Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Judicial ideology'

The attitudinal model of judicial behavior dominates judicial politics scholarship, including studies of federal courts and agencies. Extant research finds limited support for legal constraints as determinants of judge behavior when agency decisions are under review. Attitudinal scholars suggest judges substitute their policy preferences in place of agency preferences. Contrarily, the legal model suggests judges defer to agencies because of procedures and doctrine rooted in the rule of law. This study tests hypotheses predicting whether federal agency review decisions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals during 1982-2002 are a function of judges‘ attitudes, namely ideology, or a function of legal constraints, including agency adherence to legally prescribed procedures and agency passing standard-of-review muster. Using logistic regression, I examine the impact of legal and ideological variables on the outcome of judges‘ reviews of agency decisions. Results support several hypotheses. Agency adherence to procedural standards, such as those outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, increases the likelihood that a review panel will defer to the agency. If review panels and judges answer standard-of-review questions favorably toward agencies, review panels and judges are more likely to support agencies in final case outcomes. Individual judge votes to support agencies are influenced by the ideology of other judges on the review panel: if the ideology of the review panel is in agreement with the agency position, individual judges are more likely to support agencies in final case outcomes. Finally, a judge is more likely to dissent when he/she is in ideological (dis)agreement with the agency position. In sum, results suggest that judges‘ regard for law and regard for their judge colleagues informs decisionmaking. Judges often defer to federal administrative agencies, even when their personal policy preferences are not found to be significantly associated with decisions. Judges‘ ideological preferences appear to be less important in the U.S. Courts of Appeals than previous scholarship indicates, but ideology may influence judges‘ decisions through the ideological composition of the review panel and in dissent behavior. The implication is that the legal model of judicial behavior may be more prominent than the attitudinal model in the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) é uma das instituições mais importantes do país, e tem recebido cada vez mais atenção da sociedade brasileira. Ano a ano, a corte é acionada para julgar dezenas de milhares de casos, muitos deles com impacto direto na vida econômica, política e social do país. Investigar quais são os fatores que influenciam o comportamento dos ministros do STF é fundamental para compreendermos o processo de tomada de decisões do Tribunal. Apesar de existirem estudos importantes sobre o resultado das ações de controle de constitucionalidade, ainda existe espaço para estudar o comportamento individual dos ministros. O objetivo do presente trabalho é analisar o comportamento individual dos ministros do STF, utilizando-se as votações dos ministros frente às ações de controle de constitucionalidade que foram decididas de forma colegiada. A proposta de trabalho é verificar como os ministros se agrupam e quais fatores influenciam sua divisão. Para isso, propomos a utilização do método de estimação de pontos ideias. Nossa hipótese primária de trabalho é que existe uma influência da indicação presidencial no comportamento dos ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Dessa forma, haveria uma divisão da Corte entre os ministros nomeados por diferentes partidos. A hipótese secundária seria que as trajetórias profissionais dos ministros também influenciam em sua forma de decidir, sendo possível, portanto, identificar divisões entre os ministros a partir desta variável. Os resultados do presente trabalho indicam que variáveis associadas aos modelos atitudinais do comportamento judicial, partidos dos presidentes que indicaram os ministros, ideologia e filosofia judicial dos ministros, são variáveis mais relevantes para explicar as agrupamentos e dissensos no STF do que as que dizem respeito as trajetórias profissionais dos juízes.<br>The Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF (Federal Supreme Court) is one of the most relevant institutions in Brazil, and it has increasingly gained attention from Brazilian society. Year after year, the Court is demanded to rule thousands of cases, a lot of them with direct impact in the countrys economic political and social life. To investigate which factors influence the Justices behavior is paramount to understand the decision-making process of the Court. The goal of this work is to analyze the Justices individual behavior, by looking at the Justices individual vote in Constitutional Review cases that were decided in collegiate manner. This dissertation verifies how the Justices cluster themselves and which factors influence their division. For that, we employ the ideal point estimation method. Our primary hypothesis states that the presidential nomination exerts influence in the Justices behavior. In this way, it would be possible to identify a division in the Court among Justices nominated by different parties. Our secondary hypothesis states that the Justices professional background also exerts influence in how they decide, therefore making possible to identify divisions among Justices by taking this variable as a dividing line. The results of the present work indicate that the variables associated with the attitudinal models of judicial behavior, presidential party responsible for Justice nomination, ideology and Justices judicial philosophy are more relevant variables to explain the clusters and dissensus in STF than variables linked to magistrates professional background.

PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO<br>O presente trabalho investiga a hipótese de que o Direito Processual Penal, quando de sua instrumentalização na prática diária dos Tribunais, estaria com sua função, ao menos a declarada, de instrumento de defesa do acusado, suas liberdade e autonomia, e de resolução do conflito penal com vistas à produção da paz e do entendimento, desvirtuada para realização de uma intervenção penal mais gravosa, amparada nas idéias de defesa social e do eficientismo penal, transformando-se assim em mais um aparato de segurança pública de viés autoritário. Trata-se de entender como vem ocorrendo esse desvio, na teoria e na prática do Direito Processual Penal, ao longo destes últimos anos, sobretudo após a constitucionalização dos direitos e garantias do Cidadão e a inserção do Sistema Acusatório na Carta Magna, ou se tal fenômeno apenas explicita as permanências de um Direito Penal que, desde o Iluminismo burguês até os dias de hoje, prega a ideologia da Defesa social, amalgamado a um Direito Processual Penal inquisitorial e autoritário, que resistem às transformações democráticas, aos moldes de que ocorre com a própria sociedade brasileira.<br>This work investigates the hypothesis that Criminal Procedure Law, when instrumentalized in the daily praxis of the courts, would have its function, at least declared, of instrument of the Defendant s defense, liberties and independence, as well as of resolution/settling of the Criminal conflict aiming peace and understanding, distorted for the accomplishment/realization of a more austere/severe Criminal intervention based on the ideals of social defense and criminal efficiency, being transformed in another apparatus of authoritarian public safety. The work consists, then, in understanding how this diversion has been happening over the years in the theory and in the praxis of Criminal Procedure Law, especially after the constitutionalization of citizen s rights and guarantees as well as the insertion of the Accusatorial System in the Brazilian Constitution, or if this phenomenon only clarifies the permanence of a Criminal Law, that since the Enlightenment to the present day preaches the ideology of social defense, combined with an inquisitorial and authoritarian Criminal Procedure Law resists the democracy transformations similarly to what occur with Brazilian society.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2017-12-07T11:14:12Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Rafael da Cruz Gouveia Linardi.pdf: 1538183 bytes, checksum: 77dd40ae9abacc65fa27facf855253bc (MD5)<br>Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-07T11:14:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rafael da Cruz Gouveia Linardi.pdf: 1538183 bytes, checksum: 77dd40ae9abacc65fa27facf855253bc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-11-21<br>This dissertation examines law from an essentially cultural perspective, that is, as a phenomenon arising from the gradual construction of values in the course of history. Among the sources of law, the study focuses on the so-called judicial source, that is, the right that arises from decisions handed down by judges and courts. It seeks to comprehend the ideologies that serve as a framework for decisions made by judges, within the contemporary panorama. It is assumed that the judicial activity is predominantly interpretative, requires a position, and, consequently, a choice of values. As a starting point, the study shows opinion poll results in which judges were able to voice their considerations on the most relevant aspects. It also reveals that, in general, judges take into consideration in their decisions both the paradigm of legality and concomitantly the social consequences that their sentences may lead to. Considering those paradigms as simultaneously embedded, the study analyzes in greater depth, the foundations of both stances: on one hand the "legalist" and on the other the "social" one. Through a historical approach, it identifies that "legalism" is the result of constant and permanent search of the human being for security and stability. Moreover, it reveals that legalism can also relate to an "ideological legal positivism" Otherwise, the concern with "social consequences of judicial decisions" gains ground, at a time when the rapprochement of law with ethics is sought. Besides, judicial positions strengthen elements of the Marxist critique, unleashing the so-called "judicial activism”. Finally, the study examines recent jurisprudential cases in which it is possible to confirm this ideological dichotomy that is present in the intricacies of the Judicial Power<br>Esta dissertação de mestrado examina o direito sob uma perspectiva essencialmente cultural, o que significa dizer, como um fenômeno decorrente da construção gradual de valores no curso da história. Dentre as fontes do direito, o estudo toma por destaque a denominada fonte judicial, ou seja, o direito que nasce a partir das decisões proferidas por juízes e tribunais. Busca compreender as ideologias que servem de referência para a tomada de decisões pelos magistrados no panorama contemporâneo, partindo-se do pressuposto de que a atividade judicial é preponderantemente interpretativa, a exigir a adoção de posicionamentos, e, por consequência, a escolha de valores. Como ponto de partida para o estudo, aponta resultados de pesquisas de opinião onde os próprios juízes foram ouvidos e puderam se manifestar acerca de assuntos pertinentes. Permite constatar que os juízes levam preponderantemente em consideração, no momento de decidir, o paradigma da legalidade, mas também, de maneira concomitante, as consequências sociais que as suas sentenças podem vir a causar. Considerando-se esta dualidade de paradigmas simultaneamente incorporados, analisa com maior profundidade os fundamentos de ambas as posturas, de um lado a “legalista”, e de outro a “social”. Numa abordagem histórica, detecta que o “legalismo” é fruto da constante e permanente busca do ser humano por segurança e estabilidade. Identifica o legalismo com o que se pode denominar de “positivismo jurídico ideológico”. De outra sorte, a preocupação com as “consequências sociais das decisões judiciais” ganha espaço em um momento em que se busca a reaproximação do direito com a ética, oportunidade em que as posturas judiciais incrementam elementos da crítica marxista, desencadeando o denominado “ativismo judicial”. Por fim, aprecia casos jurisprudenciais recentes onde é possível verificar esta dicotomia ideológica verificada nos meandros do Poder Judiciário

