CONSTITUCIONALISMO DEMOCRÁTICO E REVISÃO JUDICIAL RESPONSIVA NO BRASIL

Rosalind Dixon

Autores

Rosalind Dixon University of New South Wales https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-8032

Palavras-chave:

CONSTITUCIONALISMO DEMOCRÁTICO, REVISÃO JUDICIAL RESPONSIVA

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Biografia do Autor

Rosalind Dixon, University of New South Wales

Rosalind Dixon is a Professor of Law, at the University of New South Wales, Faculty of Law. She earned her BA and LLB from the University of New South Wales, and was an associate to the Chief Justice of Australia, the Hon. Murray Gleeson AC, before attending Harvard Law School, where she obtained an LLM and SJD. Her work focuses on comparative constitutional law and constitutional design, constitutional democracy, theories of constitutional dialogue and amendment, socio-economic rights and constitutional law and gender, and has been published in leading journals in the US, Canada, the UK and Australia, including the Chicago Law Review, Cornell Law Review, GW Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, International Journal of Constitutional Law, American Journal of Comparative Law, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Federal Law Review and Sydney Law Review. She is co-editor, with Tom Ginsburg, of a leading handbook on comparative constitutional law, Comparative Constitutional Law (Edward Elgar, 2011), and related volumes on Comparative Constitutional Law in Asia (Edward Elgar, 2014) and Comparative Constitutional Law in Latin America (Edward Elgar, 2017), co-editor (with Mark Tushnet and Susan Rose-Ackermann) of the Edward Elgar series on Constitutional and Administrative Law, on the editorial board of the International Journal of Constitutional Law, Revista Estudos Institucionais, Public Law Review, and editor of the Constitutions of the World series for Hart Publishing. Dixon is a Manos Research Fellow, Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, Deputy Director of the Herbert Smith Freehills Initiative on Law and Economics, Co-Director of the UNSW New Economic Equality Initiative (NEEI), and academic co-lead of the Grand Challenge on Inequality at UNSW. She previously served as an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Chicago, Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School and the National University of Singapore. She is immediate past co-president of the International Society of Public Law. She is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law and Australian Academy of Social Sciences, and ARC Future Fellow working on Constitutions and Democratic Resilience.

Referências

Oscar Vilhena Vieira, ‘Constitutional Resilience’ (Keynote Address, Heyman Center for the Humanities, 21 February 2025).

Id.

David Landau, ‘Abusive Constitutionalism’ (2013) 47 UC Davis Law Review 189. See also Rosalind Dixon and David Landau, Abusive Constitutional Borrowing: Legal Globalization and the Subversion of Liberal Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2021).

See Juliano Benvindo, ‘Interpreting Unamendable Clauses: Brazil’s New Precedent on the Presumption of Innocence’, ICONnect (Blog Post, 29 February 2016) <https://www.iconnectblog.com/interpreting-unamendable-clauses-brazils-new-precedent-on-the-presumption-of-innocence/>.

See, in this symposium, Emilio Peluso Neder Meyer, ‘Responsive Constitutional Jurisdiction in the Supreme Federal Court: A Trend Underway?’.

Ibid; Thomas Bustamante, Emílio Peluso Neder Meyer and Evanilda De Godoi Bustamante, ‘Luís Roberto Barroso’s Theory of Constitutional Adjudication: A Philosophical Reply’ (2021) 69(4) American Journal of Comparative Law 798.

Rosalind Dixon, Responsive Judicial Review: Democracy and Dysfunction in the Modern Age (Oxford University Press, 2023) ch 3 (‘RJR’).

Samuel Issacharoff, Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

Vilhena Vieira (n 1).

See Vicki C Jackson and Yasmin Dawood, Constitutionalism and a Right to Effective Government? (Cambridge University Press, 2022).

On the duty to supervise, see Gillian E Metzger, ‘The Constitutional Duty to Supervise’ (2015) 124(6) Yale Law Journal 1836.

Dixon, RJR (n 7) ch 5.

David Landau and Rosalind Dixon, ‘Abusive Judicial Review: Courts Against Democracy’ (2020) 53(3) UC Davis Law Review 1313.

Rosalind Dixon, ‘Responsive Judicial Review in Central & Eastern Europe’ (2023) 48 Review of Central and East European Law 375 (‘RJR in Europe’).

See Miguel Godoy’s contribution in this symposium.

Id.

On these modalities, see Philip Bobbitt, Constitutional Interpretation (Basil Blackwell, 1991).

Dixon, ‘RJR in Europe’ (n 14).

See Luís Roberto Barroso, ‘Countermajoritarian, Representative and Enlightened: The Roles of Constitutional Courts in Democracies’ (2019) 67 American Journal of Comparative Law 109.

