Neoconstitucionalismo à brasileira e a teoria da argumentação de Robert Alexy: construindo pontes e ocultando caminhos privados
Carregando...
Data
2018
Tipo de documento
Dissertação
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Área do conhecimento
Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
Modalidade de acesso
Acesso aberto
Editora
Autores
Ribeiro, Troy Steve
Orientador
Coelho, Cláudio Carneiro Bezerra Pinto
Coorientador
Resumo
A presente investigação tem a finalidade primeira de delinear o paradigma jurídico que surgiu após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, em razão dos horrores perpetrados com total desconsideração aos direitos humanos. Em resposta, as nações democráticas passaram a se reger por cartas constitucionais escritas e rígidas, que possuíam em seu bojo um rol inafastável de direitos fundamentais. Subjacentemente foram criados mecanismos de controle de constitucionalidade, em sua maioria, confiados ao Poder Judiciário. Nasce, nesse momento, um novo paradigma jurídico chamado de neoconstitucionalista por alguns e de constitucionalismo contemporâneo por outros. Ele visa suplantar o positivismo jurídico, sua discricionariedade exacerbada e sua preocupação apenas formal com a validade do direito. Princípios passam a integrar o ordenamento jurídico e teorias surgem na tentativa de sistematizar a utilização deles. Dentre elas está a de Robert Alexy, para quem os princípios são mandamentos de otimização que podem ser ponderadas no interior da teoria da argumentação jurídica. Esta apresenta falhas expostas pela crítica de juristas como Habermas. Tais falhas se tornam mais evidentes na forma equivocada como os juristas brasileiros invocam e aplicam a teoria, que acaba se tornando álibi teórico para toda espécie de decisionismo. Tudo isso se torna evidente a partir da leitura realizada por Streck em sua Crítica Hermenêutica do Direito, que tem bases profundas na ontologia heideggeriana e na hermenêutica filosófica de Gadamer. Ante esse referencial teórico, o método aqui utilizado foi o fenomenológico-hermenêutico.
The current investigation has the initial purpose of outlining the legal paradigm that emerged after World War II, due to the horrors perpetrated with total disregard for human rights. In response, democratic nations became governed by written and rigid constitutional letters, which had in their midst an unassailable range of fundamental rights. In a subjacent way, constitutionality mechanisms controls were created, most of which were entrusted to the judiciary. At this moment, a new legal paradigm is born, called neo-constitutionalism by some and contemporary constitutionalism by others. It seeks to overcome legal positivism, its exacerbated discretion, and its formal concern only with the validity of law. Principles begin to integrate the legal order and theories appear in the attempt to systematize their use. Among them is the theory of Robert Alexy, for whom principles are mandated norms that can be considered within the theory of legal argumentation, which presents itself flaws exposed by critics of jurists such as Habermas. Such failures become more evident in the mistaken way Brazilian jurists invoke and apply the theory, which ends up becoming a theoretical alibi for all kinds of decisionism. All this becomes evident from the reading by Streck in his Critique of Law Hermeneutics, which has a deep foundation in Heidegger's ontology and in the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer. With such a theoretical reference, the method used in this investigation was the phenomenological-hermeneutic.
The current investigation has the initial purpose of outlining the legal paradigm that emerged after World War II, due to the horrors perpetrated with total disregard for human rights. In response, democratic nations became governed by written and rigid constitutional letters, which had in their midst an unassailable range of fundamental rights. In a subjacent way, constitutionality mechanisms controls were created, most of which were entrusted to the judiciary. At this moment, a new legal paradigm is born, called neo-constitutionalism by some and contemporary constitutionalism by others. It seeks to overcome legal positivism, its exacerbated discretion, and its formal concern only with the validity of law. Principles begin to integrate the legal order and theories appear in the attempt to systematize their use. Among them is the theory of Robert Alexy, for whom principles are mandated norms that can be considered within the theory of legal argumentation, which presents itself flaws exposed by critics of jurists such as Habermas. Such failures become more evident in the mistaken way Brazilian jurists invoke and apply the theory, which ends up becoming a theoretical alibi for all kinds of decisionism. All this becomes evident from the reading by Streck in his Critique of Law Hermeneutics, which has a deep foundation in Heidegger's ontology and in the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer. With such a theoretical reference, the method used in this investigation was the phenomenological-hermeneutic.
Palavras-chave
Neoconstitucionalismo, Hermenêutica, Decisionismo, Teoria da argumentação, Princípios