Ativismo Judicial e a concretização dos direitos sociais no cenário pós-pandemia
Miniatura indisponível
Data
2021
Autores
Título da revista
ISSN da revista
Título do Volume
Editora
Resumo
O estudo investiga os limites do ativismo judicial no campo da concretização dos direitos fundamentais sociais no cenário da crise econômica desencadeada pela pandemia da Covid-19. Para alcançar os objetivos, consultou-se a jurisprudência dos Tribunais Constitucionais de diversos Estados, bem como obras voltadas para o estudo dos direitos sociais, do ativismo judicial e da influência da crise nestes dois temas. Os direitos sociais sofrem, por si só, problemas de efetivação, em virtude da indeterminabilidade do conteúdo e principalmente por serem normas programáticas, isto é, dependem sempre da ação estatal e, consequentemente, de reserva financeira para sua implementação. Com a crise durante e pós-pandemia, essa dificuldade é ampliada ao ponto de o Estado optar pela não concretização ou pela regressão de alguns direitos. Neste cenário, compete ao poder judicial a incumbência de controlar as escolhas políticas e garantir a incolumidade das normas e princípios constitucionais, como o mínimo social, a segurança jurídica e a proporcionalidade. O ativismo judicial pode, até mesmo, representar a mudança das medidas políticas de ordem econômica efetivadas em oposição à crise, desde que a intervenção seja ponderada e embasada na Constituição vigente. De acordo com o ComDESC (Comitê da ONU), os tribunais devem considerar que as medidas regressivas precisam ser justificadas e são presumidamente inadmissíveis, sobretudo em tempos de crise, cabendo ao Estado o ônus de provar sua real necessidade. O estudo reúne relevância social, jurídica e política, tendo em vista tratar de tema que toca problemas atuais do Estado: a crise econômica desencadeada pelo Novo Coronavírus.
Palavras-chave: Ativismo judicial; Direitos fundamentais sociais; Reserva do financeiramente possível; Mínimo social; Vedação ao retrocesso social.
The study investigates the limits of judicial activism in the field of achivement fundamental social rights in the context of the economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. To achieve the objectives, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Courts of several States was consulted, as well as works aimed at the study of social rights, judicial activism and the influence of the crisis on both themes. Social rights, by themselves, suffer from problems of effectiveness, due to the indeterminacy of their content and mainly because they are programmatic norms, that is, they always depend on state action and, consequently, on a financial reserve for their implementation. With the crisis during and after the pandemic, this difficulty is amplified to the point where the State chooses not to implement or to regress some rights. In this scenario, the judicial power is responsible for controlling political choices and guaranteeing the safety of constitutional norms and principles, such as the minimum core obligation, legal security and proportionality. Judicial activism can even represent a change in economic policy measures implemented in opposition to the crisis, as long as the intervention is considered and based on the current Constitution. According to the ComDESC (UN Committee), the courts must consider that regressive measures need to be justified and are presumably inadmissible, especially in times of crisis, with the State having the reponsability of proving their real need. The study brings together social, legal and political relevance, with a view to dealing with a theme that touches current problems of the State: the economic crisis triggered by the New Coronavirus. Key Words: Judicial activism; Fundamental social rights; Financially possible reservation; Minimum core obligation; Prohibition of social retrogression.
The study investigates the limits of judicial activism in the field of achivement fundamental social rights in the context of the economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic. To achieve the objectives, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Courts of several States was consulted, as well as works aimed at the study of social rights, judicial activism and the influence of the crisis on both themes. Social rights, by themselves, suffer from problems of effectiveness, due to the indeterminacy of their content and mainly because they are programmatic norms, that is, they always depend on state action and, consequently, on a financial reserve for their implementation. With the crisis during and after the pandemic, this difficulty is amplified to the point where the State chooses not to implement or to regress some rights. In this scenario, the judicial power is responsible for controlling political choices and guaranteeing the safety of constitutional norms and principles, such as the minimum core obligation, legal security and proportionality. Judicial activism can even represent a change in economic policy measures implemented in opposition to the crisis, as long as the intervention is considered and based on the current Constitution. According to the ComDESC (UN Committee), the courts must consider that regressive measures need to be justified and are presumably inadmissible, especially in times of crisis, with the State having the reponsability of proving their real need. The study brings together social, legal and political relevance, with a view to dealing with a theme that touches current problems of the State: the economic crisis triggered by the New Coronavirus. Key Words: Judicial activism; Fundamental social rights; Financially possible reservation; Minimum core obligation; Prohibition of social retrogression.
Descrição
Orientação: Gustavo Gramaxo Rozeira
Palavras-chave
MESTRADO EM DIREITO, DIREITO, DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS, DIREITOS SOCIAIS, LAW, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SOCIAL RIGHTS, MÍNIMOS SOCIAIS, RESERVA DO POSSÍVEL, ATIVISMO JUDICIAL, MINIMUM CORE OBLIGATION, CONTINGENCY RESERVE, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM