Repercussão geral e Supremo Tribunal Federal: deficiências da modelagem atual e propostas para o aprimoramento do instituto

A presente dissertação tem como objetivo central fomentar os debates em torno da repercussão geral, mais especificamente, acerca do desenvolvimento de propostas que possam ser implementadas pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal para aprimorar o filtro recursal criado pela Emenda Constitucional n 45/04. A partir de uma análise descritiva da jurisprudência do STF, procurou-se traçar um panorama sobre a forma como tribunal vem lidando com a repercussão geral e, em seguida, identificar alguns problemas que a têm impedido de alcançar suas finalidades principais, que são racionalizar os trabalhos da corte e reduzir o número de processos que chegam anualmente à última instância do Poder Judiciário brasileiro. Concluído o diagnóstico inicial, as atenções se voltaram para a elaboração de propostas que pudessem equacionar as barreiras encontradas, tudo com o propósito de alimentar os debates em torno do que pode ser feito pelo Supremo para superá-las ou, ao menos, reduzir seus efeitos sobre os jurisdicionados.

Getting Constitutional Theory into Proportion: A Matter of Interpretation?

Gibbs, N., Getting Constitutional Theory into Proportion: A Matter of Interpretation?, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 27 (1), 175-191. RAE2008

Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-sharing

Consociations are power-sharing arrangements, increasingly used to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts. Current examples include Belgium, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Burundi, and Iraq. Despite their growing popularity, they have begun to be challenged before human rights courts as being incompatible with human rights norms, particularly equality and non-discrimination.

Courts and Consociations examines the use of power-sharing agreements, their legitimacy, and their compatibility with human rights law. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements.

In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and then in Sejdic and Finci v Bosnia regarding the constitution established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court's decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in Belgium. This book accounts for this change and assess its implications. The problematic aspects of the current state of law are demonstrated. Future negotiators in places riven by potential or actual bloody ethnic conflicts may now have less flexibility in reaching a workable settlement, which may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that negotiators will consider excluding regional and international courts from reviewing these political settlements.

Courts and Consociations:How human rights courts may destabilize power-sharing settlements

We consider the use of consociational arrangements to manage ethno-nationalist, ethno-linguistic, and ethno-religious conflicts, and their compatibility with non-discrimination and equality norms. Key questions include to what extent, if any, consociations conflict with the dictates of global justice and the liberal individualist preferences of international human rights institutions, and to what extent consociational power-sharing may be justified to preserve peace and the integrity of political settlements. In three critical cases, the European Court of Human Rights has considered equality challenges to important consociational practices, twice in Belgium and, most recently, in Sejdic and Finci, concerning the constitutional arrangements established for Bosnia Herzegovina under the Dayton Agreement. The Court’s recent decision in Sejdic and Finci has significantly altered the approach it previously took to judicial review of consociational arrangements in the Belgian cases. We seek to account for this change and assess its implications. We identify problematic aspects of the judgment and conclude that, although the Court’s decision indicates one possible trajectory of human rights courts’ reactions to consociations, this would be an unfortunate development because it leaves future negotiators in places riven by potential or manifest bloody ethnic conflicts with considerably less flexibility in reaching a settlement. That in turn may unintentionally contribute to sustaining such conflicts and make it more likely that advisors to negotiators will advise them to exclude regional and international courts from having standing in the management of political settlements.

The current state of abortion law and practice in Northern Ireland

This paper reviews current abortion law and practice in Northern Ireland (NI). It explores the origins of NI's abortion law and its complexity in relation to current practice. it reviews issues relating to women seeking terminations in NI and Great Britain and reviews attempts by the Family Planning Association NI to require the Department of Health and Social Services and Public Safety NI to provide guidance for health professionals engaged in this practice. The paper also discusses some of the issues surrounding abortion in NI and seeks to explain why this subject is causing controversy and debate, especially following a judicial review in February and Marie Stopes opening a termination service in Belfast.

Administrative Justice in the United Kingdom

The article examines the concept of administrative justice and shows how this term does not lend itself to a singular definition, but it is generally associated with a more holistic approach to citizen redress against government in which judicial review is only one mechanism among many others. After identifying some of the primary mechanisms within the system of administrative justice (Consultation, Ombudsman, Tribunals) and showing how they interact with one another, the article outlines the main challenges that this system faces in an era of austerity. Indeed, the reduction of government spending on the mechanisms which facilitate administrative justice has the potential to hollow out the values that infuse administrative justice as a whole.

Failure to produce an anti-poverty strategy: The Committee on the Administration’s Application [2015] NIQB 59, June 30, 2015

This is a note on the Northern Ireland High Court decision of 30 June 2015 that the Northern Ireland Executive had acted unlawfully in failing to fulfil its statutory duty to adopt a strategy setting out proposals for tackling poverty, social exclusion and patterns of deprivation based on objective need.

