Constitutional dialogue and judicial activism

Abstract

The dialogic model of jurisdiction cannot be seen as a simple defense against judicial activism, given that it can be added to it by opening the details of a decision to the cooperation of other actors, but without redeeming the political decision based on the decision. In extreme cases, dialogic theories and techniques can be seized for perverse use in the context of a major escalation of political conflicts. The problematization of this topic is far from canceling the dialogical model, it challenges its deepening, demanding institutional mechanisms, incentives, sanctions, designs, procedures that structure the dialogue. And it also calls for a step back, a retreat to the most essential part of the debate about judicial activism, especially on the question of interpretation. Over time, dialogues have been associated with various other decision-making techniques. In their context of origin, they have already presented their limits and possibilities.Procedures and dialogues only make sense when a minimal interpretive basis can be shared, if we can recognize as authentic the application to specific cases of the principles that make up society. This article aims to depict the role of judicial dialogues by enumerating its three main constitutional functions: coherence, cohesion and conformation. Using doctrinal bibliographic research, it was analyzed that modern constitutionalism, marked by the consequences of globalization, suffers from strong instability. The protection of human rights in the current global scenario of legal fragmentation depends on the interaction between different orders, which occurs through the establishment of judicial dialogues. Taking into account the relevance of the study of judicial dialogue for the effective protection of the individual in the human rights protection system, with the help of the deductive method and search-bibliographic, documentary and qualitative research, it seeks to identify the factors that require its promotion among the constitutional courts.