Problemas com o governo dos juízes sobre a legitimidade democrática do judicial review

Inclui notas explicativas, bibliográficas e bibliografia

Judicial review of labor arbitration /

Reprint from Buffalo law review.

New Governance and the EU Courts : The Experimentalist Architecture of Judicial Decision-Making

The dissertation examines the role of the EU courts in new governance. New governance has raised unprecedented interest in the EU in recent years. This is manifested in a plethora of instruments and actors at various levels that challenge more traditional forms of command-and-control regulation. New governance and political experimentation more generally is thought to sap the ability of the EU judiciary to monitor and review these experiments. The exclusion of the courts is then seen to add to the legitimacy problem of new governance. The starting point of this dissertation is the observation that the marginalised role of the courts is based on theoretical and empirical assumptions which invite scrutiny. The theoretical framework of the dissertation is deliberative democracy and democratic experimentalism. The analysis of deliberative democracy is sustained by an attempt to apply theoretical concepts to three distinctive examples of governance in the EU. These are the EU Sustainable Development Strategy, the European Chemicals Agency, and the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. The case studies show numerous disincentives and barriers to judicial review. Among these are questions of the role of courts in shaping governance frameworks, the reviewability of science-based measures, the standing of individuals before the courts, and the justiciability of soft law. The dissertation analyses the conditions of judicial review in each governance environment and proposes improvements. From a more theoretical standpoint it could be said that each case study presents a governance regime which builds on legislation that lays out major (guide)lines but leaves details to be filled out at a later stage. Specification of detailed standards takes place through collaborative networks comprising members from national administrations, NGOs, and the Commission. Viewed this way, deliberative problem-solving is needed to bring people together to clarify, elaborate, and revise largely abstract and general norms in order to resolve concrete and specific problems and to make law applicable and enforceable. The dissertation draws attention to the potential of peer review included there and its profound consequences for judicial accountability structures. It is argued that without this kind of ongoing and dynamic peer review of accountability in governance frameworks, judicial review of new governance is difficult and in some cases impossible. This claim has implications for how we understand the concept of soft law, the role of the courts, participation rights, and the legitimacy of governance measures more generally. The experimentalist architecture of judicial decision-making relies upon a wide variety of actors to provide conditions for legitimate and efficient review.

A intervenção judicial no âmbito das políticas públicas orientadas à concretização dos direitos fundamentais

O presente estudo se propõe a desvelar o espaço legítimo de controle de políticas públicas destinadas à concretização de direitos fundamentais pelo Poder Judiciário. Para tanto, inicialmente é apresentada uma teoria das políticas públicas, que compreende a busca de um conceito para a categoria e a apresentação de suas características e elementos mais relevantes. O estudo não prescinde da análise da teoria dos direitos fundamentais, em especial das questões atinentes à eficácia dos direitos ditos prestacionais, e também da chamada análise institucional, um campo de estudos recentemente reavivado nos Estados Unidos. Na segunda parte do trabalho, de natureza marcadamente propositiva, as políticas públicas são divididas segundo a sua natureza, e em seguida sugeridos diferentes níveis de controle jurídico. Para as políticas ligadas ao mínimo existencial, sustenta-se o controle por meio dos princípios da proibição da proteção insuficiente e vedação do retrocesso. Para as demais políticas públicas, o controle é analisado sob o prisma dos princípios da isonomia, eficiência e transparência. Após o estudo de questões incidentais, o trabalho segue para as modalidades de controle de políticas públicas, distinguindo-se entre o controle forte, em que a discricionariedade dos órgãos políticos é reduzida a zero, e o controle fraco, onde o Poder Judiciário apenas comprime o espaço de liberdade decisória.

"Judicial Activism in the ""Eye of the Beholder"" : the Israeli High Court of Justice and the Human Rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories"

Il est mondialement reconnu que les institutions judiciaires jouent un rôle central dans le processus de prise de décisions politiques, à la fois au niveau national et international. C’est d’ailleurs le cas à la Haute Cour de justice d’Israël. L’étendue de son succès (ou de son échec) dans la tentative de trouver une solution aux violations des droits humains dans les territoires occupés est un problème qui continue de faire l’objet de bien des débats et de recherches académiques. À cet égard, il a été suggéré que, malgré l’absence de constitution écrite et l’existence d’un état d’urgence prolongé en Israël, la Haute Cour de justice a réussi à adopter une approche « judiciairement active » quant à la protection et la promotion des droits de l’homme de manière générale, y compris ceux des Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés. Dans cette perspective, le débat sur le processus d’examen judiciaire de la Haute Cour de Justice tient pour acquise la notion qu’Israël est une démocratie. Ainsi, cet article cherche à examiner cette hypothèse. Premièrement, en adoptant la position que le processus de révision judiciaire est compatible avec la démocratie et la règle de loi. Deuxièmement, il examine l’approche « judiciairement active » de la Cour et soumet un bref aperçu du processus, des outils et des principes légaux que la Cour adopte pour examiner les actions des autorités israéliennes, y compris l’armée, et imposer une loi commune de protection des droits de la personne, donc ceux des Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés. L’article argumente également que le contrôle prolongé des territoires occupés par Israël a eu des conséquences significatives, car tout effort fourni par la Cour pour garantir le respect des droits humains de la population civile palestinienne doit se faire sans compromettre la sécurité du pouvoir israélien. La conclusion à laquelle on arrive ici dépend de la façon dont on qualifie ce contrôle: une occupation à long terme ou une annexion (ce qui n’est pas réglementaire par rapport à loi internationale), ce qui n’est pas sans conséquence sur le rôle que la Haute Cour de justice peut effectivement jouer pour faire respecter les droits de la personne dans les territoires occupés.

