• JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
  • JoomlaWorks Simple Image Rotator
 
  Bookmark and Share
 
 
Doctoral Thesis
DOI
10.11606/T.8.2008.tde-05122008-162952
Document
Author
Full name
Conrado Hubner Mendes
E-mail
Institute/School/College
Knowledge Area
Date of Defense
Published
São Paulo, 2008
Supervisor
Committee
Vita, Alvaro de (President)
Araujo, Cicero Romao Resende de
Taylor, Matthew Mac Leod
Verissimo, Marcos Paulo
Vieira, Oscar Vilhena
Title in Portuguese
Direitos fundamentais, separação de poderes e deliberação
Keywords in Portuguese
Constituição
Democracia
Separação de poderes
Teoria do estado
Abstract in Portuguese
O controle de constitucionalidade de leis sempre foi objeto de desconfiança da teoria democrática. Sob qual justificativa juízes não eleitos podem ter a última palavra sobre o significado de direitos fundamentais? É assim que a questão costumou ser formulada pela tradição. Alguns a responderam em favor desse arranjo, outros em defesa da supremacia do parlamento. Essa seria uma encruzilhada da separação de poderes e as teorias da última palavra se enfrentam nesses termos. A tese investiga uma saída alternativa para esse dilema, oferecida pelas teorias do diálogo institucional. Segundo essa corrente, a última palavra, na democracia, não existe. O trabalho defende que ambas as perspectivas, última palavra e diálogo, têm papel analítico importante a cumprir. Propõe que uma interação de caráter deliberativo, e não somente adversarial, entre os poderes, tem maiores possibilidades de, ao longo do tempo, produzir boas respostas sobre os direitos fundamentais. Torna a separação de poderes sensível ao bom argumento
Title in English
Fundamental rights, separation of powers and deliberation
Keywords in English
Constitution
Democracy
Separation of powers
Theory of the state
Abstract in English
The judicial review of legislation has always been under the distrust of democratic theory. Under what justification can unelected judges have the last word upon fundamental rights? Thats the way the question has been formulated by the tradition. Some are favourable to this institutional arrangement, whereas others defend the supremacy of parliament. This would be the crossroads of the separation of powers and theories of last word face the dispute under these terms. The thesis investigates an alternative response to this dilemma, offered by theories of institutional dialogue. According to it, there is no last word in a democracy. The dissertation defends that both perspectives last word and dialogue have an important analytical role to play. Is proposes that an interaction of a deliberative kind rather than adversarial is more likely, in the long term, to produce better answers about rights. It turns separation of powers sensitive to the quality of argument
 
WARNING - Viewing this document is conditioned on your acceptance of the following terms of use:
This document is only for private use for research and teaching activities. Reproduction for commercial use is forbidden. This rights cover the whole data about this document as well as its contents. Any uses or copies of this document in whole or in part must include the author's name.
Publishing Date
2008-12-22
 
WARNING: Learn what derived works are clicking here.
All rights of the thesis/dissertation are from the authors
Centro de Informática de São Carlos
Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations of USP. Copyright © 2001-2020. All rights reserved.