PROPORTIONALITY IN BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT: A MISPLACED IDEA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v6i1.465Keywords:
Proportionality, Legal arguments, Constitutional review, Brazilian Federal Supreme Court.Abstract
In the last decades, proportionality has emerged as one of the main frameworks for assessing constitutional rights’ violations. Developed in Germany, this method has spread widely and on a global scale. Although conceived and disseminated under the claim that it can possibly help both the state and courts with their justification processes, proportionality has been criticized in Brazil for having the opposite consequence. The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court adopts proportionality as a rhetorical tool, distorting its structure and its argumentative requirements in the name of a supposed theoretical sophistication and to legitimize individual positions of justices. This improper reproduction of a foreign idea has harmful consequences for Brazilian law.Downloads
References
ÁFRICA DO SUL. CCT3/94) [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (6) BCLR 665; 1995 (3) SA, 1995.
ALEXY, Robert. Balancing, Constitutional Review and Representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 3, 2005.
ALEXY, Robert. Constitutional Rights, Democracy and Representation. Richerche Giuridiche, v. 3, 2014, p. 197-209.
ALEXY, Robert. Direitos Fundamentais no Estado constitucional Democrático: Para a relação entre direitos do homem, direitos fundamentais, democracia e jurisdição constitucional. Revista de Direito Administrativo, v. 217, 1999.
ALEXY, Robert. Teoria dos Direitos Fundamentais. 2. Ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2014.
ÁVILA, Humberto. Neoconstitucionalismo: entre a ‘ciência do Direito’ e o ‘Direito da Ciência. Revista Eletrônica de Direito do Estado, v. 17, 2009.
BARROSO, Luís Roberto. A razão sem voto: o Supremo Tribunal Federal e o governo da maioria. Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas, v. 5, 2015.
BOROWSKI, Martin. Grundrechte als Prinzipien. 2. Ed. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2007.
BRADY, Alan D. P. Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act: An Institutionally Sensitive Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
BRASIL.Supremo Tribunal Federal, HC 82.424, Rel. Min. Moreira Alves, voto Min. Marco Aurélio, j. 17/09/2003 a.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal, HC 82.424, Rel. Min. Moreira Alves, voto Min. Gilmar Mendes, j. 17/09/2003 b.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal, ADI 3.510, Rel. Min. Ayres Britto, voto Min. Gilmar Mendes, j. 19/05/2008.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal, ADPF 132, Rel. Min. Ayres Britto, j. 05/05/2011.
BRASIL. Lei no 13.105/2015.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal, HC 124.306, Rel. Min. Marco Aurelio, j. 09/08/2016.
CAMARGO, Manuela Oliveira. Proporcionalidade e razoabilidade na jurisprudência do STF: os casos de conflito de princípios da ordem econômica. In: COUTINHO, Diogo R. e VOJVODIC, Adriana M. Jurisprudência Constitucional: como decide o STF? São Paulo: Malheiros, 2009.
CANADÁ. R v Oakes (1986) I SCR.
CLÉRICO, Laura. Die Struktur der Verhältnismäβigkeit. Baden-Baden: Nomos,
CLÉRICO, Laura. Hacía la reconstrucción de un modelo integrado de proporcionalidad a la luz de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. In: CAPALDO, Griselda, SIECKMANN, Jan, CLÉRICO, Laura. Internacionalización del Derecho Constitucional, Constitucionalización del Derecho Internacional. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2012.
COHEN-ELYA, Moshe, PORAT, Iddo. American Balancing and German Proportionality: The historical origins. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 8, 2010.
COHEN-ELYA, Moshe, PORAT, Iddo. Proportionality and Constitutional Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
DECHSLING, Rainer. Das Verhältnismäßigkeitsgebot: Eine Bestandaufnahme der Literatur zur Verhältnismßßigkeit staatlichen Handels. Munique: Vahlen, 1989.
DYZENHHAUS, David. Law as Justification: Etienne Mureinik’s Conception of Legal Culture. South African Journal of Human Rights, v. 14, 1998.
EMILIOU, Nicholas. The Principle of Proportionality in European Law. Londres: Kluwer Law Internation, 1996.
HUSCROFT, Grant, MILLER, Bradley, WEBER, Grégoire. Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
JOWELL, Jeffrey. Beyond the Rule of Law: Towards Constitutional Judicial
Review. Public Law, v. 4, 2000.
KAVANAGH, Aileen. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
KUMM, Mattias. Institutionalising Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review. European Journal of Legal Studies, v. 1, 2007.
KUMM, Mattias. Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights and the Problem of Judicial Review. In: KLATT, Matthias (ed.). Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
KUMM, Mattias. The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights-Based Proportionality Review. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, v. 4, n. 2, 2010.
LIMA, Rafael Bellem de. Regras na Teoria dos Princípios. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2014.
MARTINS, Leonardo; DIMOULIS, Dimitri. Teoria Geral dos Direitos Fundamentais. 2 ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2009.
MÖLLER, Kai. The Global Model of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
MÖLLER, Kai. From constitutional to human rights: On the moral structure of international human rights. Global Constitutionalism, v. 3, 2014.
MUREINIK, Etienne. A bridge to where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights. South African Journal of Human Rights, v. 10, 1994.
NEVES, Marcelo. Entre Hidra e Hércules: Princípios e Regras Constitucionais. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2013.
NEVES, Marcelo. O Profeta, os Discípulos e o “Enviado”: Comentários a Virgílio Afonso da Silva. Revista Estudos Institucionais, v. 5, 2019.
PIEROTH, Bodo; SCHLINK, Bernhard. Grundrechte: Staatsrecht II. 23. ed. Heidelberg: C.F. Müller, 2007.
RIVERS, Julian. Proportionality and variable intensity of Review. Cambridge Law Journal, v. 65, 2006.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and America: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture. In: NOLTE, Georg. European and US Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
SCHWARZ, Roberto. As Ideias fora do lugar: Ensaios selecionados. São Paulo: Penguin Classics – Companhia das Letras, 2014.
SIECKMANN, Jan. Balancing, Optimisation, and Alexy’s “Weight Formula”. ARSP Beiheft, v. 124, 2009.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. O proporcional e o razoável. Revista dos Tribunais, v. 798, 2002.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. A Constitucionalização do Direito: Os direitos fundamentais nas relações entre particulares. São Paulo: Malheiros: 2005.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. Deciding without deliberating. International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 11, 2013.
STEINMETZ, Wilson. A vinculação dos particulares a direitos fundamentais. São Paulo, Malheiros: 2004.
STONE-SWEET, Alec; MATTHEWS, Jud. All things in proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing. Emory Law Journal, v. 60, 2011.
STONE-SWEET, Alec; MATTHEWS, Jud. Proportionality, Judicial Review, and Global Constitutionalism. In: SARTOR, G., VALENTINI, C. (eds). Reasonableness and Law. Law and Philosophy Library, v. 86. Dordrecht: Springer: 2009.
WEINRIB, Lorraine E. The postwar paradigm and American exceptionalism. In: CHOUDHRY, Sujit. The Migration of Constitutional Ideas. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The authors hold their copyright and concede to the JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES the right to the first publication, in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Authors are strongly encouraged to publish their manuscripts in other medias, such as institutional repositories and personal pages. The Journal only requires the credits of the first publication.
