O presente estudo objetiva identificar principais problemas das audiencias publicas realizadas no Supremo Tribunal Federal, a fim de observar se grupos de interesses sao mais eficaz que individuos que participam diretamente Especificamente, busca analisar a necessidade dessa tutela aos direitos da personalidade feminina A partir do cenario politico brasileiro, a democracia e necessidade de uma cultura juridica para conhecimento sobre direitos, garantias e formas de participacao, o que contribui para a justificativa do estudo, questiona-se em que medida o lobby, em audiencia publica no STF, auxiliaria os direitos da personalidade feminina O que se faz a partir do metodo dedutivo, com amparo na revisao bibliografica, para levantamento dos principais estudos na area de direitos da personalidade, personalidade feminina, audiencia publica no STF e lobby no judiciario Os resultados mostram uma contribuicao do lobby aos direitos das mulheres, que esbarram na dignidade humana, pois observou-se uma consideravel influencia na decisao final

Lobby em audiência pública no supremo tribunal federal: instrumentos democráticos para efetivação dos direitos da personalidade feminina

DOI: 10.1590/2179-8966/2019/36633 Resumo A audiencia publica realizada no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e anunciada como mecanismo que produz informacao no controle de constitucionalidade e democratiza e legitima as decisoes do Tribunal. A observacao e a analise empirica de documentos ligados a sua pratica revelam a imprecisao dessa narrativa. O artigo levanta duvidas sobre as funcoes exercidas pelas audiencias publicas e propoe visao alternativa do seu uso como espaco para lobby. Palavras-chave : Audiencias Publicas; STF; Lobby. Abstract Public hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) is announced as a mechanism that produces information in the judicial review process, that democratizes the court and legitimizes its decisions. Nevertheless, empirical observation and analyses of official documents of the Court reveals a mismatch between practice and discourse around them. This article questions that main narrative and proposes an alternative view of public hearings as a lobby tool. Keywords : Public hearings; STF; Lobby.

/pdf/participacao-social-no-stf-repensando-o-papel-das-audiencias-25q87166my.pdf

Participação Social no STF: repensando o papel das audiências públicas

A ideia de representacao argumentativa constitui resposta recente a objecao democratica ao papel politico exercido por tribunais constitucionais. A tese defende que o juiz pode ser concebido como um representante popular, com legitimidade democratica tao solida quanto os funcionarios eleitos do Legislativo ou do Executivo. Cuida-se de movimento que participa do contexto teorico de expansao dos sentidos da representacao para instâncias nao-eleitorais, como instituicoes participativas da sociedade civil, conselhos ou movimentos sociais. Neste artigo, colocamos em escrutinio essa construcao teorica, bem como apontamos os problemas associados a sua incorporacao em votos e escritos de ministros do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Concluimos que o argumento padece de fragilidades insuperaveis associadas a crenca exacerbada no potencial deliberativo de tribunais, a ausencia de mecanismos de aproximacao entre pretensos representantes e seus representados e a ausencia de mecanismos efetivos de accountability. Alem disso, indicamos como a tese pode ser manejada para fins de blindagem discursiva de decisoes politicamente salientes e controversas. Reforcamos, assim, o carater elitista dessa tentativa, que exacerba o isolamento da corte em relacao a seus ditos representados e firma um distanciamento crescente do nucleo essencialmente democratico da soberania enquanto exercicio popular do poder politico.

/pdf/o-juiz-constitucional-me-representa-o-supremo-tribunal-36qgxr7k3t.pdf

O JUIZ CONSTITUCIONAL ME REPRESENTA? O Supremo Tribunal Federal e a representação argumentativa

In the application of legal rules and norms by the Brazilian Judiciary, a more objective action is now required, including through the use of computational logic methods, artificial interfaces and judicial precedents with mandatory application, which, given certain limits, can lead to injustice in specifics cases. In order to verify this hypothesis, the present article seeks to reflect on the performance of the Brazilian Judiciary in relation to the contemporary systematization of judicial process and new technologies, applying the constitutional rules and principles of human dignity, legality, publicity, efficiency, well such as proportionality and reasonableness, as concrete and prevalent procedural norms, even if the legal content is informed by indeterminate concepts or \"according\" to the historical path covered or to be followed. The research presented in this article uses the descriptive, qualitative, bibliographic and deductive methods. At the end, the conclusions will be presented with emphasis on the main aspects found throughout the research.

Interfaces artificiais e interpretação judicial: o problema do uso da inteligência artificial e da metodologia fuzzy na aplicação do direito

Why Do We Care about Dialogue

The paper aims to analyse the counter majoritarian role exercised by the Brazilian Supreme Court in comparison with a wider participation of civil society through instruments such as public hearings From a perspective of democratic representation doctrines, the article engages in an empirical study of data and figures seeking to identify the effective influence of those hearings in the Supreme Court deliberation process In light with the methodology employed, the research was based on a qualitative data analysis, which endeavour uneven bars causalities, related to the hearings that were realized and whose cases were held At the end, I conclude that the public hearings are below of its dialogical capacity and far behind to influence the deliberation of the Supreme Court

/pdf/supremo-tribunal-federal-representativo-o-impacto-das-39seveuj94.pdf

Supremo Tribunal Federal representativo?: o impacto das audiências públicas na deliberação

This Article engages in an empirical analysis of the counter-majoritarian role of the Brazilian Supreme Court, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), in terms of its sharp contrast with the aim of attracting wider participation from civil society in public hearings. Public hearings are an important judicial tool that have recently been introduced and that may influence foreign constitutional courts. A public hearing is a procedure in which the STF can hear experts, scientists, professors, civil servants, and even ordinary citizens when a Justice Rapporteur seeks to elucidate a specific technical aspect of a case, a controversial social issue, or an issue in a field that is generally unfamiliar to the presiding judge or judges. This research aims to address the influence of these public hearings on the deliberation process of the STF based on the democratic theory of representation. First, Section B outlines the main premises of the debate, elucidated the purposes and findings of public hearings. Next, Section C presents a theoretical approach addressing deliberation and representation to explain how information obtained in public hearings might improve the STF's adjudicative process. Section D outlines the chosen criteria and methods for the empirical research; this will demonstrate that public hearings in the STF are not working as envisioned. Lastly, to offer qualitative insight, Section E carefully examines two of the eighteen public hearings analyzed. The Article concludes that the STF has much work to do in terms of rethinking and improving the functionality of public hearings.