See Frederick Schauer, ‘The Court’s Agenda: And the Nation’s’ (2006) 120(1) Harvard Law Review 4.

Dixon, RJR (n 7) 213–14.

Estefânia Maria de Queiroz Barboza, Judicial Precedents and Legal Certainty: Foundations and Possibilities for Brazilian Constitutional Jurisdiction (Juruá, 2014); Estefânia Maria de Queiroz Barboza and Gustavo Buss, ‘The Role of Constitutional Jurisdiction in the Protection of Social Rights in Brazil’ in Gorki Gonzales Mantilla (ed), Constitutional Culture and Living Law: Writings in Honour of Professor Roberto Romboli (Center for Constitutional Studies of the Constitutional Court of Peru, 2021) 761; Júlia Cani, ‘Legal Theses in ADI: A Proposal for Expanding Binding Effect?’ (JOTA, 8 May 2018) <https://www.jota.info/opiniao-e-analise/artigos/teses-juridicas-em-adi-proposta-para-expansao-do-efeito-vinculante-08052018>.

Daniel Bogea and Lívia Guimarães, ‘Rotating Chief Justices in a Democracy under Stress: The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal under Bolsonaro’ (2025) 23(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 263.

Rosalind Dixon and Elisabeth Perham, ‘Theorising Constitutions – Comparatively: On Inductive, Illustrative and Reflexive Constitutional Comparison’ (Presentation, ICON-S ANZ Conference, 30 August 2024).

Dixon, RJR (n 7) 145.

Id 161–5.

Rosalind Dixon, ‘Responsive Judicial Review: An Overview’ (2024) 49(2) Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 146.

See See Miguel Godoy’s other writing on this topic.

Tailma Santana Venceslau, ‘“A Problem of Time and Place”: Decision-Making Times and Interactions between the In-Person and Virtual Plenaries of the STF (2020-2022)’ <https://www.encontro2024.anpocs.org.br/arquivo/downloadpublic?q=eyJwYXJhbXMiOiJ7XCJJRF9BUlFVSVZPXCI6XCIyNTU3XCJ9IiwiaCI6ImUwZDIxYzQ3MmRkMjBhYzRhYzQxNzQxOGRkN2E4NzBkIn0%3D>.

Rosalind Dixon, ‘Constitutional Drafting and Distrust’ (2015) 13(4) International Journal of Constitutional Law 819. See also Rosalind Dixon, ‘Strong Courts: Judicial Statecraft in Aid of Constitutional Change’ (2021) 59(2) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 298 (‘Strong Courts’); Dixon, RJR (n 7) ch 8.

Dixon, ‘Strong Courts’ (n 31); Dixon, RJR (n 7) ch 8.

David Landau and Rosalind Dixon, ‘Constraining Constitutional Change’ (2015) 50 Wake Forest Law Review 859.

See David Landau and Rosalind Dixon, ‘On Constitutional Failure, Transformative Constitutionalism, and Utopianism’ (2023) 21(5) International Journal of Constitutional Law 1549, and citations therein.

See, eg, Michaela Hailbronner, ‘Transformative Constitutionalism: Not Only in the Global South’ (2017) 65 American Journal of Comparative Law 527; Daniel Bonilla Maldonado (ed), Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013); Upendra Baxi, ‘Preliminary Notes on Transformative Constitutionalism’ in Oscar Vilhena, Upendra Baxi and Frans Viljoen (eds), Transformative Constitutionalism: Comparing the Apex Courts of Brazil, India and South Africa (Pretoria University Law Press, 2013) 19.

David Landau, ‘Courts and Support Structures: Beyond the Classic Narrative’ in Erin F Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, Comparative Judicial Review (Edward Elgar, 2018) 226.

Cite. See also Daniel B Phd; Rosalind Dixon, ‘Constitutional Design Two Ways: Constitutional Drafters as Judges’ (2017) 57(1) Virginia Journal of International Law 1.

Compare in this context Dinesha Samararatne, ‘Sri Lanka’s Guarantor Branch: Constitutional Resilience by Stealth?’ in Tarunabh Khaitan, Swati Jhaveri and Dinesha Samararatne (eds), Constitutional Resilience in South Asia (Hart Publishing, 2023).

CONSTITUCIONALISMO DEMOCRÁTICO E REVISÃO JUDICIAL RESPONSIVA NO BRASIL

Autores

Palavras-chave:

Downloads

Biografia do Autor

Rosalind Dixon, University of New South Wales

Referências

Downloads

Publicado

Como Citar

Edição

Seção

Licença

Artigos Semelhantes

Enviar Submissão

Indexadores

Edição Atual