This thesis focuses on how well indicators of judicial ideology and institutional constraints predict whether a judge will vote to increase abortion access. I develop a model that evaluates a judge's decision in an abortion case in light of ideological factors measured at the time of a judge's nomination to the bench and legal and institutional constraints at the time a judge decides a case. I analyze abortion cases from all of the U.S. Federal District Courts from 1973-2004. Unlike previous studies, which demonstrate that the president and the home state senators are the best predictors of judicial ideology, I find that the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time of the judge's nomination is the only statistically significant ideological indicator. Also, contrary to conventional wisdom, Supreme Court precedent (a legal constraint) is also a significant predictor of judicial voting behavior in abortion cases.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T19:34:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lelio Maximino Lellis.pdf: 1775869 bytes, checksum: d2738773093341ca5a8b26c14f3712ec (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-10-22<br>The knowledge of attributes of deciding texts of the judicial collective sentence genre (Acórdão genre) and, on this account, with characteristics of the Judiciary, especially those related to enunciative subjectivity, assume the choice of the corpus to be investigated, the configuration of the textual generic system in which the object of study is inserted and the elaboration of the linguistic analysis model to be employed. The corpus, analyzed through the deductive hypothetic method, is composed of six informing texts of definitive collective decision emanated from the Supreme Court of Justice, the High Court of Judicature and from the Court of Appeal of São Paulo. The choice for the Acórdão genre was due to the multiculturalism expressed in them. The system of juridical textual genres is composed of investigative, petitional, opinative and deciding subsystems, to which the Acórdão belongs to. They are originated in the juridical discursive community and correspond to the four linguistics moments of concretization of Law There are three dimensions to the analysis model applicable to Acórdão texts, which can be viewed in a triangle form: 1st the indicative of the linguistic levels (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic); 2nd the outward expression of the local and global ambit of meaningful extent (the posed and the understood); 3rd the one that points at the research prisms (form, content, ideological substrate). Through the application of the interpretative model mentioned above the results show that the Acórdão genre has a peculiar superstructure in which narration and argumentation prevail, in a general sense, even though the dominant functional type is the injunctive. The results also show that in each Acórdão text the macrostructure points at a pronounced decision about the declaration or constitution of pleaded rights by both parties. Moreover, the texts analyzed seem to have an illocutionary force characterized by maximum imperativity which does not admit disobedience by the co-enunciator. Nevertheless, they seem to express devaluation of the enunciator s face, besides refraining from partially achieving the effects of meaning related to enunciative subjectivity and intended by the enunciator, as well as resulting from the ideological substrate derived from ideologies related to judiciary institution in which the enunciator aims to represent. So, even though they are effective to the textuality principles, the acórdão texts, in their current composition, may put at risk the way in which the judiciary wishes to be known in the popular imaginary, such as, in the ideological conditions of fair arbitrator, axiologicaly impartial and neutral in relation to litigants in judiciary process, which may contribute to unstable the reality present in Brazil<br>O conhecimento dos atributos dos textos decisórios do gênero acórdão e, pois, inclusive de características do Judiciário, sobretudo daquelas ligadas à subjetividade enunciativa, pressupõe a escolha do corpus a ser investigado, a configuração do sistema de gêneros textuais em que o objeto do estudo se insere e o estabelecimento do modelo de análise lingüística a ser aplicado. O corpus, pesquisado pelo emprego do método hipotético-dedutivo, é composto por seis textos informadores de decisão coletiva definitiva, emanados aos pares do Supremo Tribunal Federal, do Superior Tribunal de Justiça e do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo, devendo-se a escolha do gênero acórdão para investigação ao multiculturalismo que nele é expressa. O sistema de gêneros textuais jurídicos contém os subsistemas investigativo, peticional, opinativo e decisório ao qual pertence o acórdão. Estes se originam da comunidade discursiva jurídica e correspondem aos quatro momentos lingüísticos de concretização do Direito. O modelo de análise aplicável aos textos de acórdão possui três dimensões, todas elas triangulares: 1ª) a indicativa dos níveis lingüísticos (sintático, semântico, pragmático); 2ª) a exteriorizadora dos âmbitos local e global de alcance significativo, bem como do explícito e implícito co-textual e contextual; 3ª) a que aponta os ângulos de pesquisa (forma de expressão, conteúdo, substrato ideológico). Pela aplicação do mencionado modelo interpretativo verifica-se que o gênero acórdão detém superestrutura peculiar em que