File #2340: "2018_Book_BorrowingJustificationForPropo.pdf"
Testo
1|Foreword|7
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|10
1|1 Introduction|14
2|1.1 Terminological Remarks|18
2|1.2 Methodological Remarks|20
2|1.3 A Further Contribution|24
2|1.4 Judicial Borrowings|25
2|1.5 The Problem of Justification|28
2|1.6 Reasons for Borrowing|32
2|1.7 Sources|34
2|1.8 Structure|36
2|References|38
1|2 On the Migration of Proportionality|46
2|2.1 Germany: The System of Origin|46
3|2.1.1 First Phase: Origins of Proportionality|48
3|2.1.2 Second Phase: Proportionality and Constitutional Decision-Making|49
3|2.1.3 Third Phase: Consolidation and Expansion|54
2|2.2 Explaining the Migration of Proportionality|58
3|2.2.1 Functionalist Explanations|58
3|2.2.2 Contextualist Explanations|59
3|2.2.3 Naturalistic Explanations|62
2|2.3 Brazil: The System of Destination|63
3|2.3.1 The Openness of Brazilian Interpretative Practice|64
3|2.3.2 The Ellwanger Case (2003)|66
3|2.3.3 Peculiarities of the STF’s Structure and Functioning|67
2|2.4 Justifying the Borrowings of Proportionality|75
3|2.4.1 Weak Thesis|77
3|2.4.2 Strong Thesis|78
3|2.4.3 Moderate Thesis|85
2|2.5 Results|90
2|References|93
1|3 The Principles-Theory Variant of Proportionality|103
2|3.1 Proportionality(-ies)?|103
3|3.1.1 A Disagreement over Phraseology|105
3|3.1.2 A Genuine Conceptual Controversy|108
3|3.1.3 A Concept of Proportionality|109
2|3.2 Proportionality in the Principles Theory|111
3|3.2.1 The Structure of Proportionality|113
3|3.2.2 The Weight Formula|114
3|3.2.3 Proportionality and Justification|116
2|3.3 Proportionality in the STF’s Case Law|121
3|3.3.1 The Ineligibility Act Case (2008)|122
3|3.3.2 The Arrested Defaulter Cases (2008)|124
3|3.3.3 The Pre-Trial-Detention Cases (2009)|126
3|3.3.4 The Paternity Test Case (2011)|128
3|3.3.5 The Abortion Case (2016)|130
3|3.3.6 Other Cases|131
2|3.4 Judging Under the Principles-Theory Influence|132
3|3.4.1 Balancing Reconstructed|134
3|3.4.2 Meeting Criticism|136
3|3.4.3 A Place for Proportionality in Brazilian Law|144
2|3.5 Results|146
2|References|148
1|4 A System of Rules and Principles|155
2|4.1 A Genealogy of the Distinction Between Rules and Principles|155
3|4.1.1 Legal Scholarship|157
3|4.1.2 The Case Law of the BVerfG|160
2|4.2 Principles According to the Principles Theory|162
3|4.2.1 The Dual Nature of Ought|163
3|4.2.2 The Collision Law|164
3|4.2.3 The Optimization Thesis|166
3|4.2.4 The Law of Balancing|167
3|4.2.5 Dworkin’s Alternative Model|168
2|4.3 Principles in the STF’s Case Law|171
3|4.3.1 The Additional Pay Case (2006)|172
3|4.3.2 The Judicature Act Case (2007)|174
3|4.3.3 The New Municipalities Cases (2007)|175
3|4.3.4 The São Francisco River Case (2008)|177
3|4.3.5 The Judges Recruitment Cases I and II (2011)|179
3|4.3.6 The Chico Mendes Institute Case (2012)|182
3|4.3.7 Other Cases|183
2|4.4 A Case Law on Principles as Optimization Requirements|185
3|4.4.1 Judging Under the Optimization Thesis|188
3|4.4.2 Principles as Optimization Requirements in the Federal Constitution?|190
