Juristocracia no Brasil a Perspectiva de Ran Hirschl Sobre o Empoderamento Judicial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the classical view of separation of powers, the judiciary originally occupied the weaker position. What is observed today, however, is a displacement of power from representative institutions to the judiciary, erecting a new kind of political regime that the Canadian political scientist Ran Hirschl called juristocracy. This paper intends to discuss this movement basing on the idea of hegemonic preservation, presented by Hirschl in his work Towards Juristocracy whose central hypothesis is that the political, economic and social elites voluntarily transfer power to the judiciary, when threatened of losing their hegemony in the political sphere. In Brazil, the 1988 Constitution turned the Supreme Court into one of the world's most powerful courts, which works at the same time as constitutional court, court of appeals and criminal court, responsible for deciding the most fundamental issues for brazilian society. We present at first, the examples used by Hirschl to illustrate his thesis about the judicial empowerment through constitutionalization, analyzing the political and economic changes in recent history of Israel, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, followed by an analysis of the phenomenon in Brazil. We conclude that it is not possible to determine, in principle, the occurrence of hegemonic preservation in Brazil, but that Hirschl's analysis that offers an answer that challenges the traditional view on the judicialization of politics, contributes to the discussion and analysis of the phenomenon in Brazil.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".