ResumoO trabalho objetiva realizar uma análise acerca do papel contramajoritário exercido pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal em comparação com a tentativa de ampliação da participação da sociedade civil mediante instrumentos como as audiências públicas. A partir de autores da teoria democrática da representação, o artigo contempla um estudo empírico de dados e números os quais buscam aferir a efetiva influência das audiências públicas no processo de deliberação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Em termos metodológicos, a pesquisa envolve uma análise de dados qualitativos, mediante o diagnóstico de causalidades assimétricas paralelas, em torno das audiências realizadas e cujos processos foram julgados em Plenário. Ao final, o artigo apresenta conclusões no sentido de que as audiências estão abaixo do potencial dialógico e da capacidade de influenciar na deliberação do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Palavras-chave

This Article engages in an empirical analysis of the counter-majoritarian role of the Brazilian Supreme Court, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), in terms of its sharp contrast with the aim of attracting wider participation from civil society in public hearings. Public hearings are an important judicial tool that have recently been introduced and that may influence foreign constitutional courts. A public hearing is a procedure in which the STF can hear experts, scientists, professors, civil servants, and even ordinary citizens when a Justice Rapporteur seeks to elucidate a specific technical aspect of a case, a controversial social issue, or an issue in a field that is generally unfamiliar to the presiding judge or judges. This research aims to address the influence of these public hearings on the deliberation process of the STF based on the democratic theory of representation. First, Section B outlines the main premises of the debate, elucidated the purposes and findings of public hearings. Next, Section C presents a theoretical approach addressing deliberation and representation to explain how information obtained in public hearings might improve the STF's adjudicative process. Section D outlines the chosen criteria and methods for the empirical research; this will demonstrate that public hearings in the STF are not working as envisioned. Lastly, to offer qualitative insight, Section E carefully examines two of the eighteen public hearings analyzed. The Article concludes that the STF has much work to do in terms of rethinking and improving the functionality of public hearings.

This essay aims at analyzing the main aspects related to a prison system’s lawsuit judged by the Brazilian Supreme Court in which the “Unconstitutional State of Affairs” adjudication technique was firstly examined. Challenging the base arguments that were presented in the ADPF 347, Justice Rapporteur Marco Aurélio, the article’s purpose is points out that there was not an institutional failure of both Legislative and Executive branches of government in order to justify a structural intervention for overcoming alleged barriers. A parallel with Colombian Supreme Court adjudication practices will be drawn in accordance with the legal transplants theory to understand how Brazil would achieve its reach just importing a structural injunction model that even in Colombia did not work in prisons.Keywords: Unconstitutional State of Affairs. Structural Injunction. ADPF 347. Brazil’s Supreme Court. Colombia’s Supreme Court. Legal Transplants.

No abstract

One year after the reform of Arbitration’s Law came into force, the moment requires an overcoming of the narrow focus about the unavailability of the public interest in order to let another issues flourish. Considering the enhancing of regulation over important sectors of economy to which arbitration has been linked as an ADR tool (ports, energy, PPPs, public procurement), the next step involves the harmonization of legal regimes aiming to endeavor arbitrations with public administration. This article analyzes the overcoming of the first obstacles’ phase and beliefs raised against the arbitration with public administration. In the first part some questions are addressed and few myths are pointed out. Next, the article presents some tools employed to overcome dogmatic premises. Further, it concludes with factual and practical aspects of arbitrations governed by the reform of Arbitration’s Law.