Loading…

Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico

Resumo Este artigo tem um objetivo duplo: i) oferecer um mapa teórico capaz de sistematizar os fatores que explicam a variação na intensidade da inserção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) no processo decisório e as diferentes formas pelas quais ele pode ser mobilizado por atores políticos; e ii) def...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Revista direito GV 2019, Vol.15 (2), p.e1921
Main Authors: Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano, Arguelhes, Diego Werneck
Format: Article
Language:eng ; por
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-b728f53ce95883e39c3df7ecb018bb8a1f22db9a558100acbf7878a46a6684213
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page e1921
container_title Revista direito GV
container_volume 15
creator Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano
Arguelhes, Diego Werneck
description Resumo Este artigo tem um objetivo duplo: i) oferecer um mapa teórico capaz de sistematizar os fatores que explicam a variação na intensidade da inserção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) no processo decisório e as diferentes formas pelas quais ele pode ser mobilizado por atores políticos; e ii) definir uma tipologia da judicialização da política que combine as diferentes formas de acesso ao tribunal com as características do seu processo decisório interno. Nesse sentido, em um extremo, a judicialização seria resultado de uma manifestação de natureza duplamente coletiva (ator relevante coletivo demandando e conseguindo decisão coletiva do STF); no outro, um formato duplamente individualizado (um parlamentar individual demandando e conseguindo uma intervenção de um ministro individual no processo decisório). São apresentados casos que ilustram quatro dimensões pouco estudadas na literatura sobre judicialização da política: o acesso ao STF por classes processuais diferentes da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI); a mobilização do STF por parlamentares individuais; a atuação de atores governistas, que evidencia a importância de dinâmicas contingentes da conjuntura política na motivação de judicializar; a intervenção individual dos ministros do STF. Abstract This paper has two goals. First, in dialogue with scholarly efforts to explain variations in the intensity of the Brazilian Supreme Court’s role in the political process, we propose a theoretical map that can account, in a more systematic fashion, for the different ways and mechanisms by which judicialization can take place. Second, we offer a typology of varieties of judicialization of politics that combines different mechanisms for accessing the court’s jurisdiction, and features of the court’s internal decision-making process. At one side of the spectrum, judicialization as a phenomenon would result from a combination of two collective decisions - a collective actor (such as a political party) triggering a collective decision by the STF. At the other side, it would result from a combination of two sets of individual decisions - an individual politician, for example, obtaining a favorable ruling or injunction by a single STF justice. Within this framework, we exemplify and discuss four understudied dimensions of the judicialization of politics: mechanisms of access to the STF beyond abstract review lawsuits (ADIs); appeals to the STF by individual politicians; appeals to the STF by members of the
doi_str_mv 10.1590/2317-6172201921
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_5d204102ed3b4af8bc1d94ef87b3d207</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><scielo_id>S1808_24322019000200209</scielo_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_5d204102ed3b4af8bc1d94ef87b3d207</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2309660207</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-b728f53ce95883e39c3df7ecb018bb8a1f22db9a558100acbf7878a46a6684213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNUU1Lw0AQDaJgrZ69Bjynnd1NsrvepPhRKIio52V2s5GUtBs3iah_x4MnT_6E_jETI60wMMObeY_HvCA4JTAhiYQpZYRHKeGUApGU7AWjLbL_bz4Mjup6CZBKlvBRcDdz68a-Nq4OMwyXbVaYAsviHTefmw_XY5UrN19NYfA8XLuX7s6WdmXXPaNCj2G7CldYYdjYzbcvjDsODnIsa3vy18fB49Xlw-wmWtxez2cXi8hQEZNIcyryhBkrEyGYZdKwLOfWaCBCa4EkpzTTEpNEEAA0OueCC4xTTFMRU8LGwXzQzRwuVeWLFfo35bBQv4DzTwp957u0KskoxASozZiOMRfakEzGNhdcs27FO63JoFWbwpZOLV3r1515dU8ECEVj9vtVAKB9yY5wNhAq755bWzc7CmUg0xQG2elwZbyra2_zrU0Cqg9N9bGoXWjsB-aIiFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2309660207</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>SciELO</source><creator>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano ; Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</creator><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano ; Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</creatorcontrib><description>Resumo Este artigo tem um objetivo duplo: i) oferecer um mapa teórico capaz de sistematizar os fatores que explicam a variação na intensidade da inserção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) no processo decisório e as diferentes formas pelas quais ele pode ser mobilizado por atores políticos; e ii) definir uma tipologia da judicialização da política que combine as diferentes formas de acesso ao tribunal com as características do seu processo decisório interno. Nesse sentido, em um extremo, a judicialização seria resultado de uma manifestação de natureza duplamente coletiva (ator relevante coletivo demandando e conseguindo decisão coletiva do STF); no outro, um formato duplamente individualizado (um parlamentar individual demandando e conseguindo uma intervenção de um ministro individual no processo decisório). São apresentados casos que ilustram quatro dimensões pouco estudadas na literatura sobre judicialização da política: o acesso ao STF por classes processuais diferentes da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI); a mobilização do STF por parlamentares individuais; a atuação de atores governistas, que evidencia a importância de dinâmicas contingentes da conjuntura política na motivação de judicializar; a intervenção individual dos ministros do STF. Abstract This paper has two goals. First, in dialogue with scholarly efforts to explain variations in the intensity of the Brazilian Supreme Court’s role in the political process, we propose a theoretical map that can account, in a more systematic fashion, for the different ways and mechanisms by which judicialization can take place. Second, we offer a typology of varieties of judicialization of politics that combines different mechanisms for accessing the court’s jurisdiction, and features of the court’s internal decision-making process. At one side of the spectrum, judicialization as a phenomenon would result from a combination of two collective decisions - a collective actor (such as a political party) triggering a collective decision by the STF. At the other side, it would result from a combination of two sets of individual decisions - an individual politician, for example, obtaining a favorable ruling or injunction by a single STF justice. Within this framework, we exemplify and discuss four understudied dimensions of the judicialization of politics: mechanisms of access to the STF beyond abstract review lawsuits (ADIs); appeals to the STF by individual politicians; appeals to the STF by members of the ruling coalition, which highlight the relevance of contingent political dynamics in judicialization strategies; the individual judicial powers and their implications for the political process.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2317-6172</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1808-2432</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2317-6172</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1590/2317-6172201921</identifier><language>eng ; por</language><publisher>Sao Paulo: Fundação Getulio Vargas</publisher><subject>constitutional review ; judicial decision-making process ; Judicialization of politics ; LAW ; political decision-making process ; Politics ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Revista direito GV, 2019, Vol.15 (2), p.e1921</ispartof><rights>2019. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the associated terms available at http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/revdireitogv/article/view/80277</rights><rights>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-b728f53ce95883e39c3df7ecb018bb8a1f22db9a558100acbf7878a46a6684213</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7522-3717 ; 0000-0002-0827-6103</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2309660207?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4024,24150,25753,27923,27924,27925,37012,44590</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</creatorcontrib><title>Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico</title><title>Revista direito GV</title><addtitle>Rev. direito GV</addtitle><description>Resumo Este artigo tem um objetivo duplo: i) oferecer um mapa teórico capaz de sistematizar os fatores que explicam a variação na intensidade da inserção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) no processo decisório e as diferentes formas pelas quais ele pode ser mobilizado por atores políticos; e ii) definir uma tipologia da judicialização da política que combine as diferentes formas de acesso ao tribunal com as características do seu processo decisório interno. Nesse sentido, em um extremo, a judicialização seria resultado de uma manifestação de natureza duplamente coletiva (ator relevante coletivo demandando e conseguindo decisão coletiva do STF); no outro, um formato duplamente individualizado (um parlamentar individual demandando e conseguindo uma intervenção de um ministro individual no processo decisório). São apresentados casos que ilustram quatro dimensões pouco estudadas na literatura sobre judicialização da política: o acesso ao STF por classes processuais diferentes da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI); a mobilização do STF por parlamentares individuais; a atuação de atores governistas, que evidencia a importância de dinâmicas contingentes da conjuntura política na motivação de judicializar; a intervenção individual dos ministros do STF. Abstract This paper has two goals. First, in dialogue with scholarly efforts to explain variations in the intensity of the Brazilian Supreme Court’s role in the political process, we propose a theoretical map that can account, in a more systematic fashion, for the different ways and mechanisms by which judicialization can take place. Second, we offer a typology of varieties of judicialization of politics that combines different mechanisms for accessing the court’s jurisdiction, and features of the court’s internal decision-making process. At one side of the spectrum, judicialization as a phenomenon would result from a combination of two collective decisions - a collective actor (such as a political party) triggering a collective decision by the STF. At the other side, it would result from a combination of two sets of individual decisions - an individual politician, for example, obtaining a favorable ruling or injunction by a single STF justice. Within this framework, we exemplify and discuss four understudied dimensions of the judicialization of politics: mechanisms of access to the STF beyond abstract review lawsuits (ADIs); appeals to the STF by individual politicians; appeals to the STF by members of the ruling coalition, which highlight the relevance of contingent political dynamics in judicialization strategies; the individual judicial powers and their implications for the political process.