Dos problemas metodológicos do responsive judge: entre os limites da juridicidade e da responsabilidade jurisdicional

Abstract

A presente dissertação tem como principal objetivo identificar os problemas metodológicos insurgidos de uma determinada prática jurídica em possível ascensão, ora denominada “responsive judge”, que eventualmente pode servir de instrumento para reacender na prática cotidiana da construção da decisão judicial os problemas fundamentais do direito e da sua respectiva realização. Através de uma reconstrução crítica do possível conceito de “responsive judge”, por meio das suas principais e multifacetadas acepções – analisadas neste trabalho sob três designações, a saber: 1) um caminho ao modelo aretaico, representado por Mateusz Stępień; 2) uma definição universal, proposta por Tânia Sourdin e Archie Zariski; e 3) uma terceira via, representada por Philippe Nonet e Philip Selznick –, bem como das suas principais influências e referências teóricas, a exemplo da “ética das virtudes”, da “cooperação” e da “empatia”, busca-se investigar as principais problemáticas invocadas quando da sua possível realização. Feito isso, as críticas até então realizadas são testadas por meio de experiências jurídicas diversas e concretas, com o intuito de demonstrar que, de fato, os problemas fundamentais investigados nesta oportunidade podem ser vistos na rotina judiciária e discutidos com a profundidade que lhes é devida. A metodologia adotada foi, substancialmente, a revisão bibliográfica, sem prejuízo das reflexões críticas necessárias à resposta dos questionamentos postos no decorrer deste trabalho.

The main objective of this dissertation is to identify the methodological problems arising from a certain legal practice on the rise, now called "responsive judge", which may eventually serve as an instrument to rekindle the fundamental problems of law and of its respective realization. Through a critical reconstruction of the possible concept of “responsive judge”, through its main and multifaceted meanings – analyzed in this work under three designations, namely: 1) a path to the Aretaic model, represented by Mateusz Stępień; 2) a universal definition, proposed by Tânia Sourdin and Archie Zariski; and 3) a third way, represented by Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick -, as well as their main influences and theoretical references, such as the "ethics of virtues", "cooperation" and "empathy", the aim is to investigate the main issues invoked when its possible realization. Once this is done, the criticisms made so far are tested through diverse and concrete legal experiences, in order to demonstrate that, in fact, the fundamental problems investigated in this opportunity can be seen in the judicial routine and discussed with the depth that is due to them. The methodology adopted was, substantially, the bibliographic review, without prejudice to the critical reflections necessary to answer the questions raised during this work.The main objective of this dissertation is to identify the methodological problems arising from a certain legal practice on the rise, now called "responsive judge", which may eventually serve as an instrument to rekindle the fundamental problems of law and of its respective realization. Through a critical reconstruction of the possible concept of “responsive judge”, through its main and multifaceted meanings – analyzed in this work under three designations, namely: 1) a path to the Aretaic model, represented by Mateusz Stępień; 2) a universal definition, proposed by Tânia Sourdin and Archie Zariski; and 3) a third way, represented by Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznick -, as well as their main influences and theoretical references, such as the "ethics of virtues", "cooperation" and "empathy", the aim is to investigate the main issues invoked when its possible realization. Once this is done, the criticisms made so far are tested through diverse and concrete legal experiences, in order to demonstrate that, in fact, the fundamental problems investigated in this opportunity can be seen in the judicial routine and discussed with the depth that is due to them. The methodology adopted was, substantially, the bibliographic review, without prejudice to the critical reflections necessary to answer the questions raised during this work.