Matrix of analysis of court decisions: the speech of magistrates in Brazil and Germany
This article aims to describe and analyze the contents of the legal discourses of magistrates in Brazil and Germany in the light of José Rodrigo Rodriguez's theory of hermeneutic subjectivism. It starts with a descriptive study of the constitutional provisions in force in Brazil and Germany, in...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande (FURG) |
| Repositorio: | Juris (Rio Grande. Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.periodicos.furg.br:article/15416 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.furg.br/juris/article/view/15416 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Legitimidade argumentativa Decisão judicial Constituição Argumentative legitimacy Judicial decision Constitution |
| Sumario: | This article aims to describe and analyze the contents of the legal discourses of magistrates in Brazil and Germany in the light of José Rodrigo Rodriguez's theory of hermeneutic subjectivism. It starts with a descriptive study of the constitutional provisions in force in Brazil and Germany, in order to explain the respective constitutional structures and their implications in the construction of the legal argumentation of the decision in order to debate the decision “Brazilian style” and “German style”. To this end, an exploratory methodology was applied and bibliographic and documentary research was chosen as an instrument for studying interdisciplinary scientific works, using especially the analysis of decisions rendered in Brazil and Germany, in addition to proposing a matrix for objective content analysis. The results obtained did not establish a value judgment on the Constitutional Courts of the two countries, on the contrary, they provided an expanded view of their practices, insofar as they pointed out distinctions in the way of exposing the content of the respective speeches, demonstrating that cultural differences demarcate the judges, from their training to their professional performance. |
|---|