THE UNEASINESS OF THE JUDICIALIZATION OF POLITICS: THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER DEMOCRATIC HEGEMONY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v21i36.p148-180.2023

Keywords:

judicialization of politics, separation of powers, judiciary

Abstract

Context: This article deals with the judicialization of politics.

Objective: From the context of the discussion, explicit contradictions and ambiguities and the disquiet caused by them, it is intended to minimally clarify the elements and assumptions of the debate, placing the reader in the genuine sense of the controversy.

Method: Analysis of the classic literature on the subject, to compare and confront concepts, classifications and distinctions.

Results: First, to conceptualize the judicialization of politics and, thus, to distinguish the different related concepts. Second, understand the idea of separation of powers in the 20th century. And, third, to identify democratic hegemony as a decisive factor for understanding the controversy.

Conclusions: Above all, we can see the mistake of opposing the judicialization of politics to the separation of powers when the malaise is, above all, the tension between the judicialization of politics and democratic hegemony.

Author Biographies

Nelson Juliano Cardoso Matos, Universidade Federal do Piauí

Doutor em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito do Recife (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil. Mestre em Direito pela Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brasil. Professor Associado do Departamento de Ciências Jurídicas da Universidade Federal do Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil. Docente permanente do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da UFPI, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil. Docente colaborador do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito e Instituições do Sistema de Justiça da UFMA, São Luís, Maranhão, Brasil. Docente colaborador do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Políticas Públicas da UFPI, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil. Docente colaborador do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Gestão Pública da UFPI, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil. nelsonmatos@ufpi.edu.br

Deborah Dettmam, Universidade Federal do Piauí

Doutora em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito da UFPR, Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil. Mestra em Direito pela Faculdade de Direito do Recife (UFPE), Revife, Pernambuco, Brasil. Professora Adjunta do Departamento de Ciências Jurídicas da Universidade Federal do Piauí, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil. Docente permanente do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da UFPI, Teresina, Piauí, Brasil

Downloads

Published

2023-02-02

How to Cite

MATOS, Nelson Juliano Cardoso; DETTMAM, Deborah. THE UNEASINESS OF THE JUDICIALIZATION OF POLITICS: THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS UNDER DEMOCRATIC HEGEMONY. Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza), Fortaleza, v. 21, n. 36, p. 148–180, 2023. DOI: 10.12662/2447-6641oj.v21i36.p148-180.2023. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unichristus.edu.br/opiniaojuridica/article/view/4274. Acesso em: 23 dec. 2024.

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 36 (2023)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

CESSION OF COPYRIGHTS

The submission of articles to analysis for publication on Opinião Jurídica implies the author(s) transfers copyrights to Centro Universitário Christus – UNICHRISTUS for reproduction, publicizing, distribution, printing and publication, according to the Publication Norm 414R, Opin. Jur., Fortaleza, year 12, n. 16, p.1-414, Jan./Dec. 2014, costs to be bore by UNICHRISTUS, in whatever format or means that may or shall exist, in accordance to articles 49 and following of Federal Law 9.610/98.

1. In ceding copyrights, the author(s) agrees to do so in exclusivity, free of charge and for the totality of the work.

2. UNICHRISTUS may make the work, in its entirety or in parts, available for scholarly purposes, without altering its contents, except for small corrections that are deemed necessary.

3. The cession of copyrights is valid in all countries and for versions of the material in its original language or translated into a foreign language.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT

By submitting an article, the author(s) declare to have sole responsibility for the content of the piece and is(are), therefore, responsible for any judicial or extrajudicial measures referring to it.

1. In case of joint authorship, all authors are considered collectively responsible, except when proved otherwise.