preponderam quantitativamente a narração e a argumentação em sentido amplo, ainda que o tipo funcionalmente dominante seja o injuntivo. Igualmente, constata-se que em cada texto de acórdão a macroestrutura aponta a decisão proferida sobre a declaração ou constituição de direitos pleiteados pelas partes. Mais: os textos em destaque possuem força ilocutória caracterizada por máxima imperatividade que não admite desobediência por parte do enunciatário. Todavia, eles exprimem desconsideração ao valor deste, bem como deixam de alcançar, parcialmente, os efeitos de sentido vinculados à subjetividade enunciativa e intentados pelo enunciador, além de ensejados por substrato ideológico derivado de rol de ideologias ligadas à instituição judiciária que o locutor pretende representar. Assim, apesar de eficientes no tocante aos princípios de textualidade, os textos de acórdão, em sua redação atual, colocam em risco a maneira pela qual o Judiciário deseja constar do imaginário popular, a saber, nas condições ideológicas de árbitro justo, imparcial e neutro axiologicamente em relação aos litigantes em processo judicial, o que poderá vir a contribuir para desestabilizar a atual realidade vigente no Brasil

The Priest-Klein model predicts that a decline in the plaintiff win rate might be explained by a change in stake asymmetry that favors the plaintiff; that is, the stakes for defendants increase. This lowers the plaintiff win rate because defendants increasingly look to settle cases they are less likely to win, leading them to only go to trial with cases they have a comparably higher probability of winning. We theorize a shift like this might have occurred between 1985 and 1995, as Lahav and Siegelman (2017) recently discovered that the plaintiff win rate fell from almost 70% in 1985 to just over 30% in 1995. Although they found that changing judicial caseloads and other factors represented a notable portion of the decline, they were unable to identify what drove the remaining 40%. We hypothesize that this unexplained decline was caused by increasing defendant stakes and examine two potential drivers of increasing stake asymmetry: changing judicial ideology and a rise in the number of Multi-District Litigation (MDL) cases, a type of case with higher defendant stakes. We find evidence consistent with the Priest-Klein model for MDL cases as these cases experienced lower adjudication rates, lower plaintiff win rates, and higher settlement rates. Additionally, we found that judicial ideology was substantially more important for MDL cases, suggesting that judges might make use of their greater influence in these cases to guide outcomes. Yet, while both MDL case status and judicial ideology were statistically significant predictors of plaintiff win rates, we found that neither explains a substantial portion of the decline. Thus, a large proportion of the decline found by Lahav and Siegelman remains a mystery.

O tema deste estudo é a relação entre o Direito Coletivo do Trabalho e o sindicalismo. Caracterizamos a institucionalidade sindical brasileira, seguindo os estudos de Armando Boito Jr., como estrutura sindical de Estado: um sistema de controle do movimento sindical dos trabalhadores pelo Estado capitalista. Rediscutimos as determinações de classe da ideologia que ela encerra: o fetiche do Estado protetor e a ordenação capitalista pelo Estado. Para a discussão do Direito Coletivo atual, parte-se da constatação de que a Constituição de 1988 passou o controle do sindicalismo das mãos do Poder Executivo para o Judiciário. Diante disso, defendemos a tese de que se manteve a função geral de desorganização, moderação e controle do movimento dos trabalhadores. Na dimensão organizativa, a partir de estudos de dois casos concretos, apontamos que a gestão judiciária da estrutura interveio de modo particular, mas para fixar os limites do enquadramento oficial. Na negociação coletiva, entendemos que houve a modificação da função do Poder Normativo, que deixou de garantir reajustes salariais e direitos mínimos, ao passo que manteve seu caráter repressivo e limitador. E quanto ao direito de greve, demonstramos a continuidade da linha jurisprudencial anterior à novidade normativa trazida pela CF/88 na matéria. Nesse percurso, defendemos a coerência entre a crítica do direito em geral e a crítica da estrutura sindical de Estado em particular.<br>The subject of this research is the relations that exist between the Labor Law System and the workers movement. We treat the Brazilian corporatist labor law system as a system of controlling unions by the capitalist state. The text also discusses the class determinations of the ideology that this system embodies and reproduces: the fetish of a protective State and the ordination of capitalism by the State. The current labor law regime was redesign by the Constitution of 1988. Our thesis start from this point: the charge of the state´s controlling of the unionism was transferred from the Executive to the Judicial Power. However, we claim that the general role of the collective labor system has been preserved: role of disorganization, moderation and controlling the worker´s unionism. First, at the organization matter, we part from two cases which show that judicial management has been successfully on intervening into unionism to fix it in the fragmented official framework. Second, at the collective bargaining sphere, we point that it has been a change on the role of the obligatory judicial arbitration of collective conflicts. It doesn´t function anymore as a way of guaranteeing minimum wages corrections annually, although it has continued to be an instrument to repress strikes and so to impose medium wages increases. At least, about unions power to strike, we say that judicial management of the collective labor system has not take advantage of the legal innovations generated by the redemocratization process, as to say, it kept its traditional jurisprudence. Along this way we advocate the coherence between the struggle for the union freedom and the Marxist´s critique of the law itself.

