La revisión judicial en democracias defectuosas

Gargarella Roberto

Resumen


Este artículo presenta propuestas de acciones judiciales favorables al diálogo constitucional y democrático, a fin de adaptarlas al contexto de democracias defectuosas. La práctica judicial goza de una posición institucional que permite la reparación de varias fallas democráticas graves, componentes típicos de contextos de deslegitimación de la democracia constitucional. Se argumenta que, a partir de las intervenciones dirigidas a la implementación y el refuerzo de la democracia deliberativa, con miras a la inclusión de las minorías desfavorecidas, los jueces trabajarán en la reconstrucción del carácter democrático y la restauración del sistema

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


ALEGRE, M. Democracia sin presidentes. SELA (Seminario en Latinoamérica de Teoría Constitucional y Política) Paper, 2009.

ACKERMAN, B. Beyond Carolene Products. Harvard Law Review v. 8, 1985.

BAKKER, B. Blogs as Constitutional Dialogue: Rethinking the Dialogic Promise. New York University Annual Survey of American Law v. 63, 2008, pp. 215, 216.

BERGALLO, P. El género en el constitucionalismo latinoamericano contemporáneo. Tendencias y desafíos desde una perspectiva feminista. Buenos Aires: ILADD, mimeo, 2013.

BERGALLO, P.; JARAMILLO SIERRA, I.; VAGGIONE, J. (Edits.). El aborto en América Latina. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI, 2018.

CEPEDA, M. How far may Colombia’s Constitutional Court go to protect IDP rights? 2005. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

CHENWI, L. Democratizing the socio-economic rights enforcement process. In: ALVIAR GARCÍA, H.; KLARE, K.; WILLIAMS, L. Social and Economic Rights in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2015, pp. 178-197.

CROZIER, M.; HUNTINGTON, S.; WATANUKI, J. The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission Paperback. New York: New York University Press, 1975.

DAHL, R. A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956.

DAHL, R. How democratic is the American Constitution? Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003.

DIXON, R. Creating Dialogue About Socioeconomic Rights: Strong-Form versus Weak-Form Judicial Review Revisited. I.Con.,v. 5, n. 3, 2007, pp. 391-418.

DOR, G. Constitutional Dialogues in Action: Canadian and Israeli Experiences in Comparative Perspective. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review v. 11, n. 1, 2000, pp. 17-18.

DYZENHAUS, D. Hard Cases in Wicked Legal Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

ELSTER, J. The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. In: ELSTER, J. The Foundations of Social Choice Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

ELY, J. Democracy and distrust, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981.

FISS, O. The Civil Rights Injunction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.

FISS, O. The Law as It Could Be. New York: NYU Press, 2003.

FRIEDMAN, B. Dialogue and Judicial Review. Mich. L. Rev., v. 91, 1993, p. 577.

GARCÍA JARAMILLO, L. Recepción de postulados deliberativistas en la jurisprudencia constitucional. Revista Argentina de Teoría Jurídica, v. 10, 2008. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

GARGARELLA, R. The Legal Foundations of Inequality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

GARGARELLA, R. Latin American Constitutionalism. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2013.

GARGARELLA, R.; ÁLVAREZ UGARTE, R. Freedom of Expression and the Right to Protest. In: BERTOMEU, J.; GARGARELLA, R. The Latin American Casebook, Londres: Ashgate, 2016.

GLOPPEN, S., et al (Edits.). Democratization and the Judiciary. The Accountability Function of Courts in New Democracies. London : Frank Cass, 2003.

HABERMAS, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1998

HELMKE, G. Courts under constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

HOGG, P.; BUSHELL, A. The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures. Osgoode Hall L. J. v. 35, 1997.

HOGG, P.; BUSHELL, A.; WRIGHT, W. Charter Dialogue Revisited, -Or much Ado About Metaphors. Osgoode Hall L. J., v. 45, n. 1, 2007.

KARL, T. The vicious cycle of inequality in Latin America. Working Paper, 2002. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

LIEBENBERG, S. Engaging the paradoxes of the universal and particular in human rights adjudication. The possibilities and pitfalls of ‘meaningful engagement’. African Human Rights Law Journal, v. 12, 2012, pp. 1-29.

LIEBENBERG, S. Toward an equality-promoting interpretation interpretation of socio-economic rights in South Africa. Insights from the egalitarian liberal tradition. The South African Law Journal, v. 132, part. 2, 2015 pp. 411-437.

LINZ, J.; STEPAN, A. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1978.

LINZ, J.; Valenzuela, A. The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1994.

MAINWARING, S. Democratic survivability in Latin America. Kellog Institute, Working Paper, 1999, pp. 9-11. Dispnible en: https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/267.pdf. Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

MANSBRIDGE, J. Deliberation Everywhere. Manuscrito no publicado, presentado para la IVR Conference, Granada, España, 2005, pp. 1-2.

NINO, C. The Ethics of Human Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

NINO, C. Hyperpresidentialism and Constitutional Reform in Argentina. In: LIPHART, A.; WAISMAN, C. (Edits.) Institutional Design in New Democracies. New York: Westview Press, 1996.

RODRÍGUEZ-GARAVITO, C. La Corte y la paz minimalista. El Espectador, 2017. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

SALAZAR, D. My Power in the Constitution: The Perversion of the Rule of Law in Ecuador. SELA, Yale University, 2015. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

SCHUMPETER, J. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy London: Harper Classics, 2008.

SCOTT, C.; MACKLEM, P. Constitutional Ropes of Sand or Justiciable Guarantees? Social Rights in a New South African Constitution. In: University of Pennsylvania Law Review v. 141, n. 1, 1992, pp. 1-148.

SCOTT, M. Picketing under the First Amendment. The Hastings Law Journal, 1, v. 26, 1974, p. 75.

SHUGART, M.; CAREY, J. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

SUDARSHAN, R. Courts and Social Transformation in India. In: GARGARELLA, R. DOMINGO, P.; ROUX, T. (Edits.). Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.

SUNSTEIN, C. Interest Groups in American Public Law. Stanford Law Review v. 38, n. 1, 1985, p. 29.

SUNSTEIN, C. The Anticaste Principle. Michigan Law Review, v. 92, n. 8, 1994. Disponible en: . Acesso en: 11 jul. 2019.

SUNSTEIN, C. One case at a time, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001.

SUNSTEIN, C. Lessons from the American Founding. In: SUNSTEIN, C. (Edit.). Can it happen here? Authoritarianism in America. New York: Harper Collins, 2018, pp. 57-80.

THOMPSON, D. Democratic theory and global society. The Journal of Political Philosophy, v. 7, n. 2, 1999.

TUSHNET, M. Taking the Constitution away from the Courts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

TUSHNET, M. Non-Judicial Review. Harvard Journal on Legislation, v. 53, 2003.

UNGER, R. What Should Legal Analysis Become? New York: Verso, 1996.

VAN REYBROUCK, D. Against elections. The case for democracy. London: Bodley Head, 2016.

WALDRON, J. Law and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

WALDRON, J. Judicial Review and Political Legitimacy. Manuscript on file with the author, 2017.

YOUNG, I. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford Press, 2000.

YRIGOYEN FAJARDO, R. El horizonte del constitucionalismo pluralista: del multiculturalismo a la descolonización,” In: GARAVITO, C. El derecho en América Latina. Un mapa para el pensamiento jurídico del siglo xxi. Buenos Aires: Siglo xxi, 2011.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v9i2.6220

ISSN 2179-8338 (impresso) - ISSN 2236-1677 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia