Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

dialnet-ar-18-ART0001365619

dialnet

Dialnet

Dialnet AR

Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law, ISSN 2179-7943, Vol. 20, Nº. 2, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Espaço Juridico Journal of Law [EJJL]), pags. 187-202

Portuguese

legislative discretion
judicial review
reight formula
arguments of politic
legal principles
discricionariedade legislativa
revisão judicial
fórmula do peso
argumentos de política
princípios jurídicos

legislative discretion
judicial review
reight formula
arguments of politic
legal principles
discricionariedade legislativa
revisão judicial
fórmula do peso
argumentos de política
princípios jurídicos
Theodoro, Marcelo Antonio
Possignolo, André Trapani Costa
Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

The paper propose critics to the partial dictum of “necessity” present in the second step of “proportionality rule” developed by Robert Alexy with a basis in the idea of “politics” from Ronald Dworkin and, additionally, in the “weight formula” from Robert Alexy himself. In this way, the work approaches the matter of legislative discretion and extent of judicial review of laws, which is relevant in times of highlight judicial activism. Besides, the contraposition allows an exposition and differentiation of the ideas from both authors. For that, the text, which follows a dialectical method, presents the “rule of proportionality” in its three steps of “suitability”, “necessity” and “proportionality in the narrower sense”, as well as the “weight formula” by which this last step is done. It also presents the concepts of “rules”, “principles” and “politics” from Ronald Dworkin and, from this, delineates the critics to the partial dictum of “necessity”. The main results found points that the step of “necessity” is not legally chargeable, but constitutes a “matter of politic”. This allows the conclusion that judicial review of law can be made by the “weight formula”, preventing disproportional laws in the narrower sense to be made, but that the election of the one that interfere less with other principles is a “matter of politic”.

Article

Theodoro, Marcelo Antonio
Possignolo, André Trapani Costa

Theodoro, Marcelo Antonio
Possignolo, André Trapani Costa

Theodoro, Marcelo Antonio

Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin

crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de robert alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de ronald dworkin

2019

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7256315

1709751241568944128

dialnet-ar-18-ART00013656192020-02-26Crítica à máxima parcial da “necessidade” de Robert Alexy a partir da ideia de “políticas” de Ronald DworkinTheodoro, Marcelo AntonioPossignolo, André Trapani Costalegislative discretionjudicial reviewreight formulaarguments of politiclegal principlesdiscricionariedade legislativarevisão judicialfórmula do pesoargumentos de políticaprincípios jurídicosThe paper propose critics to the partial dictum of “necessity” present in the second step of “proportionality rule” developed by Robert Alexy with a basis in the idea of “politics” from Ronald Dworkin and, additionally, in the “weight formula” from Robert Alexy himself. In this way, the work approaches the matter of legislative discretion and extent of judicial review of laws, which is relevant in times of highlight judicial activism. Besides, the contraposition allows an exposition and differentiation of the ideas from both authors. For that, the text, which follows a dialectical method, presents the “rule of proportionality” in its three steps of “suitability”, “necessity” and “proportionality in the narrower sense”, as well as the “weight formula” by which this last step is done. It also presents the concepts of “rules”, “principles” and “politics” from Ronald Dworkin and, from this, delineates the critics to the partial dictum of “necessity”. The main results found points that the step of “necessity” is not legally chargeable, but constitutes a “matter of politic”. This allows the conclusion that judicial review of law can be made by the “weight formula”, preventing disproportional laws in the narrower sense to be made, but that the election of the one that interfere less with other principles is a “matter of politic”.O artigo traz críticas à máxima parcial da “necessidade” constante na segunda etapa da “regra da proporcionalidade” desenvolvida por Robert Alexy a partir das ideias de “política” de Ronald Dworkin e, complementarmente, da “fórmula do peso” do próprio Robert Alexy. Assim, o trabalho aborda a questão da discricionariedade legislativa e da amplitude do controle judicial das leis, o que é relevante em tempos de destacado ativismo judicial. Além disso, a contraposição permite uma exposição e diferenciação das ideias de ambos os autores. Para isso, o texto, que segue o método dialético, apresenta a “regra da proporcionalidade” em suas três etapas da “adequação”, “necessidade” e “proporcionalidade em sentido estrito”, bem como a “fórmula do peso”, por meio da qual essa última se perfaz; também apresenta os conceitos de “regras”, “princípios” e “políticas” de Ronald Dworkin e, a partir disso, traça as críticas à máxima parcial da “necessidade”. Os principais resultados encontrados apontam que a etapa da “necessidade” não é juridicamente exigível, mas constitui “questão de política”, o que possibilita a conclusão de que o controle judicial da lei pode ser feito com base na “fórmula do peso”, impedindo a edição de leis desproporcionais em sentido estrito, mas que a eleição da medida menos gravosa é uma questão política.2019text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7256315(Revista) ISSN 1519-5899(Revista) ISSN 2179-7943Espaço Jurídico: Journal of Law, ISSN 2179-7943, Vol. 20, Nº. 2, 2019 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Espaço Juridico Journal of Law [EJJL]), pags. 187-202porLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI