Abstract
This article contributes to a methodological proposal designed to understand judicial supremacy in a concrete perspective. It adopts a methodological conception in which judicial supremacy can be observed according to two perspectives: abstract judicial supremacy and specific judicial supremacy. The former represents studies with a philosophical-ontognosiological profi le on this phenomenon. However, the latter – our main object of study – represents concrete and contextualized contributions of this institutional design. This proposal is made up of four criteria of verification of specific judicial supremacy: (i) political criterion; (ii) dialogic criterion; (iii) enforcement criterion; and (iv) effects criterion. Based on such criteria, it is possible to conclude that judicial supremacy can express itself through different forms in political-legal realities. Key words: judicial review, institutional design, judicial supremacy, institutional theory, institutional dialogues.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call