</description><subject>constitutional review</subject><subject>judicial decision-making process</subject><subject>Judicialization of politics</subject><subject>LAW</subject><subject>political decision-making process</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>2317-6172</issn><issn>1808-2432</issn><issn>2317-6172</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpNUU1Lw0AQDaJgrZ69Bjynnd1NsrvepPhRKIio52V2s5GUtBs3iah_x4MnT_6E_jETI60wMMObeY_HvCA4JTAhiYQpZYRHKeGUApGU7AWjLbL_bz4Mjup6CZBKlvBRcDdz68a-Nq4OMwyXbVaYAsviHTefmw_XY5UrN19NYfA8XLuX7s6WdmXXPaNCj2G7CldYYdjYzbcvjDsODnIsa3vy18fB49Xlw-wmWtxez2cXi8hQEZNIcyryhBkrEyGYZdKwLOfWaCBCa4EkpzTTEpNEEAA0OueCC4xTTFMRU8LGwXzQzRwuVeWLFfo35bBQv4DzTwp957u0KskoxASozZiOMRfakEzGNhdcs27FO63JoFWbwpZOLV3r1515dU8ECEVj9vtVAKB9yY5wNhAq755bWzc7CmUg0xQG2elwZbyra2_zrU0Cqg9N9bGoXWjsB-aIiFg</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano</creator><creator>Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</creator><general>Fundação Getulio Vargas</general><general>Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Direito de São Paulo</general><general>Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Escola de Direito</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>GPN</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7522-3717</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0827-6103</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico</title><author>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano ; Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-b728f53ce95883e39c3df7ecb018bb8a1f22db9a558100acbf7878a46a6684213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; por</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>constitutional review</topic><topic>judicial decision-making process</topic><topic>Judicialization of politics</topic><topic>LAW</topic><topic>political decision-making process</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest_Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SciELO</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Revista direito GV</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ribeiro, Leandro Molhano</au><au>Arguelhes, Diego Werneck</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico</atitle><jtitle>Revista direito GV</jtitle><addtitle>Rev. direito GV</addtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e1921</spage><pages>e1921-</pages><issn>2317-6172</issn><issn>1808-2432</issn><eissn>2317-6172</eissn><abstract>Resumo Este artigo tem um objetivo duplo: i) oferecer um mapa teórico capaz de sistematizar os fatores que explicam a variação na intensidade da inserção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) no processo decisório e as diferentes formas pelas quais ele pode ser mobilizado por atores políticos; e ii) definir uma tipologia da judicialização da política que combine as diferentes formas de acesso ao tribunal com as características do seu processo decisório interno. Nesse sentido, em um extremo, a judicialização seria resultado de uma manifestação de natureza duplamente coletiva (ator relevante coletivo demandando e conseguindo decisão coletiva do STF); no outro, um formato duplamente individualizado (um parlamentar individual demandando e conseguindo uma intervenção de um ministro individual no processo decisório). São apresentados casos que ilustram quatro dimensões pouco estudadas na literatura sobre judicialização da política: o acesso ao STF por classes processuais diferentes da Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade (ADI); a mobilização do STF por parlamentares individuais; a atuação de atores governistas, que evidencia a importância de dinâmicas contingentes da conjuntura política na motivação de judicializar; a intervenção individual dos ministros do STF. Abstract This paper has two goals. First, in dialogue with scholarly efforts to explain variations in the intensity of the Brazilian Supreme Court’s role in the political process, we propose a theoretical map that can account, in a more systematic fashion, for the different ways and mechanisms by which judicialization can take place. Second, we offer a typology of varieties of judicialization of politics that combines different mechanisms for accessing the court’s jurisdiction, and features of the court’s internal decision-making process. At one side of the spectrum, judicialization as a phenomenon would result from a combination of two collective decisions - a collective actor (such as a political party) triggering a collective decision by the STF. At the other side, it would result from a combination of two sets of individual decisions - an individual politician, for example, obtaining a favorable ruling or injunction by a single STF justice. Within this framework, we exemplify and discuss four understudied dimensions of the judicialization of politics: mechanisms of access to the STF beyond abstract review lawsuits (ADIs); appeals to the STF by individual politicians; appeals to the STF by members of the ruling coalition, which highlight the relevance of contingent political dynamics in judicialization strategies; the individual judicial powers and their implications for the political process.</abstract><cop>Sao Paulo</cop><pub>Fundação Getulio Vargas</pub><doi>10.1590/2317-6172201921</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7522-3717</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0827-6103</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2317-6172
ispartof Revista direito GV, 2019, Vol.15 (2), p.e1921
issn 2317-6172
1808-2432
2317-6172
language eng ; por
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_5d204102ed3b4af8bc1d94ef87b3d207
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); SciELO
subjects constitutional review
judicial decision-making process
Judicialization of politics
LAW
political decision-making process
Politics
Supreme Court decisions
title Contextos da judicialização da política: novos elementos para um mapa teórico
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T02%3A43%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Contextos%20da%20judicializa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20da%20pol%C3%ADtica:%20novos%20elementos%20para%20um%20mapa%20te%C3%B3rico&rft.jtitle=Revista%20direito%20GV&rft.au=Ribeiro,%20Leandro%20Molhano&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e1921&rft.pages=e1921-&rft.issn=2317-6172&rft.eissn=2317-6172&rft_id=info:doi/10.1590/2317-6172201921&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2309660207%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2841-b728f53ce95883e39c3df7ecb018bb8a1f22db9a558100acbf7878a46a6684213%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2309660207&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_scielo_id=S1808_24322019000200209&rfr_iscdi=true