PROTECTING POLITICAL RIGHTS OR INTERFERING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA?

F. Lima
{"title":"PROTECTING POLITICAL RIGHTS OR INTERFERING IN THE POLITICAL ARENA?","authors":"F. Lima","doi":"10.24861/2675-1038.V2I2.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The interactions between legal and political system has been strengthened in recent years, especially through judicial review, with the transference to Courts of themes that define and divide a political system. In brazilian case, in the absence of legislative deliberation some of these discussions are forwarded Brazilian courts, who gave controversial decisions about “mega politics”. So, the research´s question “” is the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (re) building electoral legislation, as a manifestation of judicial activism, interfering in mega politics?The study starts from a theoretical approach, with the deductive method, combined with a qualitative case analysis about courts´s decisions regarding party loyalty, coalition verticalizations, threshold clauses and the rights of legislative minorities, and political donations. Therefore, the research is supported by a bibliographical and documentary survey. Based on the methodological approach of Judicial Politcs, the legal protection of fundamental political rights and the structure of the Brazilian strong judicial system are described (Normative Theory), and evaluated the motivations of legal decisions, taking into account judicialization as exercise of a political activity (Positive Theory).","PeriodicalId":173917,"journal":{"name":"HUMANITIES AND RIGHTS GLOBAL NETWORK JOURNAL","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HUMANITIES AND RIGHTS GLOBAL NETWORK JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24861/2675-1038.V2I2.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The interactions between legal and political system has been strengthened in recent years, especially through judicial review, with the transference to Courts of themes that define and divide a political system. In brazilian case, in the absence of legislative deliberation some of these discussions are forwarded Brazilian courts, who gave controversial decisions about “mega politics”. So, the research´s question “” is the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (re) building electoral legislation, as a manifestation of judicial activism, interfering in mega politics?The study starts from a theoretical approach, with the deductive method, combined with a qualitative case analysis about courts´s decisions regarding party loyalty, coalition verticalizations, threshold clauses and the rights of legislative minorities, and political donations. Therefore, the research is supported by a bibliographical and documentary survey. Based on the methodological approach of Judicial Politcs, the legal protection of fundamental political rights and the structure of the Brazilian strong judicial system are described (Normative Theory), and evaluated the motivations of legal decisions, taking into account judicialization as exercise of a political activity (Positive Theory).
保护政治权利还是干涉政治?
近年来,法律和政治制度之间的相互作用得到加强,特别是通过司法审查,将界定和划分政治制度的主题移交给法院。在巴西的情况下,由于缺乏立法审议,其中一些讨论被提交给巴西法院,后者对“巨型政治”做出了有争议的决定。因此,研究的问题是“巴西联邦最高法院(重新)建立选举法,作为司法能动主义的一种表现,是否干涉了大型政治?”本研究从理论方法出发,运用演绎法,结合定性案例分析法院在政党忠诚、联盟垂直化、门槛条款和立法少数群体权利以及政治献金等方面的判决。因此,本研究以文献调查和文献调查为基础。基于司法政治学的方法论方法,描述了基本政治权利的法律保护和巴西强大司法系统的结构(规范理论),并评估了法律决策的动机,考虑到司法化作为一种政治活动的行使(实证理论)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信