Submitted by Eliana Barboza (eliana.silva1@mackenzie.br) on 2017-05-02T13:41:39Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Bruno Aguiar Santos.pdf: 1144055 bytes, checksum: 813cca2ee28c5ac7f75f0c70c17900d5 (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5)<br>Approved for entry into archive by Paola Damato (repositorio@mackenzie.br) on 2017-05-10T14:23:02Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 Bruno Aguiar Santos.pdf: 1144055 bytes, checksum: 813cca2ee28c5ac7f75f0c70c17900d5 (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5)<br>Made available in DSpace on 2017-05-10T14:23:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Bruno Aguiar Santos.pdf: 1144055 bytes, checksum: 813cca2ee28c5ac7f75f0c70c17900d5 (MD5) license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-03-08<br>Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior<br>The present work intends to discuss the philosophical and theoretical bases of constitutionalism using a hermeneutic-phenomenological method. Making use of it, intends to verify if neoconstitutionalism in fact is located on grounds of postpositivism, and if doesn’t, if it is responsible for boosting judicial activism. To do so, passes by the definition of judicial positivism in the broad sense of the term, the meaning of the bouche de la loi judge, normative positivism, inclusive and exclusive theories and nazist law. Sets the adopted senses of judicialization of politics and judicial activism in a necessary definition to verify two tracks: a dystopic future or a utopic future. Finally, check a possible contribution of the Crítica Hermenêutica do Direito for the present days of constitutionalism.<br>A presente dissertação se propõe a discutir as bases filosóficas e teóricas do constitucionalismo por meio de um método fenomenológico-hermenêutico. Com isso, busca verificar se o neoconstitucionalismo de fato se encontra em uma quadra paradigmática de pós-positivismo e, não se encontrando, se é responsável pela ebulição de posturas ativistas. Para tanto, perpassa a definição do positivismo jurídico em sentido amplo, o significado do juiz boca-da-lei, o positivismo normativista, as posturas inclusivistas e exclusivistas e o direito do nazismo. Estabelece o conceito adotado de judicialização da política e do ativismo judicial em uma premente definição para, enfim, verificar uma bifurcação: um futuro distópico ou um futuro utópico. Por fim, verifica uma possível contribuição da Crítica Hermenêutica do Direito para o momento que o constitucionalismo se encontra.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-01T23:39:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tese_9101_RIBEIRO, J. C. M. 2015.pdf: 974014 bytes, checksum: 44865db61db9b1e4401c6b26fda4f866 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-07-08<br>O presente trabalho investiga as origens históricas das tradições jurídicas common law e civillaw, com o objetivo de identificar os traços peculiares da tradição híbrida que conforma o sistema jurídico brasileiro, apontando as deficiências democráticas decorrentes da ausência de uma cultura de precedentes judiciais e alertando para a necessidade de readequação da postura do Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Com o enfoque direcionado ao direito infraconstitucional brasileiro, especificamente em relação ao Superior Tribunal de Justiça, buscou-se demonstrar que na transição do Estado Legislativo para o Estado Constitucional a inserção da segurança jurídica como fundamento da república exige a reconstrução da finalidade do processo civil como meio para a tutela de direitos, o que implica tanto a concessão de decisões justas, quanto a prolação de precedentes para conferir unidade, previsibilidade e estabilidade ao direito. Não obstante no marco do Estado Democrático Constitucional a unidade do direito corresponda a um dos discursos necessários para conferir legitimidade à atuação jurisdicional, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça permanece atuando como Corte Superior, de controle de decisões judiciais incorretas e de uniformidade da jurisprudência, o que ocasiona a grave patologia denominada jurisprudência lotérica, consistente na adoção de decisões completamente distintas para casos estritamente semelhantes. Palavras-chave: Common law; Teoria dos Precedentes Judiciais; Civil law; Ideologia liberal; Corte Suprema; Superior Tribunal de Justiça; Processo Civil.