Sentido evolutivo do controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil

Consabido que para uma sociedade organizada se desenvolver política e juridicamente, indispensável se faz a existência de um documento formal, dotado de observância obrigatória, capaz de definir as competências públicas e delimitar os poderes do Estado, resguardando os direitos fundamentais de eventuais abusos dos entes políticos. Este documento é a Constituição, que, em todos os momentos da história, sempre se fez presente nos Estados, mas, inicialmente, não de forma escrita, o que fez com que surgisse, então, o constitucionalismo, movimento que defendia a necessidade de elaboração de constituições escritas, munidas de normatividade e supremacia em relação às demais espécies normativas, que visassem organizar a separação dos poderes estatais e declarar os direitos e as liberdades individuais. Porém, de nada adiantaria a edição de uma Lei Maior sem que houvesse mecanismos de defesa, no intuito de afastar qualquer ameaça à segurança jurídica e à estabilidade social, por conta de alguma lei ou ato normativo contrário aos preceitos estabelecidos na Constituição. O controle de constitucionalidade, pilar do Estado de Direito, consiste em verificar a compatibilidade entre uma lei ou qualquer ato normativo infraconstitucional e a Lei Excelsa e, em havendo contraste, a lei ou o ato viciado deverá ser expurgado do ordenamento jurídico, para que a unidade constitucional seja restabelecida. No Brasil, o controle de constitucionalidade foi instituído sob forte influência do modelo norte-americano e obteve diversos tratamentos ao longo das constituições brasileiras, porém, o sistema de fiscalização de constitucionalidade teve seu ápice com o advento da atual Constituição Federal, promulgada em 05.10.88, com a criação de instrumentos processuais inovadores destinados à verificação da constitucionalidade das leis e atos normativos. Além disso, a Carta da República de 1988, ao contrário das anteriores, fortaleceu a figura do Poder Judiciário no contexto político, conferindo, assim, maior autonomia aos magistrados na solução de casos de grande repercussão nacional, redundando em um protagonismo judicial atual. Nesse contexto, o Supremo Tribunal Federal, órgão de cúpula do Judiciário nacional e guardião da Constituição, tem se destacado no cenário nacional, em especial na defesa dos direitos e garantias fundamentais insculpidos na Lei Fundamental, fazendo-se necessária, desta forma, uma análise na jurisprudência da Corte, no sentido de verificar se, de fato, tem havido evolução no controle de constitucionalidade no Brasil ao longo dos últimos anos e, em caso afirmativo, em que circunstâncias isso tem se dado.

Canada’s Unfathomable Unwritten Constitutional Principles

Since the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, Canadians courts have become bolder in the law-making entreprise, and have recently resorted to unwritten constitutional principles in an unprecedented fashion. In 1997, in Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, the Supreme Court of Canada found constitutional justification for the independence of provincially appointed judges in the underlying, unwritten principles of the Canadian Constitution. In 1998, in Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Court went even further in articulating those principles, and held that they have a substantive content which imposes significant limitations on government action. The author considers what the courts' recourse to unwritten principles means for the administrative process. More specifically, he looks at two important areas of uncertainty relating to those principles: their ambiguous normative force and their interrelatedness. He goes on to question the legitimacy of judicial review based on unwritten constitutional principles, and to critize the courts'recourse to such principles in decisions applying the principle of judicial independence to the issue of the remuneration of judges.

Juger les lois la légitimité démocratique et la fonction du contrôle judiciaire de constitutionnalité

"Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de doctorat en droit (LL.D.)"

De la question de la légitimité du projet de traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe à celle de la légitimité des juges

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (L.L.M.)"

La puissance des faits qui sont tus : la Cour suprême du Canada et l'expulsion vers la torture

Dans Suresh c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (2002), la Cour suprême du Canada en vient à la conclusion que les principes de justice fondamentale prévus à l'm1icle 7 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés autorisent, dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, l'expulsion d'une personne vers la torture. La Cour nous indique que l'identification des principes de justice fondamentale doit se fonder sur une démarche contextuelle et sur un consensus dans la société canadienne. Le fondement factuel dans le raisonnement de la Cour est pourtant inexistant. Elle ne traite ni du contexte en matière d'immigration, ni du contexte en matière de sécurité nationale entourant cette décision. La Cour prescrit un haut degré de retenue pour le contrôle judiciaire de la décision du Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration d'expulser une personne vers la torture. Cette retenue explique en partie le traitement déficient des faits. La Cour conclut qu'il y aurait un consensus dans la société canadienne sur le principe de justice fondamentale qui autorise l'expulsion d'une personne vers la torture sans fournir la preuve de ce fait social. L'absence de traitement des faits et de la preuve affecte la légitimité – la force persuasive - de la décision de la Cour suprême dans Suresh.