scholarly journals O Supremo Tribunal Federal e a autoridade constitucional compartilhada / Supremo Tribunal Federal and the shared constitutional authority

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 142
Author(s):  
Bruno Meneses Lorenzetto ◽  
Clèmerson Merlin Clève
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Key Words ◽  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Judicialization Of Politics ◽  
The Difference

Resumo: O artigo delineia a diferença entre a Constituição e os processos decisórios a respeito da interpretação constitucional. Defende a tese de que a transferência de decisões de macro política para Judiciário depende da transmissão do poder decisório para as Cortes por outros Poderes e que, após a decisão pelo Tribunal, ainda restam espaços para discussão, divergência e alteração da interpretação constitucional estabelecida. Porém, tais transformações devem ser acompanhadas de um grande esforço político para redefinir a composição dos agentes públicos detentores de autoridade constitucional. Argumenta, ademais, em sentido contrário ao ativismo judicial, a respeito da possibilidade do compartilhamento da autoridade constitucional entre os Poderes. Palavras-chave: Controle de constitucionalidade; Autoridade constitucional; Judicialização da política. Abstract: The article traces the difference between the Constitution and decision-making processes regarding constitutional interpretation. Defends the thesis that the transference of macro-policy decisions to the Judiciary depends on the transmission of decision-making power to the Courts by other Powers and that after the decision by the Court, there are still spaces for discussion, divergence and change of the constitutional interpretation established. However, such transformations, must be followed by a major political effort to redefine the composition of public officials holders of constitutional authority. It argues, furthermore, in the opposite direction of constitutional activism, about the possibility of sharing constitutional authority between the Powers. Key words: Judicial review; Constitutional authority; Judicialization of politics.

Session 15: Mindless Eating (Part 2) and Mindful Decision-Making

2016 ◽  
pp. 91-94
Author(s):  
Evan M. Forman ◽  
Meghan L. Butryn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mindful Eating ◽  
Slowing Down ◽  
Conscious Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Difference

This chapter (Session 15) discusses the dangers of mindless eating, which include a lack of awareness of the amount of food being consumed and a lack of conscious decision-making. The difference between mindless and mindful eating decisions is emphasized, and strategies to maximize mindful, deliberate decision-making are presented, such as the slowing down and interrupting of automatic decision-making processes and using up or down values voting.

scholarly journals Conventionalism in Constitutional Interpretation and the Place of Administrative Agencies

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
The Law ◽  
Political Decision Making

This essay considers judicial independence, both as a legal and constitutional feature, and how states should seek to protect it. This essay posits that judicial independence is a universal constitutional requirement at both the federal and state levels, examining these ideas in the context of interbranch review and federal expectations of state judicial review. Further, this essay examines the limits of judicial restraint—either reflexive deference to other branches’ political decision-making or shrinking from unpopular judgments that advance constitutional rights—as strategies to protect judicial independence. It concludes that a state judiciary’s most self-protective stance is one of principled adherence to the law.

Session 15: Mindless Eating (Part 2) and Mindful Decision-Making

2016 ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
Evan M. Forman ◽  
Meghan L. Butryn
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mindful Eating ◽  
Slowing Down ◽  
Conscious Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Difference

This chapter (Session 15) discusses the dangers of mindless eating, which include a lack of awareness of the amount of food being consumed and a lack of conscious decision-making. The difference between mindless and mindful eating decisions is emphasized, and strategies to maximize mindful, deliberate decision-making are presented, such as the slowing down and interrupting of automatic decision-making processes and using up or down values voting.

scholarly journals From Integration to Exclusion: EU Composite Administration and Gaps in Judicial Accountability in the Authorisation of Pharmaceuticals

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina RÖTTGER-WIRTZ ◽  
Mariolina ELIANTONIO
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Composite Structures ◽  
Marketing Authorisation ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Pharmaceutical Marketing ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Eu

In the EU, pharmaceuticals are subject to a marketing authorisation requirement that, depending on the type of product concerned, can be obtained either centrally through a Commission decision with EU-wide effects or in the Member States, potentially subject to mutual recognition in composite authorisation procedures. These composite decision-making processes can nowadays be considered a standard way of administrative decision-making in the EU internal market. Yet, judicial supervision remains anchored in the separation of jurisdictions between the national and the EU level, and between national levels. This article explores the challenges posed to judicial review in the case of pharmaceutical marketing authorisations when European administrative composite structures are used.

Effect of different types of noises on the formations of swarming systems: the sensing-noise and the acting-noise

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (23) ◽  
pp. 1450186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Qiang Tian ◽  
Dan Gao ◽  
Ju-Feng Luo ◽  
Wei-Yi Zhang ◽  
Ying-Guan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Numerical Simulations ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Neighbor Distance ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Way

