LEGITIMIDAD DEMOCRÁTICA Y DIÁLOGO INTER-INSTITUCIONAL: ALGUNOS DESAFÍOS PARA LOS SISTEMAS DÉBILES DE CONTROL JUDICIAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25109/2525-328X.v.13.n.39.2014.3Resumo
Os sistemas fracos de controle judicial da lei, que não outorgan a palavra final sobre a interpretação dos direitos fundamentais aos órgãos juridiccionais, têm despertado interesse por sua capacidade de sortear as dificuldades que apresenta a “objeção democrática” ao controle judicial. Estes sistemas também têm sido valorados por sua suposta capacidade de fomentar um “diálogo inter-institucional” entre o legislativo e o judicial. Este artigo, porém, pretende oferecer algumas dúvidas importantes, primeiro, sobre a capacidade real de estes sistemas de neutralizar completamente a objeção democrática ao controle judicial, e em segundo lugar, sobre sua suposta capacidade para fomentar um “diálogo inter-institucional” significativo. Em consecuencia, se tenta argumentar que a objeção democrática ao controle judicial é mais persistente do que a primeira vista podera aparecer.Referências
ALLAN, J. Take a Heed Australia – A Statutory Bill of Rights and Its Inflationary Effect. In:<http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLRev/2001/7. html#fnB35>.
______. The Effect of a Statutory Bill of Rights Act Where Parliament is Sovereign: The Lesson from New Zealand. In: CAMPBELL, T., EWING, K. D. y TOMKINS, A. (eds.). Sceptical Essays on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford, 2001.
______. Turning Clark Kent into Superman: The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. 9 Otago Law Review 613, 2000.
BARENDT, E. An Introduction to Constitutional Law. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
BAYON, J. C. Bayón. Derechos, democracia y Constitución. In: CARBONELL, M. (ed.). Neoconstitucionalismo(s), Madrid: Trotta, 2003.
BAYON, J.C. Democracia y derechos: problemas de fundamentación del constitucionalismo. In: BETEGON, J. et al., Constitución y derechos fundamentales. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2004.
BICKEL, A. The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.
BORK, R. H. Slouching Towards Gommorah. Modern Liberalism and American Decline. New York: Regan, 1996.
CAMPBELL, T., GOLDSWORTHY, J. y STONE, A. (eds.). Protecting Human Rights. Instruments and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford, 2003.
DAHL, R.A. La democracia y sus críticos. Barcelona: Paidós, 1992.
FERRERES, V. Una defensa de la rigidez constitucional. In: NAVARRO, P.E. y REDONDO, M.C. (comps.). La relevancia del derecho. Ensayos de filosofía jurídica, moral y política. Barcelona: Gedisa, 2002.
FRIEDMAN, B. The History of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Four: Law’s Politics, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 971, 2000.
GARDBAUM, S. The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism, 49 American Journal of Comparative Law 707, 2001.
GOLDSWORTHY, J. Judicial Review, Legislative Override, and Democracy. 38 Wake Forest Law Review 451, 2003.
GOLDSWORTHY, J. Legislation, Interpretation, and Judicial Review. 51 University of Toronto Law Journal 75, 2001.
GRIFFIN, S. M. Has the Hour of Democracy come Round at Last? The New Critique of Judicial Review. 17 Constitutional Commentary 683, 2000.
GRIFFIN, S. M. American Constitutionalism. From Theory to
Politics. Princeton: Princeton, 1996.
HABERMAS, J. Facticidad y Validez. Sobre el derecho y el Estado democrático de derecho en términos de teoría del discurso. Madrid: Trotta, 1998.
HIEBERT, J. L. New Constitutional Ideas: Can New Parliamentary Models Resist Judicial Dominance When Interpreting Rights?, 82 Texas Law Review 1963, 2004.
HIEBERT, J. L. Parliament and Rights. In: CAMPBELL, T., GOLDSWORTHY, J. y STONE, A. (eds.). Protecting Human Rights. Instruments and Institutions. Oxford: Oxford, 2003.
HIEBERT, J. L. Parliament and the Human Rights Act: Can the JCHR help facilitate a culture of rights?. 4 I. CON. 1, 2006.
HOGG, P. W. Constitutional Law of Canada, 4. ed. Toronto: Carswell, 1997.
HOGG, P. W. y BUSHELL, A. A. The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing After All, 35 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 75, 1997.
HOGG, P. W., BUSHELL THORNTON, A.A. y WRIGHT, W.K., Charter Dilogue Reviseted-Or Much Ado About Metaphors, 45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1, 2007.
KAHANA, T. Understanding the Notwithstanding Mechanism, 52 University of Toronto Law Journal 221, 2002.
LEIGH, I. The UK’s Human Rights Act 1998: An Early Assessment. In: HUSCROFT, G. y RISHWORTH, P. Litigating Rights. Perspectives from Domestic and International Law. Oxford/Portland: Hart, 2002.
LINARES, S. La (i)legitimidad democrática del control judicial de las leyes. Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2008.
MANFREDI, C. y NELLY, J. Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell, 37 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 513, 1999.
MORENO RODRIGUEZ ALCALA, D. Control judicial de la ley y derechos fundamentales. Una perspectiva crítica. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, 2011.
PERRY, M. J. Protecting Human Rights in a Democracy. What Role for the Courts?, 38 Wake Forest Law Review 635, 2003.
PERRY, M. J. The Constitution in the Courts. Law or Politics? Oxford: Oxford,1994.
RAWLS, J. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia, 1996.
ROACH, K. American Constitutional Theory for Canadians (And the Rest of the World), 52 University of Toronto Law Journal 503, 2002.
ROACH, K. Sharpening the Dialogue Debate: The Next Decade of Scholarship, 45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 169, 2007.
SINNOT-ARMSTRONG, W. Weak and Strong Judicial Review, 22 Law and
Philosophy 381, 2003.
TREMBLAY, L. B. The legitimacy of judicial review: The limits of dialogue
between courts and legislatures, 3 I.CON 617, 2005.
TRIBE, L. H., WALDRON, J., TUSHNET, M. (debate). On Judicial Review.
Dissent, summer, 2005.
TUSHNET, M. Forms of Judicial Review as Expressions of Constitutional
Patriotism, 22 Law and Philosophy 353, 2003.
TUSHNET, M. Judicial Activism or Restraint in a Section 33 World. 52
University of Toronto Law Journal 89, 2002.
TUSHNET, M. Marbury v. Madison Around the World. 71 Tennessee Law
Review Association 251, 2004.
TUSHNET, M. New Forms of Judicial Review and the Persistence of Rightsand Democracy- Based Worries. 38 Wake Forest Law Review 813, 2003.
TUSHNET, M. Policy Distortion and Democratic Debilitation: Comparative Illumination of the Countermajoritarian Difficulty. 94 Michigan Law Review 245, 1995.
WALDRON, J. Some Models of Dialogue Between Judges and Legislators, 23 Supreme Court Law Review (2d) 7, 2004.
WALDRON, J. The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, 115 Yale Law Journal 1346, 2006.
WALDRON, J. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999.
WEILER, P. C. Rights and Judges in a Democracy: A New Canadian Version, 18 University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 51, 1984.
WHYTE, J. D. On Not Standing for Notwithstanding, 28 Alberta Law Review, 1990.
ZURN, C. Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Cambridge, 2007.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2018 REVISTA DA AGU
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam nesta Revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
- os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à Revista da AGU o direito de primeira publicação;
- os autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta Revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta Revista.