As políticas públicas decorrem de escolhas a respeito de fins, meios e prioridades da ação estatal. O judiciário vem desempenhando papel cada vez mais destacado tanto no desenho como na implementação de políticas públicas. Sua participação ocorre, sobretudo, quando do controle judicial de atos administrativos e legislativos. Nessa oportunidade, fins e meios que haviam sido escolhidos pelos demais Poderes sujeitam-se à revisão judicial, dada a inafastável subordinação dessas escolhas ao ordenamento jurídico. Esse fenômeno, comumente denominado judicialização da política, introduz outro nível de escolha, além daquelas a respeito dos fins (o que?) e dos meios (como?): a escolha a respeito de quem deve fazer essas escolhas (quem?). Subjacente ao debate sobre os limites da revisão judicial das políticas públicas está, consciente ou inconscientemente, a busca por saber qual a instituição mais vocacionada a decidir sobres as variáveis fins e meios da forma mais aderente ao interesse público. O tema é enfrentado por uma vasta literatura, compilada segundo o tipo de abordagem: dogmática/deontológica, institucional/consequencialista, teoria política e crítica da capacidade institucional. O presente trabalho pretende contribuir para o debate introduzindo duas críticas. A primeira, relativa à tradicional abordagem dogmática/consequencialista, volta-se contra a crença disseminada nas escolas de direito e tribunais de que os fins e meios das políticas públicas estão previamente dados no ordenamento jurídico, bastando uma mais ou menos sofisticada técnica de interpretação para serem revelados. Sem dúvida, o discurso dogmático-jurídico, por sua racionalidade própria, contribui (de forma não exclusiva) para a construção coletiva do sentido da ação e dos fins do Estado. Todavia, a depender de qual instituição for encarregada de fazer, na prática, a escolha a respeito dos fins, meios e prioridades da ação estatal, haverá diferentes resultados. Em uma frase, a escolha de quem escolhe pode ser a escolha do que se escolhe. Por essa razão, ao lado do debate a respeito dos fins da ação estatal, deve o juiz ou o formulador de política pública levar em consideração também a análise institucional. Essa formulação não deixa de ser o objeto central dos trabalhos recolhidos sob a designação crítica da capacidade institucional, para os quais determinadas características institucionais do judiciário limitam sua capacidade de lidar com questões coletivas. Entretanto, os trabalhos dessa abordagem centram o foco apenas e tão somente nas falhas institucionais do processo adjudicatório, sem compará-las com as falhas e limitações das demais instituições, em especial o processo político (executivo e legislativo) e o processo de trocas (mercado). Contra essa abordagem monoinstitucional é que se volta a segunda crítica: sendo todas instituições imperfeitas, é imprescindível uma análise institucional comparada, que pondere as forças e fraquezas relativas de cada uma. A serviço do argumento, é apresentada a teoria da análise institucional comparada, de Neil K. Komesar (1994), e a metodologia de análise que propõe para a tarefa: o modelo centrado na participação.<br>This work aims at a contribution to the debate on the judicialization of politics, focusing on two critics to the current debate in the law field, in Brazil: (i) the traditional dogmatic/consequentialist approach to the issues concerned; and (ii) the institutional capacity critiques prevalent monoinstitutional analysis. Public policies results from decisions considering priorities and objectives of state action, as well as the available tools. The judiciary has increasingly been requested to play a prominent role in both the design and the implementation of public policies, especially for revising decisions taken by the Executive and the Legislative powers. As a result, the Judiciary has become the last instance to evaluate the appropriateness of the Executives and Legislatives decisions, a phenomenon named the judicialization of politics. The traditional debate on public policies focuses on the questions about the goals (what?) and the tools (how?) elected by the policy-maker. The phenomenon of the judicialization of politics introduces a new instance of decisions to the policy arena, claiming then for a new level of analysis in the law and public policy debate: who might decide? The proposal is favor the search for the institution best equipped to decide on the objectives and tools as aligned to the public interest. I have compiled the current debate on those topics in four categories, according to their approach: (i) dogmatic/deontological; (ii) institutional/consequentialist; (iii) political theory; and (iv) institutional capacity critique. The first critic I address in this work is to the traditional dogmatic/consequentialist approach. Widely spread in law schools and courts, such approach proclaims that the legal system itself has already defined all the goals and tools for public policies; therefore, to the judicial review remains the role of interpreting the law solely. This approach ignores that depending on who decides there may be different results. Alongside the debate about the purposes of state action either the judge or the policy-maker might take into account the institutional capacity. The institutional capacity critique approach contributes then with the assertion that institutional characteristics of the judicial system may limit its ability to deal with communitarian issues. My reading is that this institutional capacity analysis is however limited, as it centers exclusively in the institutional failures of the adjudicatory process. Such monoinstitucional analysis disregards the flaws and limitations of other institutions, particularly those comprehending the political process (executive and legislative) and the market. My critic to the institutional analysis critique is that any institution is imperfect; therefore it is essential to consider the strengths and weaknesses of each whenever a decision about who has to decide is to be taken. An important contribution in this comparative analysis, assumed by this work, is that of Neil K. Komesar (1994) on the centered participation model.