Judicial Creativity in Constitutional Interpretation

The focus of study in this thesis is on the necessity and extent of judicial creativity in interpreting provisions in certain crucial areas in the Constitution of India. Judicial innovation was essential to adapt the constitutional provisions to modern changed context. Creativity of the Court has been mainly in the creation and introduction of certain new concepts not found in any specific provision of the Constitution which, but were essential for its meaningful interpretation.Independence of the judiciary, basic structure and certain elements of social justice cherished as ideal by the makers of the Constitution are some such concepts infused into the Constitution by the judiciary. The second aspect of creativity lies in the attempt of the Court to construe provisions in the Constitution with a view to upholding and maintaining the concepts so infused into the Constitution. Introduction of those concepts into the Constitution was necessary and is justified. all important features of the Constitution like democratic form of government, federal structure, judicial review, independence of judiciary and rule of law were thus included in the doctrine to prevent their alteration by amendments.As a result of such a construction, the nature of those directive principles itself has changed. They ceased to be mere directives for state action but became mandate for it. If left to legislative or executive will for their implementation, the directives would have remained enforceable as ordinary right.To conclude, notwithstanding the errors committed by the Supreme Court in construing the provisions in the above areas, they stand testimony to its creative and innovative response in interpreting the Constitution. If this trend is continued, it will be possible to achieve through the judicial process, maintenance of independence of the judiciary, avoidance of destruction of the Constitution through the process of amendment and realisation of social justice envisaged in the directive principles. It can be hoped that the Court would maintain its energetic and vibrant mind and rise up to the occasions and extend the same to other areas in future.

Sistema de gestão de unidade judicial

A prestação jurisdicional eficiente e eficaz é uma exigência social e constitucional. Um círculo virtuoso pode ser instaurado pela cobrança social de melhoria dos serviços prestados pelo Poder Judiciário. A resposta a essa exigência é necessária, com a reformulação e revisão de conceitos, estruturas e cultura organizacional. A atuação nessa seara impacta a legitimação do Poder Judiciário, podendo elevá-la tanto mais satisfeitas as expectativas sociais. Os conceitos de gestão e sua implementação devem ser parte das atividades judiciais, desde a alta administração até a gestão da unidade judicial. Há necessidade, portanto, de um sistema de gestão que permeie todas as atividades desenvolvidas. O Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul desde 1995 adotou o Programa Gaúcho de Qualidade e Produtividade (PGQP), através do Plano de Gestão pela Qualidade no Poder Judiciário do Rio Grande do Sul (PGQJ). A recente formulação do Planejamento Estratégico trouxe novas perspectivas, objetivos e desafios. A concreção dos objetivos estratégicos traçados depende do alinhamento das unidades judiciais. Surge aí a importância de um sistema de gestão das unidades judiciais, com elementos e indicadores definidos, permitindo a visualização pela alta administração do andamento da instituição em busca dos objetivos estabelecidos. Alinhada à importância do tema, propõe-se a apresentação dos principais elementos formadores de um sistema de gestão de unidade judicial: direcionamento e alinhamento estratégico; planejamento da microgestão; estrutura organizacional; processos de trabalho; procedimentos operacionais padrão; rotinas cartorárias; gestão de pessoas; treinamento e liderança. O Sistema de Gerenciamento Matricial dos Serviços Judiciários (GMS- JUD), desenvolvido pelo Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul com a consultoria do Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento Gerencial (INDG), é apresentado como direcionador de acompanhamento do planejamento traçado pelas unidades judiciais, compondo o sistema de gestão proposto.

The European Court of Justice and process-oriented review. Research Paper in Law, 01/2012

Structuralism is a theory of U.S. constitutional adjudication according to which courts should seek to improve the decision-making process of the political branches of government so as to render it more democratic.1 In words of John Hart Ely, courts should exercise their judicial-review powers as a ‘representation-reinforcing’ mechanism.2 Structuralism advocates that courts must eliminate the elements of the political decision-making process that are at odds with the structure set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. The advantage of this approach, U.S. scholars posit, lies in the fact that it does not require courts to second-guess the policy decisions adopted by the political branches of government. Instead, they limit themselves to enforcing the constitutional structure within which those decisions must be adopted. Of course, this theory of constitutional adjudication, like all theories, has its shortcomings. For example, detractors of structuralism argue that it is difficult, if not impossible, to draw the dividing line between ‘substantive’ and ‘structural’ matters.3 In particular, they claim that, when identifying the ‘structure’ set out by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, courts necessarily base their determinations not on purely structural principles, but on a set of substantive values, evaluating concepts such as democracy, liberty and equality. 4 Without claiming that structuralism should be embraced by the ECJ as the leading theory of judicial review, the purpose of my contribution is to explore how recent case-law reveals that the ECJ has also striven to develop guiding principles which aim to improve the way in which the political institutions of the EU adopt their decisions. In those cases, the ECJ decided not to second-guess the appropriateness of the policy choices made by the EU legislator. Instead, it preferred to examine whether, in reaching an outcome, the EU political institutions had followed the procedural steps mandated by the authors of the Treaties. Stated simply, I argue that judicial deference in relation to ‘substantive outcomes’ has been counterbalanced by a strict ‘process review’. To that effect, I would like to discuss three recent rulings of the ECJ, delivered after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where an EU policy measure was challenged indirectly, i.e. via the preliminary reference procedure, namely Vodafone, Volker und Markus Schecke and Test-Achats.5 Whilst in the former case the ECJ ruled that the questions raised by the referring court disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the challenged act, in the latter cases the challenged provisions of an EU act were declared invalid.