2|4.5 Results|192
2|References|192
1|5 A Charter of Rights with Wide Scope|198
2|5.1 A Dispute About Fundamental Rights and Their Limits|198
3|5.1.1 Formal Approaches|201
3|5.1.2 Substantive Approaches|202
2|5.2 The Principles-Theory Approach to Rights|204
3|5.2.1 A Theory of Rights with Wide Scope|206
3|5.2.2 The Trump Model: An Alternative Approach|209
3|5.2.3 Equality as a Fundamental Right with Wide Scope|213
2|5.3 Wide-Scope Rights in the STF’s Case Law|216
3|5.3.1 The Public Pension Reform Cases (2004)|218
3|5.3.2 The University Placement Case (2004)|220
3|5.3.3 The Heinous Crimes Act Cases (2005 and 2006)|221
3|5.3.4 The Opening Ceremony Case (2006)|223
3|5.3.5 The Social Organizations Case (2007)|223
3|5.3.6 The Ex-Governors’ Pension Case (2007)|224
3|5.3.7 The Bidding Law Cases (2007)|225
3|5.3.8 The Journalism Degree Case (2009)|227
3|5.3.9 Other Cases|229
2|5.4 Borrowing a Particular Conception of Wide-Scope Rights|231
3|5.4.1 Wide-Scope Rights to Freedom and Equality in the Federal Constitution|234
3|5.4.2 Unwritten Limits to Rights in the Scholarly Debate|235
3|5.4.3 ‘No Absolute Rights’ in Case Law|238
2|5.5 Results|239
2|References|240
1|6 A Constitutional Court Looking for Justification|244
2|6.1 Constitutional Review and Separation of Powers|244
3|6.1.1 Formal Aspects of the New Constitutionalism|246
3|6.1.2 Substantive Aspects|251
2|6.2 Constitutional Review According to the Principles Theory|254
3|6.2.1 A Theory of Judicial Discretion|255
3|6.2.2 The Legitimacy Challenge|261
2|6.3 STF’s Case Law on Constitutional Review|266
3|6.3.1 The Disarming Act Case I (2007)|267
3|6.3.2 The Stem Cells Case (2007)|269
3|6.3.3 The Political Satire Case (2010)|271
3|6.3.4 The Disarming Act Cases II, III, and IV (2012)|273
3|6.3.5 Other Cases|275
2|6.4 The Principles-Theory Influence on the STF’s Self-understanding|276
3|6.4.1 The Duty to Guard the Constitution|278
3|6.4.2 The Duty to Enhance the Effectiveness of Fundamental Rights|280
3|6.4.3 The Duty of Justification|285
2|6.5 Results|286
2|References|288
1|7 A Final Argument in Favour of Proportionality|293
2|7.1 Rights to Positive State Action According to the Principles Theory|293
3|7.1.1 Rights to Something|295
3|7.1.2 Positive Rights and Proportionality|302
2|7.2 Rights to Positive State Action in the STF’s Case Law|307
3|7.2.1 The Expropriation Procedure Case (2003)|308
3|7.2.2 The Press Law Case (2009)|310
3|7.2.3 The Same-Sex Union Cases (2011)|311
3|7.2.4 The Prosecutors’ Investigative Power Case (2003)|312
3|7.2.5 The Healthcare Cases (2010)|313
3|7.2.6 Other Cases|315
2|7.3 Borrowing the Principles-Theory Account of Positive Rights|317
3|7.3.1 An Inconsistent Case Law on Protective and Procedure Rights|317
3|7.3.2 Landmark Court Decisions on Social Rights|320
3|7.3.3 System-Dependent Reasons for Borrowing|323
3|7.3.4 A Final Remark on System-Independent Reasons|326
2|7.4 Results|331
2|References|333
1|8 Concluding Remarks|337
1|Cases|342
1|Constitutions, Legislations, and Administrative Materials|347
