the public aspect of procedure to justify such increase. As a consequence of this increase of powers, there was a change into the parties behavior. Erstwhile this behavior was based on the premises of the dispositive principle, justified by the social and political goals and their seek for a fair solution. Furthermore, the seek for more effectiveness make the question regarding the length of a action receive a clearly recognized Constitutional law status, requiring a better management from the judge during the jurisdictional duty. Thus, the parties participation in the process assumed a marginal role. The parties practically were segregated only to the introduction of the claim. The evidence production, which previously had as a major concept the formal equality, became influenced by the judge proactivity. Once the new tendencies are the essence of jurisdiction and the freedom of choice is an fundamental principle of the rights defended by the civil procedure, this dissertation aims to stimulate the reflection regarding the reanalysis of this principle that, even mitigated, are the main guide to the Brazilian civil procedure law. Inserted in this perspective, the present study will be divided into three parts and will emphasize the issues concerning the theme. The first part will be done a study regarding the dispositive principle. The objective is to evaluate the impact of its mitigation in the current Brazilian procedural law, as well as the importance of its existence as a boundary of the judges power in the quest for greater procedural effectiveness. The second part will be dedicated to the judges discretionary powers. It will bring a reflection if the proactive posture brings, in fact, the main jurisdictional goals, since it generally deals with available entitlement under the procedural law. In the third part, the dissertation will attempt to draw an actual outlook regarding evidence statement on the Brazilian civil procedure law. This work will compare the Brazilian system with foreign jurisdictions and stimulate a debate if the instrumentality perspective is a way to avoid unnecessary time delays in the procedures or not, considering that despite the strengthening of the powers of judge, reality shows that the parties\' interests is always the most efficient \"driving force\" of rights life and its effectiveness.

Submitted by Mariana Dornelles Vargas (marianadv) on 2015-05-13T17:20:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ativismo_judicial.pdf: 887641 bytes, checksum: 67f79003d78d7e122ecf849a5d66099e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-13T17:20:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ativismo_judicial.pdf: 887641 bytes, checksum: 67f79003d78d7e122ecf849a5d66099e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 / Nenhuma / Acompanhando uma tendência mundial, o constitucionalismo brasileiro é caracterizado pelo acentuado papel da jurisdição na definição das controvérsias sociais e políticas. Neste contexto, a atuação de juízes e tribunais passa a ser compreendida sob um duplo viés: como judicialização da política ou ativismo judicial. O objetivo deste trabalho é, ao diferenciar estes dois modos de conceber a atividade jurisdicional - considerando o primeiro como um fenômeno contingencial e inexorável, e o segundo como uma postura que decorre de um ato de vontade do julgador , colocar em xeque a afirmação de que é necessário a existência de um Judiciário ativista para concretizar direitos no Brasil, posicionamento que predomina no âmbito da doutrina constitucional do país. Para tanto, o caminho a ser percorrido passa por uma retomada dos contributos apresentados pelas teorias jurídicas e políticas norte-americanas, tendo em vista as influências que passaram a exercer no âmbito do direito brasileiro e o amplo debate realizado sobre o tema nos Estados Unidos, desde o estabelecimento do controle de constitucionalidade (em 1803). Sob esta perspectiva, serão demonstradas as consequências da incorporação equivocada que houve no Brasil do ativismo judicial estadunidense, evidenciando a importância de se observar o distanciamento provocado pelas peculiaridades que há entre estas duas tradições jurídicas. Tudo isso conduzirá, ao fim, à afirmação do perfil ativista do Judiciário como um problema ao constitucionalismo democrático, que somente pode ser enfrentado em face da existência de uma teoria da decisão judicial, tal qual a desenvolvida pela Crítica Hermenêutica do Direito (CHD) de Lenio Streck, que, em uma imbricação de Hans-Georg Gadamer e Ronald Dworkin, culmina na afirmação da necessidade de respostas corretas no Direito, compreendidas como decisões judiciais constitucionalmente adequadas. / Following a worldwide tendency, Brazilian constitutionalism is characterized by the important role of the Judicial power in defining social and political controversies. In this context, the role of judges and courts can be understood as twofold: as judicialization of politics or judicial activism. This study intends to question the assertion that is necessary to have an activist judiciary to confer rights in Brazil, which is a predominant position within the constitutional legal scholarship by differentiating these two ways of conceiving judicial review - the first as a contingent and inexorable phenomenon, and the second as a posture that results from an act of will of the judge. To achieve this purpose, the study inquiries the revival of American legal and political theories, that influenced Brazilian law, alongside the extensive/comprehensive debate on the subject in the United States since the establishment of judicial review (in 1803). Within this perspective, the study elaborates on the consequences of this mistakenly incorporation of American concept of judicial activism in Brazil, highlighting the importance of observing the peculiarities caused by the distance that exists between these two legal traditions. Finally, this will lead to the assertion that an activist judiciary represents a problem to democratic constitutionalism, which can only be tackled with a theory of judicial decision, as developed by the Hermeneutical Critics of Law (HCD) developed by Lenio Streck, with an overlapping of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Ronald Dworkin, culminates in the premise of the necessity of right answers in law, understood as constitutionally adequate judgments.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-09-27T12:21:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Luciana Zanchetta Oliver.pdf: 803892 bytes, checksum: f397a1b37a8fa34821c909a412326efa (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-15 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The goal of this study is to question the consolidation of judicial activism in Brasil verifying if the decisions made by the courts are in accordance to the constitution and modern social values. For that, we need to verify the limits of the judiciary power based on constitutional principles, the separation of powers and democratic ideals. This dissertation points out that the activism is pertinent and consolidated, once the Judiciary Power is accountable for ceasing omission, evaluating and correcting the mistakes made by the Legislative and Executive powers when they occur. The research shows that despite the legality of the activism, it must be applied with responsibility and moderation protecting social rights and equally protecting the Democratic State / O estudo tem por objetivo investigar a consolidação do ativismo judicial no Brasil, verificando se as decisões proferidas pelos Tribunais têm observado a vontade do constituinte originário e se estão adequadas com os valores sociais hodiernos. Para tanto, busca-se verificar os limites do Poder Judiciário à luz dos princípios constitucionais da Separação dos Poderes e do ideal Democrático. A dissertação aponta que o ativismo se mostra pertinente e está consolidado, uma vez que incumbe ao Poder Judiciário sanar omissões, avaliar e corrigir atos proferidos pelo Poder Executivo e pelo Poder Legislativo, porventura eivados de vícios. A pesquisa demonstra também que o ativismo, embora legítimo, deve ser praticado com responsabilidade e ponderação, fazendo prevalecer os direitos sociais em consonância com a preservação do Estado Democrático de Direito