In this paper, different types of noises, the sensing-noise and the acting-noise, are brought into the extended adaptive Attractive/Repulsive (A/R) swarming models to explore the role of noise in swarming formations. The difference between these two extended A/R models consists in the way in which the noise is introduced. The sensing-noise is added to the inputs of the swarming system which results in the uncertainty of the sensed information for agents, and it affects the whole processes of the swarming system. The acting-noise is added to the outputs of the swarming system, which does not affect the information-sensing and decision-making processes of the system, but it directly affects the action of swarms. With numerical simulations and analyses, the results show that the convergence of the expected swarming formation and the cohesiveness of the swarms may be affected to various degrees and suffered from certain negative impact due to the interference of different noises. We conclude that both the convergence and the cohesiveness are much more sensitive to the sensing-noise, and the model with acting-noise will be robust compared with the model with sensing-noise. Meanwhile we point out that, in the model with the interference of sensing-noise, too strong noises will lead to erroneous judgments of A/R function for agents. The sensed neighbor distance may fall into the zone of attraction, the zone of repulsion, or it may even fall into the zone of Non-A/R area. The original definite A/R function which is determined by the definite neighbor distance will evolve into the indefinite A/R function which is determined by the indefinite sensed neighbor distance. Along with the increase of the probability of such misjudgments, the effect of the A/R model will be progressively weakened. However, such phenomenon does not exist in the A/R model with the interference of acting-noise, in which the strong acting-noise leads the agents move randomly and spread apart gradually.

scholarly journals Improving Access to Justice in Kenya through Horizontal Application of the Bill of Rights and Judicial Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-84
Author(s):  
Doris Matu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Veil

Article 20 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 states that the Bill of Rights binds all state organs and all persons. However, the extent to which natural persons and private legal persons can be held liable for human rights violations has become an issue. The courts have differed and provided mixed directions as to liability for human rights violations by private persons. Under the previous constitutional era, only decisions of public entities could be reviewed through judicial review. This article is an attempt to illustrate, with the aid of case law, the increased possibility for access to justice by the litigant in constitutional rights matters post-2010. We move from the previous era where human rights could not generally be sought against private persons to one where there is an attitude of acceptance, albeit a very cautious one, where rights can now be sought against any private persons. Also, there is hope for justice and a better society in general, if private bodies’ decisions can also be judicially reviewed. Private entities wield immense power over individuals and it is crucial to lift the veil of privacy and go to the root of the matter by evaluating their decision-making processes.

scholarly journals Popular Referendum and Electoral Accountability

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 715-731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Le Bihan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Representative Democracy ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Electoral Accountability ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Elected Representatives

This paper studies how citizen-initiated referenda affect the decision-making of elected representatives. In the absence of direct democracy, elected officials who do not share the preferences of voters may enact their preferred policies even at the cost of decreasing the likelihood of reelection. Direct democracy diminishes the policy benefits of doing that, as voters may now overturn some of the policy decisions. Hence, elected officials are induced to implement the policies preferred by the voters not only on those issues that are subject to a possible citizen-initiated referendum, but also on those that are not. This result holds even when the voters’ information about their true interests is limited. Moreover, whereas in a representative democracy, being more informed may undermine voters’ ability to control public officials, the possibility of citizen-initiated referenda means that additional information improves voter control, including on issues that may be outside the direct democracy domain.

scholarly journals A nation's parks: failure and success in Fascist nature conservation

Modern Italy ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilko Graf von Hardenberg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Nature Conservation ◽  
National Parks ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
History Of ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
National Power ◽  
The Difference

Nature conservation is a complex venture, with a great impact, among other things, on local and national power relationships. Nature conservation also depends on a wide set of variables to determine any one planned initiative's long-term success or failure. This article explores what made the difference between success and failure in the history of nature conservation under Mussolini's regime. Many parks were planned in those years in Italy, but only a handful were effectively instituted. This essay will address the following questions: What were the reasons behind the planning and creation of these national parks? What was the role of Fascist ideology in determining the long-term success of a park proposal? Was there anything specifically Fascist in Italian nature conservation in the 1920s and 1930s? Which other variables impacted on the involved decision-making processes?

scholarly journals Transforming Government's Policy-making Processes

2010 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Government Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mass Participation

We have seen a lot of very welcome progress in terms of making it easier for citizens to input their views into government policy-making processes. However, governments and citizens are now in a similar situation – after a burst of initial enthusiasm, they are not sure what to do next. Governments have struggled to get the mass participation they would like and where significant participation has occurred, have had difficulty integrating it effectively into existing decision-making processes. Citizens have been unsure what to make of this new apparent openness and where they have engaged, have found it hard to know what difference their input made. The solution is to focus on using technology to make existing policy processes more transparent and more participative rather than creating separate e-participation initiatives. The challenge for governments is to open up the whole of the policy process and be prepared to flag up very clearly and explicitly the difference citizen input made. The challenge for e-democracy advocates is to convince policymakers that their ideas can improve the existing policy process rather than simply generating more inputs into it.

scholarly journals One of My Favorite Judges: Constitutional Interpretation, Democracy and Antonin Scalia

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
James Allan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Constitutional Interpretation ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Policy Decisions

Abstract In this article the author explains why Antonin Scalia was one of his favourite judges. It starts by excerpting some of Justice Scalia’s most biting and funny comments, both from judicial and extra-judicial sources. Then it explains the attractions of an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation, though arguing that the intentionalist strain is preferable to Scalia’s ‘original public meaning’ or ‘new originalism’ approach. Finally, it argues that within the confines of a constitutional structure with an entrenched bill of rights, Scalia was a strong proponent of democratic decision-making to resolve key social policy decisions, unlike many other top judges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document