1|International Materials|349
1|Acknowledgements|8
1|Contents|10
1|1 Introduction|14
2|1.1 Terminological Remarks|18
2|1.2 Methodological Remarks|20
2|1.3 A Further Contribution|24
2|1.4 Judicial Borrowings|25
2|1.5 The Problem of Justification|28
2|1.6 Reasons for Borrowing|32
2|1.7 Sources|34
2|1.8 Structure|36
2|References|38
1|2 On the Migration of Proportionality|46
2|2.1 Germany: The System of Origin|46
3|2.1.1 First Phase: Origins of Proportionality|48
3|2.1.2 Second Phase: Proportionality and Constitutional Decision-Making|49
3|2.1.3 Third Phase: Consolidation and Expansion|54
2|2.2 Explaining the Migration of Proportionality|58
3|2.2.1 Functionalist Explanations|58
3|2.2.2 Contextualist Explanations|59
3|2.2.3 Naturalistic Explanations|62
2|2.3 Brazil: The System of Destination|63
3|2.3.1 The Openness of Brazilian Interpretative Practice|64
3|2.3.2 The Ellwanger Case (2003)|66
3|2.3.3 Peculiarities of the STF’s Structure and Functioning|67
2|2.4 Justifying the Borrowings of Proportionality|75
3|2.4.1 Weak Thesis|77
3|2.4.2 Strong Thesis|78
3|2.4.3 Moderate Thesis|85
2|2.5 Results|90
2|References|93
1|3 The Principles-Theory Variant of Proportionality|103
2|3.1 Proportionality(-ies)?|103
3|3.1.1 A Disagreement over Phraseology|105
3|3.1.2 A Genuine Conceptual Controversy|108
3|3.1.3 A Concept of Proportionality|109
2|3.2 Proportionality in the Principles Theory|111
3|3.2.1 The Structure of Proportionality|113
3|3.2.2 The Weight Formula|114
3|3.2.3 Proportionality and Justification|116
2|3.3 Proportionality in the STF’s Case Law|121
3|3.3.1 The Ineligibility Act Case (2008)|122
3|3.3.2 The Arrested Defaulter Cases (2008)|124
3|3.3.3 The Pre-Trial-Detention Cases (2009)|126
3|3.3.4 The Paternity Test Case (2011)|128
3|3.3.5 The Abortion Case (2016)|130
3|3.3.6 Other Cases|131
2|3.4 Judging Under the Principles-Theory Influence|132
3|3.4.1 Balancing Reconstructed|134
3|3.4.2 Meeting Criticism|136
3|3.4.3 A Place for Proportionality in Brazilian Law|144
2|3.5 Results|146
2|References|148
1|4 A System of Rules and Principles|155
2|4.1 A Genealogy of the Distinction Between Rules and Principles|155
3|4.1.1 Legal Scholarship|157
3|4.1.2 The Case Law of the BVerfG|160
2|4.2 Principles According to the Principles Theory|162
3|4.2.1 The Dual Nature of Ought|163
3|4.2.2 The Collision Law|164
3|4.2.3 The Optimization Thesis|166
3|4.2.4 The Law of Balancing|167
3|4.2.5 Dworkin’s Alternative Model|168
2|4.3 Principles in the STF’s Case Law|171
3|4.3.1 The Additional Pay Case (2006)|172
3|4.3.2 The Judicature Act Case (2007)|174
3|4.3.3 The New Municipalities Cases (2007)|175
3|4.3.4 The São Francisco River Case (2008)|177
3|4.3.5 The Judges Recruitment Cases I and II (2011)|179
3|4.3.6 The Chico Mendes Institute Case (2012)|182
3|4.3.7 Other Cases|183
2|4.4 A Case Law on Principles as Optimization Requirements|185
3|4.4.1 Judging Under the Optimization Thesis|188
3|4.4.2 Principles as Optimization Requirements in the Federal Constitution?|190
2|4.5 Results|192