Why Should Public Hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court be Understood as an Innovative Democratic Tool in Constitutional Adjudication

This essay aims at analyzing the main aspects related to a prison system’s lawsuit judged by the Brazilian Supreme Court in which the “Unconstitutional State of Affairs” adjudication technique was firstly examined. Challenging the base arguments that were presented in the ADPF 347, Justice Rapporteur Marco Aurelio, the article’s purpose is points out that there was not an institutional failure of both Legislative and Executive branches of government in order to justify a structural intervention for overcoming alleged barriers. A parallel with Colombian Supreme Court adjudication practices will be drawn in accordance with the legal transplants theory to understand how Brazil would achieve its reach just importing a structural injunction model that even in Colombia did not work in prisons. Keywords : Unconstitutional State of Affairs. Structural Injunction. ADPF 347. Brazil’s Supreme Court. Colombia’s Supreme Court. Legal Transplants.

/pdf/adpf-347-and-the-unconstitutional-state-of-affairs-of-brazil-49zbcm2bct.pdf

Adpf 347 and the “unconstitutional state of affairs” of brazil’s prison system -- adpf 347 e o “estado de coisas inconstitucional” do sistema prisional brasileiro

Portuguese Abstract: O presente artigo tem como campo de analise a interface da teoria democratica e suas particularidades na tentativa de ampliar os meios de participacao e deliberacao representativa. O objeto do artigo envolve uma abordagem comparada entre as criticas de Schumpeter a teoria democratica classica e sua equivocada percepcao de representacao, bem como a insercao de elementos fundantes da concepcao de Mancur Olson em torno dos grupos de interesse pequenos para se atingir um ponto otimo de participacao democratica. Ao longo do trabalho foram empregados os metodos de analise comparada e estruturalista, de maneira a se confrontar as contribuicoes de Schumpeter e Olson e, em seguida, alcar o tema a um nivel abstrato por meio da reconstrucao dogmatica.English Abstract: This article is based on an analysis of democratic theory and its characteristics to increase the instruments of participation and representative deliberation, regarding small groups. The object involves a comparative approach of Schumpeter's criticism of classical democratic theory and their insufficient view of representation, as well as the founding elements of Mancur Olson’s accomplishment of small interest groups to achieve the optimum circumstances of democratic participation. To obtain a good perspective of those author’s standpoint, the comparative and structuralism methods of analysis were used to distinguish Schumpeter and Olson’s contribution and, at the end, to promote an abstract reconstruction of our theoretical theme.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2835229_code2414383.pdf?abstractid=2835229&mirid=1&type=2

Teoria Democrática E a Ação Coletiva De Pequenos Grupos (Democratic Theory and the Collective Action of Small Groups)

Portuguese Abstract: O trabalho objetiva realizar uma analise acerca do papel contramajoritario exercido pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal em comparacao com a tentativa de ampliacao da participacao da sociedade civil mediante instrumentos como as audiencias publicas. A partir de autores da teoria democratica da representacao, o artigo contempla um estudo empirico de dados e numeros os quais buscam aferir a efetiva influencia das audiencias publicas no processo de deliberacao do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Em termos metodologicos, a pesquisa envolve uma analise de dados qualitativos, mediante o diagnostico de causalidades assimetricas paralelas, em torno das audiencias realizadas e cujos processos foram julgados em Plenario. Ao final, o artigo apresenta conclusoes no sentido de que as audiencias estao abaixo do potencial dialogico e da capacidade de influenciar na deliberacao do Supremo Tribunal Federal. 
English Abstract: The paper aims to analyse the counter majoritarian role exercised by the Brazilian Supreme Court in comparison with a wider participation of civil society through instruments such as public hearings. From a perspective of democratic representation doctrines, the article engages in an empirical study of data and figures seeking to identify the effective influence of those hearings in the Supreme Court deliberation process. In light with the methodology employed, the research was based on a qualitative data analysis, which endeavour uneven bars causalities, related to the hearings that were realized and whose cases were held. At the end, I conclude that the public hearings are below of its dialogical capacity and far behind to influence the deliberation of the Supreme Court.

Supremo Tribunal Federal Representativo?: O Impacto Das Audiências Públicas Na Deliberação (Representative Federal Supreme Court? The Impact of Public Hearings in the Deliberation)

Thiago Luís Santos Sombra

Papers

Supremo Tribunal Federal representativo?: o impacto das audiências públicas na deliberação

Why Should Public Hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court be Understood as an Innovative Democratic Tool in Constitutional Adjudication

Adpf 347 and the “unconstitutional state of affairs” of brazil’s prison system -- adpf 347 e o “estado de coisas inconstitucional” do sistema prisional brasileiro

Teoria Democrática E a Ação Coletiva De Pequenos Grupos (Democratic Theory and the Collective Action of Small Groups)

Supremo Tribunal Federal Representativo?: O Impacto Das Audiências Públicas Na Deliberação (Representative Federal Supreme Court? The Impact of Public Hearings in the Deliberation)