The thesis deals with the process of constitutional adjudication in case of legislative omissions (legal gaps that violate constitutional determinations or unconstitutionality by legislative omission). It gives special attention to the constitutional remedy called writ of injunction ('mandado de injunção'), which allows citizens to directly access the Brazilian Constitutional Court in case of violation of constitutional rights and freedoms that result from the lack of an enabling legislation. The research seeks to provide a theoretical guidance to understand this problem and its possible solutions. It is argued that the problem of legislative omission is fundamentally a problem about the relationship between the legislative and the courts, and about the limits to constitutional adjudication. The challenge is to guarantee the effectiveness of constitutional rights without undermining democracy (and the powers of the legislative branch). It is argued that, within the Judiciary, only the Constitutional Court has the power to review legislative omissions. The techniques to judge legislative omissions should improve the institutional dialogue between the Constitutional Court, the Legislature and the ordinary courts. I argue that the control of legislative omissions is compatible with constrained judicial review (weak judicial review). Facing a case of unconstitutional legislative omission, the Constitutional Court has a privileged but not unlimited role in interpreting the Constitution. Ruling on constitutional questions about legislative omissions, the Constitutional Court should either call for legislative action or be open to legislative revision in the short run.

RESUMO Inspirado na abordagem de Karl Polanyi de explorar as interconexões entre o político e o econômico, o local e o global, o presente artigo indica a possibilidade de ampliar a compreensão sobre os arranjos institucionais do sistema monetário internacional a partir do conceito de cidadania, considerando os diversos paradigmas constitucionais (Estados Liberal, Social e Democrático de Direito).

Considerando o dever constitucional do Estado de promover os direitos sociais, o artigo examina o problema derivado da revisão da política de financiamento estudantil para o ensino superior (FIES), levado a cabo pelo Governo Federal no início de 2015, em vista da crise econômica, questão essa posta nos autos da ADPF 341, proposta perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal. Para tanto, examina-se o status do princípio da proibição do retrocesso (ou proibição de regressividade) no direito brasileiro, considerando o plano do direito internacional e do direito constitucional. Por fim, sugere-se abordagens constitucionais possíveis para lidar com a necessidade de rever políticas sociais em vista de crises econômicas à luz do aludido princípio.