2|References|192
1|5 A Charter of Rights with Wide Scope|198
2|5.1 A Dispute About Fundamental Rights and Their Limits|198
3|5.1.1 Formal Approaches|201
3|5.1.2 Substantive Approaches|202
2|5.2 The Principles-Theory Approach to Rights|204
3|5.2.1 A Theory of Rights with Wide Scope|206
3|5.2.2 The Trump Model: An Alternative Approach|209
3|5.2.3 Equality as a Fundamental Right with Wide Scope|213
2|5.3 Wide-Scope Rights in the STF’s Case Law|216
3|5.3.1 The Public Pension Reform Cases (2004)|218
3|5.3.2 The University Placement Case (2004)|220
3|5.3.3 The Heinous Crimes Act Cases (2005 and 2006)|221
3|5.3.4 The Opening Ceremony Case (2006)|223
3|5.3.5 The Social Organizations Case (2007)|223
3|5.3.6 The Ex-Governors’ Pension Case (2007)|224
3|5.3.7 The Bidding Law Cases (2007)|225
3|5.3.8 The Journalism Degree Case (2009)|227
3|5.3.9 Other Cases|229
2|5.4 Borrowing a Particular Conception of Wide-Scope Rights|231
3|5.4.1 Wide-Scope Rights to Freedom and Equality in the Federal Constitution|234
3|5.4.2 Unwritten Limits to Rights in the Scholarly Debate|235
3|5.4.3 ‘No Absolute Rights’ in Case Law|238
2|5.5 Results|239
2|References|240
1|6 A Constitutional Court Looking for Justification|244
2|6.1 Constitutional Review and Separation of Powers|244
3|6.1.1 Formal Aspects of the New Constitutionalism|246
3|6.1.2 Substantive Aspects|251
2|6.2 Constitutional Review According to the Principles Theory|254
3|6.2.1 A Theory of Judicial Discretion|255
3|6.2.2 The Legitimacy Challenge|261
2|6.3 STF’s Case Law on Constitutional Review|266
3|6.3.1 The Disarming Act Case I (2007)|267
3|6.3.2 The Stem Cells Case (2007)|269
3|6.3.3 The Political Satire Case (2010)|271
3|6.3.4 The Disarming Act Cases II, III, and IV (2012)|273
3|6.3.5 Other Cases|275
2|6.4 The Principles-Theory Influence on the STF’s Self-understanding|276
3|6.4.1 The Duty to Guard the Constitution|278
3|6.4.2 The Duty to Enhance the Effectiveness of Fundamental Rights|280
3|6.4.3 The Duty of Justification|285
2|6.5 Results|286
2|References|288
1|7 A Final Argument in Favour of Proportionality|293
2|7.1 Rights to Positive State Action According to the Principles Theory|293
3|7.1.1 Rights to Something|295
3|7.1.2 Positive Rights and Proportionality|302
2|7.2 Rights to Positive State Action in the STF’s Case Law|307
3|7.2.1 The Expropriation Procedure Case (2003)|308
3|7.2.2 The Press Law Case (2009)|310
3|7.2.3 The Same-Sex Union Cases (2011)|311
3|7.2.4 The Prosecutors’ Investigative Power Case (2003)|312
3|7.2.5 The Healthcare Cases (2010)|313
3|7.2.6 Other Cases|315
2|7.3 Borrowing the Principles-Theory Account of Positive Rights|317
3|7.3.1 An Inconsistent Case Law on Protective and Procedure Rights|317
3|7.3.2 Landmark Court Decisions on Social Rights|320
3|7.3.3 System-Dependent Reasons for Borrowing|323
3|7.3.4 A Final Remark on System-Independent Reasons|326
2|7.4 Results|331
2|References|333
1|8 Concluding Remarks|337
1|Cases|342
1|Constitutions, Legislations, and Administrative Materials|347
1|International Materials|349