Ce travail fait une analyse discursive d’une décision de justice sur la démarcation de la Réserve Indienne Raposa Serra do Sol par La Cour Fédérale Suprême et sur les bruits sociaux produits a propos de cela. Il s’agit surtout des relations entre le Droit et le Langage par le biais de l’idéologie qui autorise certains sens possibles pás d’autres. Dans la première partie du travail appelée « Contextualisation de l’objet », on cherche réfléchir sur des questions qui traversent l’objet de l’analyse. On apporte l’histoire de la délimitation de la réserve, l’indien comme catégorie à l’examen, concepts liés à la terre (la possession, la propriété, l’usufruit, le territoire) et, à la fin, on construit une interface avec le Droit. Dans ce travail, à la deuxième partie, on réfléchit sur l’objet d’analyse à partir de trois piliers de l’Analyse du Discours de perspective française : la mémoire discursive, l’idéologie et l’interprétation comme source de sens. Tout au long du travail théorie et analyse sont fabriquées de façon continue et ininterrompue, afin de rendre le travail plus productif pour l’Analyse du Discours, et non pas une méthode d’analyse qui soit tout simplement l’application de cette théorie sur un objet déterminé. À la fin, cette maîtrise conclut que, dans un contexte d’interprétation judiciaire, la présence non équivoque de l’idéologie, matérialisée dans le discours, est traversée par la mémoire discursive qui determine les sens possibles. Dans le passage du lieu empirique au lieu discursif, le sujetministre- juge s’inscrit dans un lieu discursif déterminé par les rapports de pouvoir, étant donné que, à partir de discussions y produites, ce que ce sujet décide finit par réglementer toute la société.<br>O presente trabalho faz uma análise discursiva de uma decisão judicial acerca da delimitação da Reserva Indígena Raposa Serra do Sol, pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal, e os ruídos sociais produzidos a esse respeito. Trata principalmente das relações entre Direito e Linguagem pelo viés da ideologia, que autoriza que determinados sentidos sejam possíveis e outros não. Na primeira parte do trabalho denominada “Contextualização do Objeto”, procuramos refletir sobre questões que permeiam o objeto de análise. Trazemos um histórico a respeito da delimitação da reserva, o índio enquanto categoria a ser analisado, conceitos relativos à terra (posse, propriedade, usufruto, território) e por fim, construímos uma interface com o Direito. Nesse trabalho, em sua segunda parte, refletimos sobre o objeto de análise a partir de três pilares da Análise do Discurso de linha francesa: a memória discursiva, a ideologia e a interpretação com fonte de sentidos. Ao longo do trabalho teoria e análise são forjados de forma contínua e ininterrupta de forma a tornar o trabalho mais produtivo para a Análise do Discurso, e não uma forma de análise que seja simplesmente a aplicação dessa teoria sobre um determinado objeto. Ao final, essa dissertação conclui que, num contexto de interpretação judicial, a inequívoca presença da ideologia, materializada no discurso, é atravessada pela memória discursiva, que possibilita os sentidos possíveis. Na passagem do lugar empírico para o lugar discursivo, o sujeito-ministro-julgador inscreve-se num determinado lugar discursivo, o qual está determinado pelas relações de poder, estando configurado que, acima de quaisquer discussões, o que esse sujeito decide passa a regular toda a sociedade.

In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philisophy in the School of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand.<br>This thesis develops a conceptual framework which represents a systematic, integrated approach to the constitutionalisation of the common law of contract. Although it is beyond doubt that the Bill of Rights must apply horizontally to contract law, there is still considerable debate about the manner in which the system of contract law should be constitutionalised. The thesis begins with an analysis of the respective roles of ss 8 and 39 of the Constitution and finds that they call for the constitutional development to take place within the common law framework, though with constitutional adjustments as required. Whilst the entire body of contract law must be constitutionalised incrementally over time (within the common law tradition), constitutional justice must be done simultaneously in every contract case too. The thesis interrogates the substance, form and attending legal mechanics of operation of contractual autonomy; the idea being that a constitutionalisation of contractual autonomy would in effect constitutionalise or, at the very least, set the stage for the constitutionalisation of contract law in its entirety. The thesis proceeds to unpack the classical liberal underpinnings of contractual autonomy and to tease out its internal (content) and external (reach) dimensions. It highlights contractual autonomy’s preference for an atomistic, independent conception of the contracting self as bolstered by strongly individualist values, and explains that this is out of step with the constitutional vision of a more contextual, interdependent, conception of the self as grounded in collectivist values. Rather, a fluid triage comprising the foundational constitutional values of freedom, dignity and equality, which is cognisant also of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, must now form the basis of contractual autonomy. Moving to the legal methodology employed in the common law of contract, the thesis shows how the extant contract law machine ensconces the classical liberal conception of freedom of contract and thereby mostly frustrates bona fide efforts to constitutionalise the contract law. It thus argues that the legal methodology must be adjusted so that it dovetails likewise with the foundational constitutional triage’s basis of contractual autonomy. Finally, the thesis considers the practical implications of its argument by applying the triage in a number of concrete contexts. Focusing on the economic right to freedom of trade, occupation and profession, the civil-political right to freedom of religion, belief and opinion and the socio-economic right of access to health care services, it shows how a proper (substantive and methodological) invocation of the triage in relation to the internal and external dimensions of contractual autonomy can resolve much of the uncertainty surrounding the question of how precisely to approach the process of constitutionalising contract law.

Despite its emergence as a key player in igniting policy change, very little work has been done to understand the Supreme Court’s agenda in terms of policy content. Scholars have tended to describe the Court mostly in terms of the direction (liberal/conservative) of justices’ decisions and the significance of particular cases. As a result, I ask if the Supreme Court allocates a disproportionate share of its docket to particular policy areas and if over attention to issue areas can be explained in terms of ideological shifts on the Court. This paper utilizes a new dataset, which includes a sample of 4591 certiorari denied cases and all 7014 cases granted certiorari from 1948 to 1990. Each case is coded for policy content according to the Policy Agendas Project coding scheme. By comparing the policy content of certiorari granted and certiorari denied cases over time, I show that judicial attention to policy areas waxes and wanes and court eras can be differentiated according to which issues occupied a disproportionate share of the Court’s attention. Additionally, I demonstrate that disproportionate attention to a subset of issue areas varies with changes in the ideological makeup of the Court.<br>text

In the presented thesis the author analyses the possible influence of judges' ideolog-ical beliefs on the Czech Constitutional court decision making. The thesis is divided into two parts, theoretical and analytical one. The first part emphasizes the need to distin-guish between the fact that courts' decisions have political consequences and the suspi-cion that those decisions are made in a political way. The theoretical part thus focuses on the discussions on the judicialization of politics, constitutional interpretation, judicial legitimacy and the attitudinal model of judicial decision making. Since the judge can no longer be seen only as "the mouth that pronounces the words of the law", other factors than the text of law (or the Constitution) that determine their decisions should be taken into account. Political beliefs could be one of such factors. Nevertheless, the author ar-gues, that judges lack democratic legitimacy for making purely political decisions and so it is important that they suppress the conscious or subconscious tendency to decide the constitutional cases according to their ideological beliefs. It is thus useful to test the sceptical hypothesis, that what judges do is actually pure politics. It is argued that the analysis of the decision making can be enriched by employing the...

Plusieurs indices permettent de croire que le premier ministre Harper a pour projet de faire du Parti conservateur le parti politique dominant au Canada. À cette fin, il doit transformer l’organisation sociale et politique du pays de façon à le rendre plus conservateur. L’objectif du présent mémoire est de préciser les fondements idéologiques du projet de réforme de l’État canadien du premier ministre en m’appuyant sur les écrits des membres de l’École de Calgary. Je fais l’hypothèse que les politiques publiques mises en place par Harper sont inspirées des convictions des membres de cette école de pensée, dont il est un proche. Dans le premier chapitre, je détermine la signification du concept d’idéologie et établis la pertinence de l’analyse des idéologies pour expliquer les décisions politiques. Je définis ensuite les principaux types de conservatisme, afin de déterminer lequel inspire les membres de l’École de Calgary et le Parti conservateur. Dans le second chapitre, je dresse un portrait de la pensée de l’École de Calgary relativement à quatre thèmes, soit ceux du développement économique et social, du pouvoir judiciaire, de la politique étrangère et de l’identité nationale. Enfin, dans le troisième chapitre, je recense les décisions prises par le gouvernement Harper en relation avec ces quatre mêmes thèmes et vérifie leur concordance avec les idées portées par l’École de Calgary.<br>Several signs suggest that Prime minister Stephen Harper is seeking to make the Conservative Party the new dominant political party in Canada. For this purpose, he has to transform the social and political organization of the country to make it more conservative and move the ideological preferences of the majority to the right. The objective of this thesis is to explain the ideological foundations of the reform strategy adopted by Harper in light of the writings of the members of the Calgary School. Because the Prime minister is close to the members of this school of thought, my hypothesis is that the public policies he implements are inspired by their convictions. Through a brief review of the literature, I clarify, in the first chapter, the meaning of the concept of ideology and establish the relevance of studying ideologies to explain political decisions. Then, I define the main types of conservatism to determine which one inspires the Calgary School and the Conservative Party. In the second chapter, I draw a portrait of the ideas promoted by the members of the Calgary School, on issues of social and economic development, on the role of the judiciary, on foreign relations and on national identity. Finally, in the third chapter, I identify the decisions taken by the Harper government in relation to these four themes since it came to power and I verify their consistency with the ideas promoted by the Calgary School.